Evidence for Jesus

[_marg]

Anyway, Spodek I have never heard of. Who is he? Whoever he is, he certainly isn't an expert in biblical history or biblical scholarship. He seems to be trying to cover too much history in a single volume, which means necessary details get avoided to save space. That dinky paragraph is supposed to cover the Jesus issue?

Howard Spodek, look him up on the internet. If you think he said anything inaccurate let me know. The history of Jesus is inconclusive. The weakness of the history of Jesus is the lack of contemporary evidence to the point that no objective source acknowledged him during his lifetime. He simply doesn't appear in his day to be an important figure, even if he did exist.

But he never denied the existence of Jesus anyway. He just said the gospels were written a couple decades after Jesus died, and that they were biased. Whoopty doo. Is that supposed to be news?

What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true. Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

The issue here is whether Jesus existed. It isn't whether we can reliably know details about his life. I sense a shift in argument already.

The issue here is the critical evaluation of a historical Jesus. Included in that is the critique/evaluation on the sort of evidence available and how reliable it is as to whether or not Jesus existed, and then if he existed what can be reliably said about him. The evidence for a Jesus discussed in previous posts, is not very reliable. Historian Spodek points that out.

[_Nevo]

The evidence for a Jesus discussed in previous posts, is not very reliable. Historian Spodek points that out.

"Historian Spodek" is a historian of modern India. He has no expertise in historical Jesus research, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up as though he were some kind of authority on the matter.

[_marg]

The evidence for a Jesus discussed in previous posts, is not very reliable. Historian Spodek points that out.

"Historian Spodek" is a historian of modern India. He has no expertise in historical Jesus research, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up as though he were some kind of authority on the matter.

Kevin referred to "historians" and what they all say. Spodek happens to be the author of the 2000 published World History book I own. If anything I quoted of him is inaccurate then point it out.

[_dartagnan]

What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true.

I didn't claim that. I said, "Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."

Now for the sake of argument, I requested a list of historians who rejected the historicity of Jesus. This was because GoodK assured me there were historians who did. GoodK quickly scrolled the web and came up with a really short list that was counterproductive to her argument since the only historian in her list actually agreed with me that Jesus existed as a real person.

The history of Jesus is inconclusive.

The history of Jesus is inconclusive as it is for many historical figures, but the historicity of Jesus is pretty much settled in scholarship. The only ones who even doubt it are the nutjob anti-religionists who have no formal training in history studies.

The weakness of the history of Jesus is the lack of contemporary evidence

Depends on what you consider contemporary. The evidence is more contemporary to Jesus than evidence for other figures like Alexander. Remember, 20 years after Jesus compared to 500 years after Alexander.

to the point that no objective source acknowledged him during his lifetime

Of course the "skeptic" will call everything subjective as as means to dismiss it, but historians don't consider evidence like that. No matter what is presented, for the "skeptic," it will always be too late or too corrupt.

He simply doesn't appear in his day to be an important figure, even if he did exist.

Of course he was. But he was only an important figure to his followers! Otherwise he was viewed as just another criminal tried and crucified by Roman law. He only meant something to his followers and to the immediate Jews that saw him as a threat. The fact that the Jews kept him alive in their oral tradition is significant because that can in no way be considered subjective. If Jesus didn't exist, then the Jews would have simply pointed that out. Yet, nowhere in the ancient history do we have anyone claiming a "myth" of Jesus.

Even at the end of the first century when the Jews held the council of Yavneh, which was designed to set the canon of the Jewish scriptures, no mention of Jesus' nonexistence was mentioned. This council was in part, a response to the growth of Christianity, and the natural development of Christian writings which they would try to attach to them as sacred scripture. The Jews wanted none of that, so they held a council to finalize a canon once and for all.

Naturally most of what we have are writings by other Christians. But that doesn't mean we can't know anything about him because most of the sources were Christian and "subjective." This is like saying Muhammad never really existed either, since virtually all sources are Islamic. Who else would be writing about him in the heart of 7th century Arabia? And why don't the "skeptics" deny his existence? Because nobody worships him as God, that's why. They recreate their standards for history as it suits their agenda.

The issue here is the critical evaluation of a historical Jesus.

And scholars have already done this, refuting the myth hypothesis. It is a dead theory without a shred of evidence and hardly a single reputable supporter. Yet, you think we're going to teach historians a lesson with our silly scrolling the wiki activity?

Included in that is the critique/evaluation on the sort of evidence available and how reliable it is as to whether or not Jesus existed, and then if he existed what can be reliably said about him. The evidence for a Jesus discussed in previous posts, is not very reliable. Historian Spodek points that out.

Yet, even his opinion on this isn't strong enough to convince himself that Jesus didn't exist.

I'll ask again. Can you or JAK or GoodK name any reputable historians who reject the historicity of Jesus?

Nevo said,

"Historian Spodek" is a historian of modern India. He has no expertise in historical Jesus research, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up as though he were some kind of authority on the matter.

That figures. But I doubt even Spodek would deny the historicity of Jesus. Let's be clear: the historicity of Jesus is what we're debating.

[_CaliforniaKid]

For the record, I have to agree with JAK that there is far, far more evidence for the historicity of Alexander the Great than for that of Jesus.

Good grief, don't encourage him.

I only intended to communicate the same kind of idea you cited from E. P. Sanders:

"On the other hand, Alexander so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances of Palestine. Despite this, as we shall see more fully below, we have a good idea of the external course of his life, especially his public career."

I agree with this. I also agree that the sources for understanding the teachings of Jesus are probably generally better than the sources for understanding the life of Alexander. I was just trying to say that given his enormous impact over such a huge geographical area, it would be quite a bit more difficult to argue that Alex didn't exist than to argue the same for Jesus.

As for Jersey's question earlier about alteration of the Bible to deemphasize the role of women, probably what Bart Ehrman is alluding to is the fact that there is a chapter in Romans where Paul names a number of very prominent female leaders, including one or two "apostles". But in 1 Timothy, which is a pseudepigraph, Paul is made to say that he doesn't allow women to have authority over men. Some scholars also think that the anti-woman passages in 1 Corinthians are interpolations, given that they seem to contradict Paul's comments even elsewhere in the same epistle, and that one of these sections appears at a different spot in the epistle in one manuscript. That conclusion is more dubious, though, than the pseudepigraphal authorship of 1 & 2 Timothy (which is pretty widely accepted). I should add, also, that outside that one chapter in Romans Paul's references to female leaders are less frequent. It's difficult to tell what this means; maybe the church he wrote to at Ephesus (to which this chapter in Romans was actually probably addressed) was more open to female leadership, or maybe it was an early letter and he later became more hostile to female agency.

Some feminist scholars will also point to the probable early date of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as evidence for its reliability, and to things like the discrepancies between the gospels as to whether women or men were first to the empty tomb as evidence that women's roles have been intentionally obscured in certain Biblical texts.

[Guest]

Kevin (or whatever your identity), Look at THIS POST

In it you stated:
“ Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries.”

marg observed that you had stated the above.

But in this post YOU STATE

Kevin:

“I didn't claim that. I said, ‘Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."

So, we can see that you are not truthful even about your own statements on this BB.

Not only do you fail to read posts of others, you don’t remember what you stated yourself from one post of your own to another.

marg is correct about your claim.

And your claims are contradictory.

GoodK was also correct when she pointed out that “historians” are not in agreement regarding history of Jesus.
+++
Nevertheless, it begs the question regarding “history.” Since Christianity and Christian claims have been so contaminated, objective information over 20 centuries is difficult if not impossible to accumulate.

Understand that History is a point of view. It’s a concept you seem unable to comprehend.

Contamination occurs when partisan, biased, pro-Christians construct (invent) the history. As I previously pointed out (a post which you apparently did not read by your own admission that you don’t read my posts), historical accounts which date back 2,000 years tend to be unreliable. They don’t agree. Biblical contradictions demonstrate disagreement. That discredits reliability.

Even if one were to establish a person who had some general resemblance to a biblical Jesus, that would not establish Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Divinity, Son of God, Miracle worker as history.

So the historicity of Jesus is reduced to story-telling - oral stories. Only later, were such stories with their many claims written by hand. Historical accuracy remains questionable.

History is a point of view.

Your own self-contradiction in the space of a few days demonstrates the lack of reliability for oral expression. Except in your case, you wrote it, and it stands (unless you go back and edit the posts I linked).

And you argue that there is what here? If you argue reliable, tested, critically reviewed factual data. You argue what never was and what never will be. The “evidence for Jesus” is murky, muddled, and shadowy.

It is filled with blurred, nebulous, confused claims of its pundits.

There is lack of consensus on the various claimed histories for Jesus. We have more than 1,000 organized groups of Christians today who have different views on the “historicity” of Jesus. And ironically, most of it came about as Bibles were printed and people began to read for themselves and arrive at different conclusions. See Protestant Reformation

There are at least three reasons for the fact of blurred, nebulous, confused claims on “evidence for Jesus.”

One is that it’s too far back in time and there is no clear, accurate, record of historicity.

Two, over time, multiple biblical translations have been made not only from something scribbled on what could hardly be called “paper,” and translations into different languages.

Three, the people who did do the early writing were committed to the dogma/doctrine which they were copying by hand with no electric lights and from crumpled “paper.”

There are more reasons that the historicity is marginalized than these three. But they will suffice.

You can’t even accurately quote yourself over a few days, and you claim historicity for Jesus as if it were established fact. It’s a wrong conclusion. Faith based conclusions are unreliable.

We need evidence which is clear, uncontaminated by preferential bias, critically reviewed, and open for skeptical examination. That does not exist in Christian doctrine/dogma.

GoodK was correct in the use of the word “some” with regard to “historians.” You are inconsistent in your claims.

No evidence supports the defying of physics/science. That’s Christian doctrine/dogma.

The “evidence for Jesus” is a matter of what one considers evidence, and it’s a matter of what degree of objectivity is clear and uncontaminated by the “historians” doing the review.

GoodK was correct. Do you remember my example of GM engineers looking at all cars and declaring GM cars superior? (Well, you don’t remember since you didn’t read my posts.)

In any case, the point was that biased observers committed to a truth by assertion are poor reporters of fact. They contaminate fact.

Using so called “Christian scholars” is to use biased sources for claims, assertions, doctrines, and dogmas about Jesus. It is unreliable. And keep in mind that “Christian scholars” such as they are don’t agree among themselves.

Again, marg is correct in recollection of what you stated and what you now revise.

Just look up the easy-access links I gave you here to see your own claims. You did not use the word “virtually” with regard to historians as you claim.

Further, even if a person were to be found, all the direct quotations from the alleged Jesus are not confirmable as history. And there were many, many quotes as demonstrated in biblical translations today which use quotation marks for the words of Jesus as if they were fully accurate, exactly as stated, by the person who was alleged to have made the statements.

Such historicity is not established.

JAK

[Guest]

In it you stated:
“ Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries.”

marg observed that you had stated the above.

But in this post YOU STATE

Kevin:

“I didn't claim that. I said, ‘Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."

So, we can see that you are not truthful even about your own statements on this BB.

I am truthful. You cannot fault me because you don't understand English. As we have seen so many times before, you have failed to grasp the basic meanings of words. Now you fail to understand "virtually" and "overwhelmingly." And I noticed you didn't bother to cite marg's "observation" either. How convenient for you. Instead of citing her claim, you just said "marg observed that you had stated the above," which is flat out false. What marg accused me of saying was something I never said. This is what she said I said, and I'll add emphasis:

What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed

But I never said all historians accept this. I believe they probably do, but I was careful never to make that assertion. What I said is that it is the overwhelming consensus and virtually all historians aaccept it.

Here is how the dictionary defines these qualifiers:

1. Virtually: for the most part; almost wholly
2. Overwhelming: Overpowering in effect or strength: overwhelming joy; an overwhelming majority.

So why are you lying here? To detract from the fact that you still can't muster a single reputable historian that rejects the historicity of Jesus?

And your claims are contradictory.

Um, no. Your claims are contradictory. You said you never argued that Jesus didn't exist, and I showed that you did in previous posts. Now you're trying to distance yourself from your own argument once it has been shown to be completely untenable. You're shifting as usual, trying to make the argument something entirely different from the point of the historicity of Jesus.

What's worse, you're projecting onto me your own maneuvering. I'm not the one who is engaging in self-contradiction. You simply don't understand English well.

Now I challenged you to produce references to back up your assertions. Can you do it?

PS: I know I have used the virtually qualifier somewhere; maybe not in this thread.

[_JAK]

Anyway, Spodek I have never heard of. Who is he? Whoever he is, he certainly isn't an expert in biblical history or biblical scholarship. He seems to be trying to cover too much history in a single volume, which means necessary details get avoided to save space. That dinky paragraph is supposed to cover the Jesus issue?

Howard Spodek, look him up on the internet. If you think he said anything inaccurate let me know. The history of Jesus is inconclusive. The weakness of the history of Jesus is the lack of contemporary evidence to the point that no objective source acknowledged him during his lifetime. He simply doesn't appear in his day to be an important figure, even if he did exist.

But he never denied the existence of Jesus anyway. He just said the gospels were written a couple decades after Jesus died, and that they were biased. Whoopty doo. Is that supposed to be news?

marg:
What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true. Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

The issue here is whether Jesus existed. It isn't whether we can reliably know details about his life. I sense a shift in argument already.

The issue here is the critical evaluation of a historical Jesus. Included in that is the critique/evaluation on the sort of evidence available and how reliable it is as to whether or not Jesus existed, and then if he existed what can be reliably said about him. The evidence for a Jesus discussed in previous posts, is not very reliable. Historian Spodek points that out.

marg observed:
What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true. Acknowledging what the evidence is, is not acknowledging that there is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

Kevin stated:
This is not true. It is silly to say only "some" historians accept this. Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence for many, many centuries. Only recently have atheists tried to argue the untenable by saying he never really existed. If you find historians who reject the historicity of Jesus, then they are the ones on the fringe, not vice versa.

Kevin Revises Statement Claiming he didn’t state what the evidence shows he stated:
Quote marg:
What you claim Kevin, is that all historians acknowledge Jesus existed. That isn't true.

Kevin:
I didn't claim that. I said, "Virtually all historians...Historians have overwhelmingly accepted Jesus' existence...The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative."

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

For the record, nowhere on this thread has dartagnan/Kevin claimed that "all historians acknowledge Jesus existed". I hope you'll all consider moving past this sticking point in the discussion because it simply doesn't exist.

Jersey Girl

[Guest]

JAK, do you intend to show where I said ALL historians as marg falsely accused me of, or are you content to keep on embarrassing yourself? Even after I gave you a dictionary definition of overwhelming, you still refuse to acknowledge your error. Some might call this intellectually dishonest.

There is lack of consensus on the various claimed histories for Jesus. We have more than 1,000 organized groups of Christians today who have different views on the “historicity” of Jesus. And ironically, most of it came about as Bibles were printed and people began to read for themselves and arrive at different conclusions. See Protestant Reformation

Your link, as is so often the case, doesn't say anything about what it is you're thinking it does. Maybe you should start reading teh links you keep trhowing at us. As it is, that link provides a very detailed and exhaustive analysis of the reformation, yet the word Jesus appears not even once! Yes, you heard that right. You throw it out as if it deals with the historicty of Jesus, yet it doesn't even mention Jesus. I used to think you only read wiki articles, now I have to wonder if you even read that much. You obviously haven't read this one!

The Protestant Reformation was over theology, not the historicity of Jesus. If you want to rebuild your credibility here, you should at least change your method of throwing out irrelevant links and pretending they make a case for you.

One is that it’s too far back in time and there is no clear, accurate, record of historicity.

Yes there is. You don't understand the difference between history and historicity. Historicity is specific and establishes actuality. There is substantial evidence to do just that. According to the overwhelming majority of historians, Jesus existed. And yes, this includes non-Christian historians as well. "History," on the other hand, is a broader term. History of what? His youth? His ministry? His death? Where is the ambiguity that matters? you never say. You just keep reasserting the "murkiness" without demonstrating how the alleged differences mean a hill of beans to Christians or historians.

Two, over time, multiple biblical translations have been made not only from something scribbled on what could hardly be called “paper,” and translations into different languages.

And you know nothing about biblical translations, transmissions, the science of exegesis and hermeneutics, so you're in no position to preach to us the significance of the errancy of translations. You're not telling us anything new here. We all know the Bible has been translated various times. But how many of those difference put a twist on the historicity of Jesus? You don't say. You just keep making these broad accusations and leaving it up to your readers to assume you've made some kind of point on your side. You haven't, and neither have your silly hyperlinks. Your argument is so bankrupt that you've resorted to hyperlinking the same thread we're on! You're not going to be able to substitute intelligent argument with flashy links and long-winded diatribes that address nothing.

Three, the people who did do the early writing were committed to the dogma/doctrine

Irrelevant. The transmitters of Alexander the Great were primarily those who were committed to the Glory of Greece. There is no such a thing as a perfectly objective historian. In many cases, the only sources we have for historical figures are subjective sources. Modern historians have never understood this as justification to reject the historicity of said figure. This is something only the amateur "skeptics" think will hold water.

which they were copying by hand with no electric lights and from crumpled “paper.”

Papyri was the means by which the original documents were passed on, not "crumpled paper."

You can’t even accurately quote yourself over a few days, and you claim historicity for Jesus as if it were established fact. It’s a wrong conclusion. Faith based conclusions are unreliable.

The irony here is that just earlier, you and marg both said you never argued against the historicity of Jesus. And now here you are doing just that, effectively proving the point that I was right and you are the one not paying attention to his own words.

We need evidence which is clear, uncontaminated by preferential bias, critically reviewed, and open for skeptical examination. That does not exist in Christian doctrine/dogma.

We're not talking about Christian dogma, we're discussing the evidence. The evidence has never been a matter of dogma. This is your silly attempt to derail again.

Why don't you go ahead and provide for us the historical Jesus according to:

Baptists
Methodists
Catholics
Lutherans

Let's see these crucial differences, and they better not be theological. Its time to pony up.

GoodK was correct in the use of the word “some” with regard to “historians.” You are inconsistent in your claims.

She said there were "some" who rejected the historicty of Jesus, yet neither of you have managed to produce "some."

No evidence supports the defying of physics/science. That’s Christian doctrine/dogma.

We're not talking about that. Are you really this incapable of staying focused? Whether Jesus really walked on water is irrelevant to the fact that he existed.

The “evidence for Jesus” is a matter of what one considers evidence

Yes, and historians understand what constitutes evidence better than you do. In all your wailing about subjectivity, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that you're the epitome of subjectivity. You hate religion and despise theists. You live to humilate them and what would make you happier than to prove their deity was just a myth? This is why you're not interedted in real history, you're only interested in "truth by assertion" as it appears in Christ myther books; or in your case, Christ myther blogs. So why on earth should anyone listen to you? Not only are you subjective on the far opposite end of the spectrum, but you have no formal training in historical studies and you tread against the grain of an overwhelming scholarly consensus.

If you think you're going to be able to get away with this by simply claiming they are all a bunch of biased Christians, then you need to at least come to grips with the fact that not all historians are Christian. Bart Ehrman certainly isn't, and neither are the Jewish historians who readily accept the existence of Christ.