Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

quote:

---

Cited for what? The case for the mythical Jesus is nothing more than the fact that there's no rational case for a historical Jesus.

---

The fact that that assertion is the best that you can come up with does not mean that there are no better arguments.

quote:

---

It hardly requires name-dropping Earl Doherty, or anybody else, to make that case. Again it's just well-poisoning. You're not able to produce even a single example of evidence in support of the historical position, so it's necessary to attack us personally by equating us with "Creationists", even though personal attacks in lieu of evidence is the number one tactic of creationists.

---

The projection is amazing.Your case - as you admit - is simply a dogmatically held opinion.You haven't bothered to research the matter even to the point of looking at the arguments on your own side.Any criticism of you is taken as a "personal attack" while you feel free to throw all the accusations you want with no regard to their truth.And you say that you AREN'T like a creationist ?

quote:

---

It's hard for me to imagine, now, a time when I had any respect for you.

---

I haven't changed. You have.

Two problems with this argument:
1) The burden of researching claims is on those who make the claim.2) The historicity of Pontius Pilate is closely linked to the historicity of Jesus, to say the least. If there were documentation of Pontius Pilate it could provide a possible way of lending credulity to a historical Jesus. So it would seem to be an appropriate line of discussion. Why don't you get off the high horse and back up your claims, assuming you can (Which I for one, doubt).

By definition there are no better arguments. The only possible argument for the nonexistence of something that could possibly exist is that there is no evidence that it exists. There could have been a historical Jesus. It's just that there's no evidence there was, which best supports the conclusion that he did not exist. You're a liar, because I've not "admitted" any such thing. Your case is clearly the dogmatic opinion; if it weren't you'd have been able to answer the call for evidence. So you've always been a liar? More's the pity.

Agreed. And therefore the burden of evidence is on those asserting the historicity of Jesus, because Historical Jesus proponents are making a claim; mythical Jesus proponents are simply challenging the evidentiary basis of that claim. Why would that be the case? Just because PP is in the Bible?I don't see any connection whatsoever.

Wow!! Can you people really not do any research?

quote:

---

The first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, when a block of limestone, the Pilate Stone, was found in the Roman theatre at Caesarea Maritima, the capital of the province of Judaea (Iudaea), bearing a damaged dedication by Pilate of a Tiberieum.[7] This dedication states that he was [...]ECTVS IUDA[...] (usually read as praefectus Iudaeae), that is, prefect of Judaea. The early governors of Judaea were of prefect rank, the later were of procurator rank, beginning with Cuspius Fadus in 44 AD.

---

It is right in Wikipedia for christ sake. Prior to this find the historicity of Pilate was heavily questioned. But here, unlike for Jesus, we an actual dateable artifact that attests to the historicity of Pilate. Do you have a point or are you just trying to derail the topic?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

By definition there are no better arguments. The only possible argument for the nonexistence of something that could possibly exist is that there is no evidence that it exists. There could have been a historical Jesus. It's just that there's no evidence there was, which best supports the conclusion that he did not exist.

---

However, we do have evidence. The historian's way to approach the question is to look at the documents we do have - and other evidence when available - and look for the best explanation. If we only have one document describing an event historians do not assume that it is complete fiction any more than they assume that it is infallibly accurate.

quote:

---

You're a liar, because I've not "admitted" any such thing. Your case is clearly the dogmatic opinion; if it weren't you'd have been able to answer the call for evidence.

---

When your only argument is pretending that the evidence doesn't exist, what else can you have but a dogmatically held opinion ? And you admit that is all that you have got.Now, if somebody could come up with a better explanation of the evidence we do have - a better explanation why the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles exist without postulating a historical Jesus - then I will happily change my mind. That's open-mindedness. Not insisting that you are right - without even looking at the real questions - and calling everyone who disagrees a liar.

To my knowledge, the bible is not a contemporary (nore independent) source. So, really, it's not the evidence that you claim it to be.All the christ mentions of extra-biblical sources are basicly of people simply repeating whatever the bible claimed or what christians told them. Again hardly independent (nore contemporary).The bible is evidence of jezus just as much as greek mythology is evidence of Hercules or scientology 'scripture' (or whatever they call it) evidence of Xenu, the intergalactic emperor.Besides, if the bible indeed was "evidence" of a historic christ, then this thread wouldn't exists, now would it?

All you are showing is an inability to evaluate sources, and making a number of questionable judgements. The lack of rational argument simply illustrates my point.

Care to elaborate on that?I have given my reasons why I don't consider the bible to be valid evidence of...the biblical claims.They are not contemporary and they most certainly aren't independent. And it seems to be circular as well.If your argument is that the bible's very existance (regardless of content) is evidence (or a hint of evidence) that the person of the new testament actually existed, since it had to be based on something,... Then it seems to me that the same can be said about Frodo and Lord of the Rings or Hercules and greek mythology.You are free to explain where I am in error instead of just saying that I am. In fact, I would prefer it.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

Well let's go over your errors,The Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of works by multiple authors, all of which must be evaluated on their own merits.A document does not have to be written during the events it describes to be accepted as evidence. (Your meaning of "contemporary" - don't forget that Paul, at least was living in the time when the Gospels are set)You are setting up a false dichotomy between claims and evidence.You reference to Frodo and Heracles is another false dichotomy. We do not have to take an all-or-nothing approach (which doesn't work even with works of fiction).Really all I see is somebody trying to hold forth on a subject he knows even less about than I do ? How can you hope to convince anyone if you can't be bothered to even do basic research ?

The Greek and Roman myths are not a single document. They are a collection of works by multiple sources, all of which must be evaluated on their own merits. To be accepted as a historical document there must be some sort of connection to an original source. Don't forget Mark Twain was living in the time when Tom Sawyer was set.
Can you please provide a list of events set in the Gospel that Paul mentions? What is his take on the birth of Jesus? What does he say about the baptism of Jesus? If you are going to use Paul as a verification of the gospels he must talk about the events in the gospels quite extensively.Really all I see is somebody trying to hold forth on a subject he knows even less about than I do ? How can you hope to convince anyone if you can't be bothered to even do basic research ?Instead of being a condescending ass how about actually sticking to the points bob brought up. As of yet you have not refuted anything he said.Still waiting for the evidence.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You seem to think I wasn't aware of that. I guess I'll just repeat myself: none of these are contemporary or independent.The earliest one was written down decades after the facts, in a time where average life expectancy was about 35. It's really unlikely that these people new the historic christ and lived to tell about it 60 years later. And off course, most of these books were written down more then a century later.I don't see how I can trust these sources. Not to mention that these sources in fact ARE the claims we are discussing here.These claims would necessarily have to be substantiated with extra-biblical sources. Just because a book (yes, yes, collection of books) makes mention of a person doesn't mean that that person existed.I fail to see how I could ever treat the historic claims of biblical texts as anything other then hearsay and anecdotes if they aren't substantiated with independent and perferebly contemporary material. Accepted as evidence of the events it claims happens?
See, how is this not circular?
How can a document claiming event X happened ever be evidence that event X happened?
It's true because it says so?Come on... I beg the differ. Your argument seems to be that there probably was a historical jezus because the new testament had to be based on something. If you make up a rule like that, it should apply to all similar circumstances.
But we know very well that people make up fictional characters all the time. Without anybody to base them on. And in the rare cases where these super-hero's or super-villains ARE based on a real person, they are so unlike eachother that any "real existance" of that character is simply trivial. I'm not necessarily trying to convince anybody. I'm just giving you my view on things and trying to understand yours.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

The comparisons to known fictional characters are silly, because there is a clear difference in the two cases. Fictional books claim to be fictional books. They usually have little disclaimers in the front describing them, and the characters they contain, as fictional. The gospels purport to be historical documents. These are not equivalent.The thing is, people writing things saying 'X person existed and did this' is the only evidence for most figures in ancient history. If they ruled an empire, or wrote a bunch of books, then we might have more (but not always). Demanding stricter evidence leads us to conclude that most historical figures from the time probably didn't exist, which is a bit silly.Recognising the limitations of what we can know with confidence about such distant times, and accepting that our conclusions can only be tentative, we have to assess the likelihood of claims that 'x person existed and did x'. Do we have a clear historitcal setting for them, or are they placed in a vague and undefined distant past. Is there evidence that we would expect to have been left by such a figure? Do they fit their time and place? Are there aspects of the story which we wouldn't expect to be made up?The existence of a character like Jesus can only be framed in such tentative terms, and this is the sort of thing which needs to be discussed to decide whether existence or non-existence is more likely. Repeatedly demanding evidence which shouldn't exist is a waste of everybody's time.

If there were no independent evidence for PP than the historical accuracy of the Biblical interaction between Jesus and PP would be suspect. Since this is a key moment in the life of Jesus according to the gospel accounts, it would raise a lot of questions about the historical trustworthiness of the gospel accounts.Even more beneficial would be independent confirmation of the interaction between PP and Jesus (or at least a person who could have been Jesus)Edited by deerbreh, : Clarification

My point was it is up to those making claims to back them up.