Historical Jesus

[IanS]

There is only one relevant question in all of this. And that is -

- what evidence is produced to show that Jesus was a real person?

That's it! That's the entire & complete “bottom line” for all possible debate in this subject.




Footnote to the above -

So far, the pro-HJ side has been completely unwilling to produce any evidence at all.

That's one difference between this thread and all the tens of thousands of posts that were made over the last decade in all the previous HJ threads. There, the pro-HJ posters were posting all sorts quotes from the bible, as well as quotes from Tacitus and Josephus (and occasionally from others of that period) …

… but the problem with all those quotes was, and still is, that none of them are credible as reliable evidence of their authors ever knowing any such real person as Jesus, because all of those quotes have come from such things as -


(a) the anonymously written gospels, that are in any case just religious preaching about impossible untrue miracles.

(b) 11th century copies of Tacitus and Josephus, where neither Tacitus or Josephus were even alive to confirm anything about Jesus, but where both authors only make extremely scant mention of Jesus by reporting hearsay from unknown informants. And where the only known informants of the time were Christian preachers themselves.

(c) the letters of Paul, but where Paul makes specifically clear that he had only ever “met” Jesus as a religious vision in the heavens. And where all the other people Paul names as having “met” Jesus were also only ever described as witnessing Jesus as a religious vision in the heavens.



That's it apparently. That is the sum total of all the most credible evidence for Jesus.

Do I believe or claim that level of evidence shows Jesus was not real? No. Of course not. He might have been real despite such a hopeless body of evidence.

Do I believe that such evidence is sufficient to conclude that Jesus was probably real? Well, no, you have to be seriously deluded or seriously “biased” (ie already strongly predisposed to believe in Jesus), to accept a standard of evidence as awful as that.

So far all we've seen here is an appeal to authority, saying that we should believe because of a claimed consensus of experts (experts who are rarely if ever named, other than numerous Bible Scholars like Ehrman, Sanders, Crossan etc.). That is of course a fallacious argument to begin with, unless & until those “experts” are quoted for the evidence which they claim to have … so what evidence do they produce?, well it is exactly the quite hopeless claims of a, b, and c above.

 

[Belz...]

Multiple persons are a single HJ?? ... What?? …. multiple different people are certainly not a single individual ever known to anyone!

It wouldn't be the first time that the lives of more than one person are conflated. For some reason the suggestion comes as a shock to you.

... but then, the emergence of science slowly convinced everyone (well everyone except billions of current day theists! ... inc. Bible Scholars!) that none of those miracles stories could possibly have been true. So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place? The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying. Lying repeatedly over & over again on virtually every page ...

They couldn't have just added the miraculous stuff? Why is the "only" answer that they made up everything?

And that is apparently claimed by your experts as their very best evidence … a book filled with lies from end-to-end.

You've participated long enough in these discussions to know that this isn't true. I always say, if you know you're right, you don't need to exaggerate or lie. So why do you lie? No one's claiming that the bible is "their very best evidence". Your phrasing above also implies that there are nothing but lies in it.

 

[IanS]

It wouldn't be the first time that the lives of more than one person are conflated. For some reason the suggestion comes as a shock to you.

Who says I was shocked? Do you want me to call you a "liar" for saying that? Because you have no idea at all as to whetehr I or anyone else here is "shocked" ... you just invented that insult as pure deliberate untruth. But then, you do that all the time on this site. You've tried that with everyone else here who has disagreed with you.

They couldn't have just added the miraculous stuff? Why is the "only" answer that they made up everything?

The gospel writers could have just added the miraculous stuff. Of course that is possible. Can you quote where I have ever said it was impossible? Because on least 6 occasions here already I have stressed that the reason for rejecting the gospel writers as a reliable source is NOT because they must have invented every single word they wrote, but because their gospel writing is now known to be filled with mythical invented untruths (“lies” to put it bluntly) in almost every significant mention they made for Jesus. That makes them totally unreliable as a credible source, because they were constantly making dishonest claims about Jesus.

You've participated long enough in these discussions to know that this isn't true. I always say, if you know you're right, you don't need to exaggerate or lie. So why do you lie? No one's claiming that the bible is "their very best evidence". Your phrasing above also implies that there are nothing but lies in it.

Why are you such a lair? You have been caught lying several times in this thread. Only your opponents here are not such silly attempted internet bullies as to get into that gutter-trash game of calling other people here liars.

And it's certainly not a lie to say their source is really just the bible. Because as far we can honestly tell, the only source for the all non-biblical writers was again the bible or it's Christian preaching ... we have no reliable information to show that any of those non-biblical mentions (all of which are extremely brief, and all of which come as anonymous much later hearsay) were independent of the biblical writing ... every source leads straight back to the biblical preaching.

 

[Belz...]

you have no idea at all as to whetehr I or anyone else here is "shocked" ...

Yeah, I don't know what gave me that impression. Surely not the "Multiple persons are a single HJ?? ... What?? …."

you just invented that insult as pure deliberate untruth.

Being told that something comes to you as a shock is not an insult.

The gospel writers could have just added the miraculous stuff. Of course that is possible. Can you quote where I have ever said it was impossible?

Sure:

... but then, the emergence of science slowly convinced everyone (well everyone except billions of current day theists! ... inc. Bible Scholars!) that none of those miracles stories could possibly have been true. So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place? The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying. Lying repeatedly over & over again on virtually every page ...

The "only" answer can be X, means it can't be Y. Now you say Y is possible, so I guess you meant "the most likely answer is X". Of course, there's also Z: they believed it to be true and didn't make up anything. Less likely, I suppose, but still one of several possibilities, despite your claim that there was only one.

Why are you such a lair? You have been caught lying several times in this thread.

Zero times. You cannot point to a single lie that I've made because I didn't make one. But given that you've shown above that you don't know what a lie is, or what an insult is, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Only your opponents here are not such silly attempted internet bullies as to get into that gutter-trash game of calling other people here liars.

Calling out people's lies is not bullying.

And it's certainly not a lie to say their source is really just the bible.

That's not what you said. You said "And that is apparently claimed by your experts as their very best evidence". That's the part I responded to, remember? I quoted it in the post you replied to.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They couldn't have just added the miraculous stuff? Why is the "only" answer that they made up everything?

They could have. But how do we know whether they added miraculous stuff to a real person or just made up the whole thing?

There is a danger that you just strip away the things that are obviously false and then assume that what is left which is plausible is true.

But that approach could leave us with a historical Peter Parker who just couldn't climb buildings too.

 

[Belz...]

They could have. But how do we know whether they added miraculous stuff to a real person or just made up the whole thing?

There is a danger that you just strip away the things that are obviously false and then assume that what is left which is plausible is true.

Absolutely. I don't think anybody's doing that, though.

However, not being a historian, I can't get into the nitty-gritty details of their craft. We'd have to find one and ask them how they can smelt fact from legend, and forge history from it. But from what I understand they not only read the text but analyse its composition, compare it with other versions and with known history and culture. For instance, if a mundane bit of the story stays the same throughout, save wording, it might be more credible, though you can never be sure.

History's really hard, especially when you go back to before film could record it.

 

[Darat]

Absolutely. I don't think anybody's doing that, though.



However, not being a historian, I can't get into the nitty-gritty details of their craft. We'd have to find one and ask them how they can smelt fact from legend, and forge history from it. But from what I understand they not only read the text but analyse its composition, compare it with other versions and with known history and culture. For instance, if a mundane bit of the story stays the same throughout, save wording, it might be more credible, though you can never be sure.



History's really hard, especially when you go back to before film could record it.

One way is to test your new enquiry against what is already known. So if the Bible says there was a Roman census that required people to return to their birth place we can look to see what we know about Roman census etc.

And this is where the historical Jesus is very much lacking, the mundane elements from the bible not only can't be verified they are often contra to what we do know.

So we are left with simply stories.

 

[Belz...]

One way is to test your new enquiry against what is already known. So if the Bible says there was a Roman census that required people to return to their birth place we can look to see what we know about Roman census etc.

That's a good example. One that probably never happened, in fact. Is my memory faulty, or is that in only one of the Gospels? Matthew, I think, in order to justify the ridiculous birth in Bethlehem to fit prophecy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Absolutely. I don't think anybody's doing that, though.

Well, I am not so sure. There seems to be a fair bit of that going on.

However, not being a historian, I can't get into the nitty-gritty details of their craft. We'd have to find one and ask them how they can smelt fact from legend, and forge history from it. But from what I understand they not only read the text but analyse its composition, compare it with other versions and with known history and culture. For instance, if a mundane bit of the story stays the same throughout, save wording, it might be more credible, though you can never be sure.

History's really hard, especially when you go back to before film could record it.

Absolutely history is hard. And I am not a trained historian either so I am only going by what I can see offered here as arguments and there isn't much that is terribly convincing and when people start arguing that 'history has different standards of evidence' then alarm bells sound.

I will say that when I hear the mythicist hypotheses they seem even more far fetched so I am no fan of them but I do wish people would be more careful in how the talk about the historicity of Jesus.

If literally all we are saying is that it is more likely than not that Christianity formed around an actual person that we know nothing about then we might as well call him a historical Bob as a historical Jesus because as far as I am aware there is not a single detail of his life that we can vouch for.

 

[acbytesla]

I think there is an unsolvable problem with the hj question. As scant as the evidence there is we would accept the historicity of other individuals in ancient history. So why not do the same with Jesus? It seems to many and understandably so that refusing to accept Jesus as well simply demonstrates bias.

We would accept the historicity of non-religious characters because we don't care. It changes nothing if Alexander the Great or Socrates didn't exist. But if Jesus was suddenly dismissed by historians as only a myth, it would rock the Western world.

If you get up on the stand in a trial and lie about something your entire testimony can be dismissed. So why isn't that reasonable to do with Jesus? In fact, one could argue the Romans did that already not accepting a dozen apocryphal gospels.

I see Paul as simply a snake oil salesman. A charismatic man who found a way to make a living. But I think there were many people making their living this way. Just like today's preachers. And that people added to the story over time. Whether there was some truth at the beginning, we'll never know. But i find it very interesting that the fist historical mention of Jesus comes from someone who never met Jesus.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think there is an unsolvable problem with the hj question. As scant as the evidence there is we would accept the historicity of other individuals in ancient history. So why not do the same with Jesus? It seems to many and understandably so that refusing to accept Jesus as well simply demonstrates bias.

I think the problem is the opposite. I think history is rife with uncertainty and that there are uncountable number of events and people that can't be established with certainty. But nobody has a vested interest in making it appear otherwise.

We would accept the historicity of non-religious characters because we don't care. It changes nothing if Alexander the Great or Socrates didn't exist. But if Jesus was suddenly dismissed by historians as only a myth, it would rock the Western world.

Don't know what evidence Socrates is based on Alexander the Great is not in the same class as Jesus. The evidence is not scant there.

I'm not sure it would rock the western world. I know several educated theologians who don't think the evidence for Jesus is sufficient to establish he existed. It's just one more thing they accept on faith. And there are tons of people who reject everything science has to say, they'd just ignore the historians anyway.

And we haven't really established what historians think as a whole. It may be most of them already dismiss as myth. Or view it as unresolvable.

 

[bruto]

Has anyone who recommends loving enemies existed?

Of course. Many Christians have done so. As have, I think, a few non-Christians. I think it's a very fine sentiment, with considerable moral punch. But the truth or goodness of the idea is utterly independent of the question of whether or not there was a real Jesus who actually said it. All that is required is that people believe the idea is a good one and act accordingly. It helps if those people believe a real Jesus really said it, but even that is not really necessary.

That said, I suspect that there probably was something like a historical Jesus, although it's quite possible he was a pastiche of characters and statements, or that some things were attributed to him that were not his. The time in which Jesus is presumed to have flourished was one of great upheaval, with multiple religious sects and claimed messiahs arising. If a clever religious thinker or reformer was trying to form a new sect, it would likely have been easier and more convincing to pin his ideas to a real person than a totally fictitious one, more so if the real person was the author of at least some, but I'm not sure it matters all that much.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the problem is the opposite. I think history is rife with uncertainty and that there are uncountable number of events and people that can't be established with certainty. But nobody has a vested interest in making it appear otherwise.



Don't know what evidence Socrates is based on Alexander the Great is not in the same class as Jesus. The evidence is not scant there.

I'm not sure it would rock the western world. I know several educated theologians who don't think the evidence for Jesus is sufficient to establish he existed. It's just one more thing they accept on faith. And there are tons of people who reject everything science has to say, they'd just ignore the historians anyway.

And we haven't really established what historians think as a whole. It may be most of them already dismiss as myth. Or view it as unresolvable.

I believe I had read that the vast majority of evidence for Alexander the great was not contemporary with his life. And that is similar to Jesus. But I may very well be mistaken. My point is that with ancient history much of the evidence for Emperors and military leaders is this kind of evidence. There are coins and statues and stories written about them. And they are not contemporary. But that's what is available.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the problem is the opposite. I think history is rife with uncertainty and that there are uncountable number of events and people that can't be established with certainty. But nobody has a vested interest in making it appear otherwise.

I really think we're saying the same thing. Well sort of.

The further back in history the more acute the problem. Less evidence is available and much that is has been filtered or embellished. These are peoples that lived on oral tradition and story telling. I think it's safe to say that some tales of whoppers snuck in the back door and became real people and events to historians.

But I also think while its important for historians to dismiss the obvious frauds an overly rigorous attempt to do so would make their field of study even more boring than it is.

 

[IanS]

Who says I was shocked? Do you want me to call you a "liar" for saying that? Because you have no idea at all as to whether I or anyone else here is "shocked" ...

Yeah, I don't know what gave me that impression. Surely not the "Multiple persons are a single HJ?? ... What?? …."

Where did I say I was shocked? You just invented that claim of yours as a pure deliberate lie (yet again) … quote where I ever said I was “shocked” about your suggestion of Jesus being a composite of Multiple Persons … Go on quote it, where is it? …

Can't quote me saying I was shocked at your suggestion? No? OK then, you are flat out liar.

you just invented that insult as pure deliberate untruth. But then, you do that all the time on this site. You've tried that with everyone else here who has disagreed with you.

Being told that something comes to you as a shock is not an insult.

It's not up to you to decide what may be insulting to anyone. And when you again now repeat that it was a shock to me – Quote me, where did I ever say it was a “shock” … You are again a flat out repeated liar … you just can't stop it, you have shown here for all to see that you are a habitual liar.

The gospel writers could have just added the miraculous stuff. Of course that is possible. Can you quote where I have ever said it was impossible?

Sure:
Originally Posted by*IanS*
... but then, the emergence of science slowly convinced everyone (well everyone except billions of current day theists! ... inc. Bible Scholars!) that none of those miracle stories could possibly have been true. So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place? The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying. Lying repeatedly over & over again on virtually every page ...


The "only" answer can be X, means it can't be Y. Now you say Y is possible, so I guess you meant "the most likely answer is X". Of course, there's also Z: they believed it to be true and didn't make up anything. Less likely, I suppose, but still one of several possibilities, despite your claim that there was only one.

Well that's another flat-out whopping great lie, and everyone here can see it. What you quoted and highlighted, is me saying “So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place?*The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying.” …

... that does not at all have me saying that every word written by the gospel authors had to be a lie. That quote does not have me saying any such thing – you blatant liar. What that quote from me says is that they were inventing untrue (lying) stories of Jesus in their claimed miracles, which they produced on almost every page. It says the miracle stories are untrue. It does not say that if they mentioned a town or place or peoples names then that too was a fabricated “lie”.

Please quote accurately and honestly next time, instead of adding yet another to your huge list of constantly lying about what others have said.

Why are you such a lair? You have been caught lying several times in this thread. Only your opponents here are not such silly attempted internet bullies as to get into that gutter-trash game of calling other people here liars.

Zero times. You cannot point to a single lie that I've made because I didn't make one. But given that you've shown above that you don't know what a lie is, or what an insult is, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

You now have three separate lies in a row directly above … you were unable to say anything without lying.

And it's certainly not a lie to say their source is really just the bible. Because as far we can honestly tell, the only source for the all non-biblical writers was again the bible or it's Christian preaching ... we have no reliable information to show that any of those non-biblical mentions (all of which are extremely brief, and all of which come as anonymous much later hearsay) were independent of the biblical writing ... every source leads straight back to the biblical preaching.

Calling out people's lies is not bullying.

Well there are no lies from me here (or anywhere else … ever!). But it's you who cannot tell the truth in anything. You are nothing at all except a perpetual dishonest liar.

Earlier in the thread you had several exchanges with Archie Gemmel, where he had to keep telling you that you had misrepresented what he'd said … and you just kept right on doing that. You are doing the same again now. You are a blatant liar.

And it's certainly not a lie to say their source is really just the bible.

That's not what you said. You said "And that is apparently claimed by your experts as their very best evidence". That's the part I responded to, remember? I quoted it in the post you replied to.

Why didn't you quote the actual post? Where is the link to the post where I said that, so we can see it in context?

That quote is actually in post 339. And there I make crystal clear that I said it was the bible that is their very best evidence. Well that certainly is the best evidence that your “experts” are relying on. Without the bible they would have absolutely nothing at all … there is no evidence that later non-biblical writers would have any way of even mentioning Jesus at all except for what had been decades of earlier biblical preaching … the entire idea of Jesus and everything we have as what he was said to have done really all stems from the bible.

So yet again you are shown to be flat out lying about it.

You can barely write a single sentence here without deliberately misrepresenting what your opponents have said.

And by the way we are still waiting for you to tell us what you are claiming as sufficient evidence for you to believe Jesus was real …

… for about the tenth time now, do you have any evidence of a real Jesus or not? Where is it??

 

[IanS]

Ahh this is the crux of the problem. Can we uncouple the miracles? It's also a fallacy to suggest that just because some other historical figures also had a miracle or two associated with them that their case is like Jesus. There is a very important distinction. The only reason Jesus is remembered is because of his divinity and miracles. He's not Alexander the Great

I have to wonder what we would be saying about Jesus if Constantine hadn't embraced the religion in the 4th century and the religion had died out? If I'm not mistaken, Josephus mentioned other Christ figures. Do we assume they were all real as well?

Just on that question of whether we can "uncouple" the miracles (we actually mean "pretend that the miracles are not in the gospels") - the answer is obviously, No.

No, that's not possible to present the gospels as if the miracles were not there.

Why is that not possible? It's not possible because that would be trying to create different new gospels that do not actually exist (and that never did exist), by simply crossing-out all the parts that show why the gospels are actually not true ...

... what you'd be doing by "uncoupling" the miracles is simply removing all the parts that you now realise are untrue fictions about Jesus, until you have changed it so much that no miracles remain, and then pointing to what you have created and saying "ah, look, these gospels are now quite believable, see there are no untrue miracles there! So now, this is evidence of a real Jesus!" ...

No. That's not remotely any sort of acceptable honest practice. And nobody should ever be taken-in by an argument like that.The miracles are what was written in the gospels, and they cannot be removed without admitting that by doing so you are deliberately trying to invent new gospels that are completely different from the actual ones that you are in fact relying upon.

It would be like taking the Superman comics and crossing out all the flying and all the supernatural strength stuff, until you had got to the point of just a man who also works in a newspaper office under the name of Clark Kent (or whatever his name was), and who occasionally puts on a superman outfit and walks about in the USA (he does not fly anywhere because that needs to be crossed out as untrue), and then he just talks to people and does nothing else, and then you point to your new creation and say “wow, look no more miracles, here we have a perfectly believable superman...so now we can conclude that he probably or “certainly” exists!” ... valid historians technique! ... problem sorted, Jesus/Superman found!

 

[Belz...]

Where did I say I was shocked?

You acted utterly surprised i.e. shocked. The fact of the matter is that you flipped out at the mere suggestion that several people could be conflated into one. That suggests you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about here.

It's not up to you to decide what may be insulting to anyone.

No, but getting insulted at being told you were surprised sounds rather silly. Have it your way.

What you quoted and highlighted, is me saying “So how did all those untrue Jesus stories ever get into all the gospels in the first place?*The answer can only be that the gospel writers were simply inventing the stories, i.e. to put it bluntly they were lying.” …

And I pointed out that this isn't the only possibility despite you saying it's the only possibility. You made a mistake by saying that. Why can't you admit that? Why attempt to throw the blame on me?

Please quote accurately and honestly next time, instead of adding yet another to your huge list of constantly lying about what others have said.

I don't lie. Ever. Whether you accept that is no concern of mine.

But I guess now you've abandoned every pretense of having actual arguments to make on this topic? You grasp every opportunity to change the topic to something else, deny the existence of experts and evidence, and even pretend that something that was said a whole post ago wasn't there. It's very clear that you have a deeply emotional commitment to Jesus being completely fake, despite what you said earlier, and that you cannot accept another possibility. When you can't get your way, you become hysterical, seeing insults and lies everywhere. It's a sad display.

And by the way we are still waiting for you to tell us what you are claiming as sufficient evidence for you to believe Jesus was real …

… for about the tenth time now, do you have any evidence of a real Jesus or not? Where is it??

I've already answered that multiple times. If you can't keep track of conversations, you have no place on a discussion forum.

 

[IanS]

You acted utterly surprised i.e. shocked. The fact of the matter is that you flipped out at the mere suggestion that several people could be conflated into one. That suggests you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about here.



No, but getting insulted at being told you were surprised sounds rather silly. Have it your way.



And I pointed out that this isn't the only possibility despite you saying it's the only possibility. You made a mistake by saying that. Why can't you admit that? Why attempt to throw the blame on me?



I don't lie. Ever. Whether you accept that is no concern of mine.

But I guess now you've abandoned every pretense of having actual arguments to make on this topic? You grasp every opportunity to change the topic to something else, deny the existence of experts and evidence, and even pretend that something that was said a whole post ago wasn't there. It's very clear that you have a deeply emotional commitment to Jesus being completely fake, despite what you said earlier, and that you cannot accept another possibility. When you can't get your way, you become hysterical, seeing insults and lies everywhere. It's a sad display.



I've already answered that multiple times. If you can't keep track of conversations, you have no place on a discussion forum.

No, I didn't act "utterly surprised and shocked" (nor "flipped out") about anything here, and most particularly not about you making the very silly claim that multiple people (none of whom you have any idea about or any knowledge about at all) were used to create the stories of a single different person named Jesus (Iesous, Yehoshua). You just completely invented that claim of “utter shock and surprise”, as yet another quite silly attempted deception.

Who are these “multiple” other people that you think were used to create biblical stories of Jesus? What did any of those people ever say or do? Do you know anything about them at all? Do you know if they even existed? Or is it just a complete invention that you and others have dreamed up in an attempt to cover up whatever you think would otherwise be some uncomfortable facts/errors/suspicions in what the gospel writers said about the miraculous “Jesus”?

Also – if it was actually 2, 3, 4 or more completely different but entirely real people whose deeds had been all lumped together to make a messiah story, then that messiah would not have been any single real person at all... a messiah created like from the lives of numerous people would not have been any real individual at all … he would have just been a figment of the gospel writers imagination formed entirely from various other people …

… notice that it would have to be “entirely” formed from the lives of those “multiple others”, because in that situation if there had also been a real individual Jesus known to the gospel writers then they would have just written about that real persons life and not invented it from the lives of several other unknown people.


Turning to your final highlighted remark - when you said that you already answered multiple times for what evidence you produce to show why you believe Jesus was real - even in just saying that, you are yet again failing to produce that evidence.

Just tell us clearly what you believe is the convincing evidence?

It's not an answer to that question if you just keep telling us that you believe that some “experts” (claimed “experts”) have the evidence. That's just the well known fallacy of an “Appeal to Authority”. You need to tell us which which bits of their claimed evidence you are endorsing as convincing to you … so which bit's of their “evidence” is that?

And also – it's not really you offering us any actual evidence when you merely agree with what Archie Gemmill put to you when he asked if you were believing in Jesus because you thought that was the most likely explanation for how Christianity had ever arisen in the first place (see Archie's post 237 where he puts that to you, and your agreement to that in post 242). You are not offering any evidence there. Instead all you are doing with that reply is comitting the known fallacy of making an “Argument from Personal Incredulity” … i.e. saying that you cannot personally think of a better explanation, and so you decide to believe Jesus was real!

So again (must be the 10th time by now) -

- just tell us what actual evidence are you claiming to make you think Jesus was real?

And by the way I have no idea what your above post says in-between those two highlights that I just addressed, because I'm not interested in wasting more time with your various claims until you actually produce some evidence to back up your belief that Jesus real.

 

[Belz...]

No, I didn't act "utterly surprised and shocked"

Well you did to me. I even quoted the exact bit that led to that.

silly claim that multiple people (none of whom you have any idea about or any knowledge about at all) were used to create the stories of a single different person named Jesus (Iesous, Yehoshua).

First, it wasn't a claim. You really should read more carefully. Second, what's silly about it? It happens all the time, in history, in fiction and myth, etc. That's why I said you don't appear to know much about the topic.

Who are these “multiple” other people that you think were used to create biblical stories of Jesus? What did any of those people ever say or do? Do you know anything about them at all?

I defined what 'historical Jesus' means to me and what would qualify. I suggested that it might be more than one person. What is it about that that indicates that I know who they are?

Are you done misrepresenting my posts? It's not going to make you any more right, and it shows a lot of irony, after what you said about me earlier.

Just tell us clearly what you believe is the convincing evidence?

Again, I've done so multiple times in previous threads in which you participated. Said evidence did not convince you then and I have no delusion that it will convince you now. I did touch upon a couple of reasons earlier. I suggest you look back and read what I post.

It's not an answer to that question if you just keep telling us that you believe that some “experts” (claimed “experts”) have the evidence.

That's not what I said.

And also – it's not really you offering us any actual evidence when you merely agree with what Archie Gemmill put to you when he asked if you were believing in Jesus because you thought that was the most likely explanation for how Christianity had ever arisen in the first place (see Archie's post 237 where puts that to you, and your agreement to that in post 242). You are not offering any evidence there.

I was discussing with Archie about a particular aspect, and one of the things that makes me lean in that direction. I don't see why you'd expect that to be anything else.

And by the way I have no idea what your above post says in-between those two highlights that I just addressed, because I'm not interested in wasting more time with your various claims until you actually produce some evidence to back up your belief that Jesus real.

I am not at your beck and call, and I've stated numerous times what I mean to discuss in this thread. The evidence for the historical Jesus is not part of that. You might as well ask me to debunk the Shroud of Turin; it's just as relevant to the topic, and just as irrelevant to what I am discussing.

 

[Darat]

Just on that question of whether we can "uncouple" the miracles (we actually mean "pretend that the miracles are not in the gospels") - the answer is obviously, No.

No, that's not possible to present the gospels as if the miracles were not there.

Why is that not possible? It's not possible because that would be trying to create different new gospels that do not actually exist (and that never did exist), by simply crossing-out all the parts that show why the gospels are actually not true ...

... what you'd be doing by "uncoupling" the miracles is simply removing all the parts that you now realise are untrue fictions about Jesus, until you have changed it so much that no miracles remain, and then pointing to what you have created and saying "ah, look, these gospels are now quite believable, see there are no untrue miracles there! So now, this is evidence of a real Jesus!" ...


...snip...

There is another level you need to consider as well, we can also remove the "mundane" stuff that we know is wrong or inaccurate (by comparing what we do know about that time with what the bible claims). What we are left with is very little bar the letters of Paul and as I think most agree he is talking about a spiritual being, so we know the Jesus he talks about didn't exist.