As the thread I created "How much would you bet?" might imply (if one is astute enough to catch it), the point isn't whether certain historians accept that Jesus existed. Its how much they believe he existed. How certain can be we be of historical claims, particularly ancient ones? Would they bet a million dollars on it? Would they stake their lives on it? (How about the life of a family pet?)

I also wonder why people think appeals to authority are strong arguments. I don't think I've ever seen so many appeals to authority as I have in the past week in this forum. If such and such a historian or scholar believes such and such is true (or false), then somehow this is supposed to amount to a big deal. But in the relatively weak arena of historical science, I find it to be a somewhat tepid argument. At least in the hard sciences, authorities have to back their opinions up with hard data that can be confirmed or falsified.

Toto

Then why did you ask such a factual question that requires an answer from straight history? Are you giving me a writing assignment? Do you have some problem with the idea that various church fathers produced a canon by selecting approved texts and rejecting others? Do apologists think that the Bible just happened by itself? What is there to discuss about this?

I made the statement that Jesus existed after discussing a good deal of the evidence. You ignored the discussion and the offered evidence and simply asserted that such a statement was basically impossible: You have gone beyond the boundaries set by historians here.

It appears by your statement that you think that my statement that "Jesus existed" is inherently unprovable. Accordingly, according to your positive assertion regarding the "boundaries" set by "historians" no amount of evidence would be sufficient to meet your burden and your demand that I provid it is pointless at best and nothing buy a delay tactic at worst.

So. Prove it. What boundaries does the statement "Jesus existed" exeed and which historians have set those boundaries?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 24, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 24, 2001).]

I have no problem with the idea that the Nicean council selected approved texts and approved others. But that is not what you asserted:

The Nicean council selected books that would be the official council. It did not order any books altered so that they would "conform" to their decision. Nor where all books not selected for canonization rejected by Christianity. The Didache, the Shepard of Hermas, 1 Clement, Ignatius's seven letters were still respected by most Christians and there is no evidence that they were somehow rewritten in order to "confrom to their decision."

\

I suppose this means you can make the bald-faced assertion that "Jesus existed" and offer nothing more than argumentative scholarly opinion to support your assertion. That doesn't cut it, Layman. You said Jesus existed. Prove it.

rodahi

Et tu rodahi?

Don't tell me that you are becoming a mythicist too. Are you?

Nomad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
I suppose this means you can make the bald-faced assertion that "Jesus existed" and offer nothing more than argumentative scholarly opinion to support your assertion. That doesn't cut it, Layman. You said Jesus existed. Prove it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Et tu rodahi?

Don't tell me that you are becoming a mythicist too. Are you?

The stabbing pain you feel is not from my dagger!

If you will go back a few postings, you will see that I told Layman that I think Jesus probably existed. My point is this: No one is certain.

rodahi

No problem rodahi. I have been in a trade show these last couple of days and have not had a chance to keep up with the various threads. I didn't think you were a mythicist, but just wanted to be sure.

Peace, and be well.

Nomad

Now what? I agree with you. As an historian i can't say that I know with absolute ceratinty that Jesus really existed, but that's because all history is probabalistic. I can't say with absolute certainty that Barbarossa existed either; but no historian on the face of the earth would ever dream of questioning his existence.

And most don't take seriously the effort to prtend that jesus didn't exist. Most historians accept Jesus' existence becasue there is no good reason not to.

The original statement Layman made may have been over stated, but he's basically right; the probablity is extremely high, high enough to give it presumption.

Don't let Rodahi's hyperbole fool you. All I said was "Jesus existed."