Keith&Co.

What would the difference be? Do you think they describe history or myth?

As with most things, that would depend on those who think they are valid. What proof do they offer? Pony up independent verification and see if it withstands scrutiny.

It's not my place to say. Seriously. I don't personally believe the Gospels are eyewitness accounts for a number of reasons, corroboration aside.

And any attempt to explore what might be considered valid corroboration usually gets taken to sarcastic extremes ("So, you're saying that if i traveled in time, filmed the events, put them on an IMAX and flew you to the theatre to see it, you'd reject the evidence because the date-stamp on the video was in Zulu time, centuries before Zulu time was established!")

All we really CAN say, honestly, for this or any other claim, is that if you offer evidence, we can accept it or reject it. And if we say 'this isn't it' we should say 'this isn't it, because....'

Because it's of suspect origin, because it's not contemporary, because details A and B don't match C and D, and so on.

There's a number of threads around here somewhere on 'what would you accept as proof for god?' The only real answer is always: I don't know. It's your god, what proof do you have?

stonewall1012

Well actually it kind of does matter... It matters because what ever standard is applied to a historical event the same standard should apply to all historical events.

It's a question of methodology. If I require a extremely high level of proof for say, celtic worship practices, but require extremely low level of proof for say christian worship practices I am biasing my conclusions prior to even beginning the "investigation".

In history methodolgy and theory are virtually the same. If I ascribe to the view that history is the biography of "great men" I am biasing my research before I even crack a single volume. If I contend that history is the study of impersonal forces influencing mans actions once again I am influencing my research prior to investigation.

I tried this approach under "Historic methodolgy" and it lost interest quickly. everyone wants to talk about "historic facts" and what is provable and not provable but no one really wants to talk about methodology.. mainly because it's boring.

I have also noticed that people do not wish to speak about logic and proper reasoning. Likewise because it is boring.

This attempt at "independet attestation" is an attempt to see if ANY historical assertion is verifiable using the criteria set forth as "attestable".

In other words is the demand for "verification" even achievable?

Toto

Again, you have no evidence that anyone here uses conflicting standards.

Methodology is not boring. Perhaps it is just your presentation?

aa5874

But, where would we find an independent attestation of the conception of Jesus, his miraculous birth, the miracles, his transfiguration, resurrection or his ascension?

These events cannot really be independently attested, since if Jesus actually lived he could not have done those things.

The gospels presented Jesus as the Son of the God of the Jews, with supernatural powers, yet human, an extremely unique and controversial figure.

But, all the information about this God/man are all from apologetic sources.

However, Jesus as described in the NT, had large crowds following him at regular intervals, sometimes in the thousands. Jesus was in constant conflict with the Jewish authorities, in the NT, Jesus claimed that the authorities would KILL him, and the authorities finally had him crucified.

We can parallel Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr who had large crowds and was in conflict with the authorities, but many persons wrote about Martin Luther King Jr, not only his followers, and further Martin Luther was presented fundamentally in a plausible manner.

So, even though, no external non-apologetic source mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, his sources potrayed him as an implausible entity. And I don't think there would ever be any independemt attestation of implausibilities.

Keith&Co.

The problem is, you're asking for a testing standard before you make a testable claim. How would you go about doing that?

It's like if i claimed to have psychic powers.
If i claimed that i had telepathy, you could immediately ask me to tell you what you're thinking of. If i can, you can frame a second test. if i can't, maybe i have an excuse such as limited range, or i have to be in the right mood, or there has to be New Age music playing...

If i claim that i have psychic powers, what test would you suggest?
PP covers a wide range. Telepathy, telekinesis, The Sight, Foresight, telesight, et and cetera. I have to narrow it down before you can apply a test.

stonewall1012

It seems very easy to compare the "Jesus" event to Martin Luther king... except there are a few problems... we don't have 2,000 years of history between us and MLK. We have a plethra of information on King because we are merely 40 years from his death, and he was incredibly popular during his life OUTSIDE of the African American Community. It is reasonable it assume OTHERs might have spoken about him... But we are not talking about 40 years ago with someone incredibly popular outside of his community. We are talking about someone 2,000 years ago who was not accepted by his community as a whole and was killed.

To make a fair and reasonable equivelant we would have to pick Sparticus(even that isn't fair because he was popular during his own life time)
Or Socrates (a better comparison). We can hardly prove the existance of anyone NOT a King, ruler, or warrior in the ancient world outside of their own community. This is an inherent problem with history 2,000 years old..

Once again I am not saying Jesus is real or not real God or not God simply that methodology should be the same, held to the same standard.

What would "independent attestation" look like for anyone NOT a ruler king or warrior in the ancient world? What is required to prove their existance?

Keith&Co.

Really? Sounds like you're making excuses for why the standard for 2000 year old history should be applied differently to sons of carpenters.

Is there corroborating evidence for Jesus or not? Seems simple enough for the basic history question.

If there is, then it should be weighed accordingly for whatever it's worth.

If there is not, THEN apologists can claim that the CHOSEN SON OF GOD, the MESSIAH AS PROMISED wasn't important enough for anyone to write about. Just not with the simultaneous claim that those who reject his history are biased against real history.

Toto

stonewall: The idea that Jesus was a marginal, insignificant figure is a conclusion based on the general lack of contemporaneous record from Roman or Greek or Jewish sources. It generally makes the historical Jesus hypothesis unfalsifiable, but also unverifiable.

Do you think that this question hasn't been discussed ad nauseum? Do you have anything new to contribute? WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

stonewall1012

I don't understand why this is so difficult... how would we determine if anyone not a king warrior or ruler lived in the ancient world if we didn't listen to their own community at least a little?
Are we assuming that only kings warriors and rulers lived? I didn't called Jesus anything...I asked a question... How would we determine if someone lived who was not a warrior, ruler or king? More over outside of their own community (which is what you want "independent attestation") i've even provided examples.. sparticus, socrates. What would "independent attestation look like trying to prove sparticus, or socrates lived?
Lets even try "Dumnorix" who is mentioned by Caesar and is a warrior. What does "independent attestation" look like in the circumstance of Dumnorix?
If this criteria applies to Dumnorix can we prove him?

Toto

You are going about this all backwards. First of all, who wants to prove that some peasant existed or didn't? It's generally irrelevant. If you find some neutral reference, like Caesar mentioning Dumnorix, you generally assume that he existed with some degree of probability.

But when you have a religion that claims to be founded by a god-man who walked the earth, you might question whether this god-man was based on an actual historical person. And if you find no evidence from outside that religion, you might indeed be skeptical, or decide to remain agnostic.

Now please explain what the point of this thread is.