Jeremy Pallant

In this thread, there was the following exchange between Vinnie and Peter Kirby with regard to the historicity or otherwise of Jesus:

Vinnie: Mythicism is idiotic. That doesn't mean mythicists are idiots though. Most are simply misinformed. Some are idiots just like their naive Christian opposites.

Peter Kirby: If this is the case, then there should be conclusive historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What is that evidence? Feel free to start a new thread.

So I have. What is the conclusive, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Vinnie

Vinnie's later response to PK in that thread:

"It is the case and there is conclusive evidence but I don't have the time nor the desire to argue the overly obvious on the internet right now. I am in the works preparing a "large case against mythicism" on my site."

Anyone interested in my views will just have to wait.

Vinnie

Justin70

There is none. Check for yourself. At BEST it's very questionable but by all means, do the research and find out for YOURSELF if you really wanna know. =)

judge

Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit. If this happened then it is pretty good proof

Jeremy Pallant

Justin,

As a moderator, one of my duties is to provide interesting subjects for discussion. Normally it's something I don't need to do because the inhabitants of this forum keep things going all by themselves. I simply happened upon the exchange between Vinnie and Peter and thought to do as Peter suggested.

Personally, I'm something of a Jesus Myther. I think there may have been a person or persons around whom the legend that is Jesus Christ arose, but I don't think it was the Jesus the Bible describes, nor do I necessarily think that he lived between 4 BCE and 33 CE.

The intent of the OP was to invite Christians to provide the conclusive, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus that Peter originally requested.

Peter Kirby

What I requested was that Vinnie start a thread if he wanted...which I imagine that he will do when he's ready to submit his (large) paper for public review. Since this is a relatively hostile (or confrontational) setting for HJ proponents, I would not blame them for not wishing to dash off a couple paragraph argument and be liable to unceasing debate. Also, the issue covers a lot of material and encompasses a lot of viewpoints, so a short argument would necessarily leave too much unanswered. And writing an essay is a task that takes time and is a favor for a person to undertake.

I don't like the way that this subject becomes polarized between Christians and atheists, as reflected in the phrasing "to invite Christians." Part of the reason is that not all Christians are HJ proponents, as for example some modern gnostics are not. The other part of the reason is that some non-Christians are HJ proponents and should not be lumped with Christian believers. Indeed, I imagine that an atheist, if she found the time and fortitude to undertake it, could make a better case (in some respects) for an HJ view because she would not be as prone to a kneejerk reaction, as if the life of Jesus were self-evident. Nothing is self-evident in history; it is empirical, and many times the empirical evidence does not provide a clear-cut case.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jeremy Pallant

My bad, Peter. The phrase I used was ill-thought. Personally I would be as willing to hear from HJs of all types. I should have made that more clear.

Vinnie

What percentage of the Bible (Christian canon I presume) actually describes Jesus of Nazareth?

Vinnie

Jeremy Pallant

The Gospels.

Vinnie

And do the Gospels present a consistent picture? Maybe you would like to tell us the qualitites of this "Jesus of the Gospels" whom you do not believe existed?

Personally, I don't know of a respectable historian who believes in a "harmonized Jesus of the four gospels". Can you cite any names who think otherwise?

Vinnie