Thomas II

Hoofed it over?

The guy FLEW to HEAVEN! Rome was just the first stop...you know, for pizza and a fresh glass of Chianti...

Kosh

Isn't that the argument from conflict of interest?

mountainman

1) Eusebius tells us that Jesus authored a letter in response to King Agbar.
2) Eusebius tells us that he found this letters in the archive circa 312 CE.
3) Eusebius tells us that the letter of Jesus was written in Syriac.
4) Eusebius tells us that he translated the letter of Jesus to the greek.
5) Eusebius tells us everything we know about the prenicen epoch (0-300)
6) Eusebius tells us the truth.
7) Therefore Jesus did exist.

spin

Many of you naughty people overlook the only rule that I personally wrote:

7. You don't have to be a historian. However, you must submit historical evidence. To do so, you must show the evidence to be contemporary to Jesus. Plausibility is not a sufficient criterion, as lies thrive on plausibility.

The only contemporary or near contemporary evidence that people have alluded to relate to Paul, Josephus and Tacitus. Beyond those there have been numerous creative suggestions, but creativity is not a substitute for contemporary evidence, so I have had to fail those attempts out of hand.

The onus is always on the claimant of the historicity of someone or some event to ultimately be able to show the evidence behind the claim or else that claim will eventually be found wanting. This means that any status quo, or other long held, position of substance is liable to being tested for its veracity.

The major problem here is that the entrenchment of such claims can cause the tendency to ignore any testing of the status quo with such dismissals as "this has stood the text of time for hundreds of years" and the defense shield goes up. This is fairly normal in that we make thousands of such choices each day at a near unconscious level, for if we were to spend all our time checking everything we would do little else.

However, the more complex a status quo view is, the more liable it is to error -- it's a consequence of complexity. This means that more complex views, as well as more important views (if they are not the same thing) require the assurance of quality control at least periodically to guarantee the quality of the view. We all should be happy about checks of this kind. They help to make our views more reliable.

So, back to the challenge at hand. Are there any further efforts to conclude that Jesus did exist?


spin

Peter Kirby

spin: I guess nobody has the guts to refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Thomas.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

spin

Would you, other than in a meta-comment like this?


spin

jakejonesiv

Hey I did. See #26 in this thread above.

I have ten MORE reasons that prove beyond all facts that Jesus existed, and no one can disprove a single one?

Ten more reasons that prove Jesus did exist

Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies, some of which remain unknown to this day! Therefore Jesus did exist.

There is absolutely no evidence of dying and rising gods before Jesus. Jesus' resurrection is unique in history and therfore must have started with a unique historical individual. Therefore Jesus did exist.

The Shroud of Turin is authentic. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

There are thousands of relics; crucifixtion nails, pieces of the true cross. They can't all be fake. Therefore Jesus did exist.

The overwhelming consensus of scholars believe Jesus existed. These scholars know more Greek
than ____(fill in the blank)____ ever will, so it make sense to believe them. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

You will go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. Therefore you better believe that Jesus existed.

John the Baptist, James the Just, St. Peter and St. Paul all believed that Jesus existed. Since they were historical, Jesus must be historical also.

Fifteen years before Paul wrote his first epistle, mythers think NOTHING HAPPENED.
This is ludicrous. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

Throughout history, Christian nations have kicked the butts of non-Christian nations. This proves our God is stronger. Therefore, Jesus did exist.

The devils read the prophocies about Jesus in the Old Testament. Seeing what was coming, they created diabolical conterfeits before the fact. Therefore, the tales of all the pagan gods prove that Jesus existed.

Jake Jones IV

Bonus reason #21 that Jesus existed.

Let's say Jesus was a myth. Then one day, somebody got up and said, "Hey, Jesus was a real guy." Everyone would say, "WTF? He was a myth yesterday." And the apostles and disciples would step up and say, "Jesus real? No way! Never heard of him and I was there."

jjramsey

This seems to be the general framework for arguments for historicity:

The following facts are trivial to explain by a mere mortal Jesus of Nazareth:

• Various references in Paul, the Gospels, and Josephus that are most simply explained as references to a flesh and blood brother of Jesus.
• The forced attempt to assert that Jesus was born in the "biblically correct" village of Bethlehem instead of the no-account village of Nazareth.
• The forced attempt to say that Jesus being a Nazarene was prophesied by the Old Testament.
• The claim that Jesus was crucified, in spite of the cultural disincentives to make up such an ignominious death.

Attempts to fit the above facts into a mythicist framework have relied on baroque speculations, strained interpretations of the texts, and sometimes pseudohistory. Therefore, it is probable that Jesus existed.

mikem

There are in the gospels passages that can be translated back into Aramaic in a format that makes them easily memorable. There are also examples of Aramaic words as used by Jesus, (as in Mark 5:21 -43, the story of the raising of Jairus daughter with the words "TALITHA KOUM; Also James and John were BOANERGES, sons of thunder, see Mk. 3:17, see also 7:11,34 CORBAN, 11:9-10, and of course Jesus' use of ABBA.)

If the gospels are based on oral traditions that grew out of Jesus life, it seems likely that some of Jesus own words would be embedded in those traditions, especially his use of Abba - which is unique in the literature of the time.

If also, Jesus lived when and where he was said to, he would have spoken Aramaic.

I think these two observations reinforce each other, and add to the probability that the gospel material derives in part from a historical Jesus. It is the best evidence we have, I think, because if it is based on genuine recollection, then it is the earliest material we have.

Right, I'll wait to be shredded by the Spin machine now.

Kosh

ah, so since The Lord of the Rings contains some original Elfin words, then that story is based on an historical origin as well?