stonewall1012

Are you arguing that a Jewish messiah in the 1st Century Palistine would be written about ad nausium by the entire Roman world?

Josephus mentions several people as being killed by the Romans Simon of Perea, and Theudas, others he doesn't even name (and these are his own people) is there any reason to think Josephus or anyone would treat these Jewish "prophets" anymore or less kindly than someone LIKE Jesus? Basic disregard.

As to unfalsifiable and unverifiable these are not the same thing. My point is that what determines "verifiable" evidence should be the same for every historical event. What "independent attestation" exists that applies to the revolt of Simon the slave of Herod? Socrates,

stonewall1012

I see, so one standard of historical research applies to "neutral" events but one standard of historical research applies to "religious" events?

That is my point EXACTALLY. You shouldn't scrutinize one historical event more or less critically than you scrutinize another historical event. Period... the criteria should be the same... No more no less.

In searching for the truth a historian more than ANYONE should realize that the conclusions one reaches should be rationally evaluated regardless of the consequences of that belief. If after FAIR and BALANCED inquiry it is concluded that Simon of Pera did not exist than... fine.. but if believing in some religious person is "difficult to accept" or "hard to believe" that does not justify changing the standard of evaluation critera. As I mentioned I am not interested in JEsus of Nazareth only in the method of investigation.

Toto

What I said was that the question of the standards for whether someone existed have been discussed ad nauseum in the modern world as part of the discussion of the existence of the historical Jesus.

My point is that you don't seem to understand the nuances of this issue enough to carry on a conversation.

You need to ask what independent attestation is there for William Tell, for Robin Hood, for the Buddha, for Confucius, or for similar legendary figures that might have been based on a real person.

Toto

No. All literary evidence needs to be evaluated based on the possible biases of the person recording it.

What's so hard about this?

Toto

And if you are not interested in Jesus, why is this thread here?

Keith&Co.

What do we have from their own community to listen to? We don't know who wrote the gospels or when. As historical documents, that limits their dependability.

As for comparison, you resist comparing Jesus to MLK, but how dependable is a comparison to Drummox? How would you establish the relative 'writeability' of a Roman veteran to a Jewish activist? What would the measurement be?

stonewall1012

Thats a pretty powerful assertion about my mental capacity.

Is that what is called an ad hominem attack: "I'd tell you but you wouldn't understand?"

I didn't ask about william tell, budda, confucius, or robin hood. (although they certainly apply)

I am asking about evaluation criteria. Since "independent attestation" is a "requirment" for historical "verification" it behoves me to learn what this is supposed to look like. Or even what it means, I'd settle for what constitutes "independent attestation" at this point.

Toto

No - just a statement that at the present time you are so fixated on one idea that you can't or won't understand what I am saying.


You have not established that independent attestation is a requirement for anything, or that there is any sort of "verification" possible for ancient history. You have not even established that historians think they can prove anyone's existence, or that they think that is important.

The elephant in the room that you won't talk about is that evangelical Christians have banked their conversion efforts on the existence of a historical Jesus who can be shown through secular historical methods. This leads them to place an exaggerated amount of importance on "proof" in ancient history. It also leads them to try to wring more certainty out of history than is possible, and to distort the methods of history for their own purposes.

So here you are asking questions that don't make any sense, and refusing the answers that you get, and denying that you want to convert anyone. But you're really wasting a lot of time.

stonewall1012

Wow, so we begin evaluation of any text not based upon genre but upon bias?
So I read the Illiad based upon whether or not "Homer" (be he real or not) was biased against Greeks or Trojans?

I don't think there are many people who would agree with that.

First i would say 2,000 years difference is a number that certainly qualifies as a measureable distance. As to comparing Dumnorix to the "Jesus" figure. they are both "fringe" elements on the fringe of the empire. True one is a warrior one is not but Jerusalem was hardly the "center" of roman attention.

However, I am not establishing criteria here. My question was not about comparing Dumnorix to Jesus. I am asking what "independent attestation" means and how it is used.

aa5874

We have a plethora of information on Jesus as a God/man from ONLY apologetic sources, and we have nothing about Jesus as a man from the Church writers or writers external of apologetics.

The information about Martin Luther King is not from his followers alone.

The so-called Paul, according to the NT, wrote about the supposed Jesus within 20 years of the death of Jesus, yet Paul, did not write about where Jesus lived, or the mother of Jesus. Paul never mentioned seeing Jesus preaching to thousands of people or tyring to perform miracles. Paul never mentioned that he visited the birth place of Jesus, or his house in the city of Nazareth, or Golgotha where Jesus was crucified.

Within 20 years of the death of Jesus, Paul writes virtually nothing about a physical Jesus, but he wrote that Jesus ROSE from the dead, ascended to heaven, and blinded him from heaven.

Paul, supposedly writing within 20 years of Jesus, cannot even attest to a physical Jesus.

Nothing can be proven without any doubt whatsoever.

It is just that the information available today indicates that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus existed as a human being, he likely existed as a myth or legendary fairy tales.

I totally agree with you. Let's use the same methodology.

Achilles was the son of a sea-goddess without independent attestation, and is now universally considered to be a myth.

Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost without independent attestation and should be considered a myth universally.