ScumDog

I've heard over and over that there is only hearsay for the existence of Jesus Christ, and that because it is only hearsay it is not permissible as evidence for Jesus Christ. So, wouldn't it follow that a lot of historical figures have to be assumed to not exist simply because there is only hearsay (a long time ago) to provide any notion of their existence? Or is there a double-standard on Jesus?

Toto

Almost all history is in a sense hearsay, but some hearsay is more reliable than other hearsay.

The evidence for Jesus is very slim compared to comparable historical figures, who left either tombs with their skeletons, pictures of themselves, their own writings, writings about them by contemporaneous followers and enemies, monuments to themselves, etc. Jesus left no writings with his name, no monuments, and there is no mention of him in official records or contemporary writings. There are references to him in some later writings, but they are possible forgeries, mythology, or unsubstantiated hearsay.

You will find a number of threads on this - check the sticky at the top of the page.

Magus55

Well, Jesus didn't leave a skeleton since He didn't stay dead , so obviously we can't have that evidence, pictures or statues of Jesus, would have probably been considered idolatry, so I doubt He would have allowed it, not to mention, if Jesus is walking on water, the last thing running through my head would be, "oh sir, could you stand there for 3 hours while i paint your portrait?" Since portraits were probably considered idolatry in that culture, I doubt the Jews would have painted it, and the Romans certaintly don't paint portrats of those they execute. Also, oral documentation was more accepted and appropriate in those days. Today, we want everything in writing, back then, speaking orally was more valid than writing.

And we do have contemporary writing from followers. A couple dozen books of people who followed Jesus around wrote about Him. That is contemporary writing, and no it isn't circular because those were all separate books, by different authors when they were first written. The Bible is not one book/source.

And Paul was an enemy. Did you know he persecuted and killed Christians? Yet he changed dramatically.

So to the OP's question, yes it is a double standard with Jesus. Obviously, its impossible for Jesus to have actually risen from the dead , therefore if we don't find a tomb with his body in it, its a point against Him. The Scriptural authors aren't valid, since of course the church combined scripture to make it into one book, therefore its considered circular for an apostle to write about Jesus, and have it be in the Bible - therefore invalid.

Jesus' existence is denied because of preconceptions that determine what evidence should be there, but isn't.

ScumDog

I'm curious, what constitutes substantiated hearsay?

Vinnie

Mythicism is just one big case of special pleading. The historicity of Jesus is hardly an extraordinary claim and it requires very little evidence to substantiate it. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence but the church of mythicism reinterprets and harmonizes it all away using double standards, bad exegesis, invented interpolations, ignorance and other dubious criteria I care not to mention. Mythicists employ practices that are similar to wooden-literalist's which are used to reinterpret everything in the Bible to force-fit it with the doctrine of inerrancy. They are stuck in a backpeddling cycle of circular reasoning. Mythicism is not history. Its a religion. As Tacitus might have said, it is a pernicious superstition. Its anti-thetical to free thinking itself. I recommend avoiding this type of extreme.

Eagerly awaiting the flames

Vinnie

Toto

All of those points have been dealt with. No one who examines the evidence fairly without a preconceived bias thinks that we have any contemporaneous evidence of Jesus from his followers writings.

I don't have time to do more now.

Gooch's dad

I have never seen anyone on this board support the idea that contemporaneous evidence was necessary by ANY standards of historical inquiry, to simply establish that a Jewish preacher named Jesus existed in Judea in the early first century.

I agree with Vinnie--it is special pleading. As Peter Kirby has pointed out at his excellent web page on Josephus, the fact that both Josephus referred to Jesus' brother James (in Antiquities 20.9.1, not in the Testimonium) and Paul refers to James a "the brother of the Lord" in Gal. 1:19 provide sufficient historical evidence that the man Jesus existed.

The NT gospels themselves provide some evidence of Jesus' historicity. There is no reason at all why the writer of gJohn in 7:42 would have reported that Jesus was not from Bethlehem, if the gospels were made-up myths trying to establish a character as the Jewish Messiah. It simply makes no sense.

So what historical standard demands that contemporaneous accounts are necessary to simply establish that a certain man existed long ago?

Doctor X

Hmmmmm. . . .


Vinnie:

No flames . . . just the Fallacy Detector [Pat. Pend.--Ed.]

Without support that becomes an ipse dixit serving to Poison the Well.

On the contrary, since the "historicity" implies the existence of a god-man--rather than some poor slob--this is quite "extraordinary."

unfortunate that it does not exist . . . but wait:

still have not seen this "lot of evidence"--ipse dixit with Poisoning the Well, not to mention sufficient Strawmen to constitute a major fire hazard.

That is enough. You do not defend the position of a historical Junior at all. I could easily turn it around with the same fallacies to attack the "historici . . . historicicist . . . his" . . . "the guys who believe he existed."

The salient comment cometh from Gooch's Dad:

Frankly, I do not find the rest of the post persuasive. With all due respect to Peter, he does not make a strong enough case for Josephus to contain anything other than later interpolations. Indeed, one is clearly such an interpolation. If we are to play this "what if?" game, one can wonder why Josephus did not write anything more substantial about this wonderful guy. He reveals less information than John Edward.

The quote from Paul is another thing entirely. Why would Paul make up a James? Clearly he lost the fight described in his Mein Kampf of Galalatians. Lk-Acts tries to smooth over the conflict.

So . . . if a brother existed . . . we can sort of assume that a historical Junior existed.

What does that tell us about the historical Junior?

Diddly over squat.

--J.D.

Gooch's dad

Care to support this with anything more than simply asserting it?

Kelly

Doctor X

Kindly review the drive to find a historical Junior and what it means for those who search.

Albert Schweitzer is a good start.

You can also review any thread here where someone uses the "fact" of the existence of Junior to support a theological point.

--J.D.