sotto voce

There were many men called by the name of the artisan from Nazareth. No doubt some of them were crucified by the Romans before the Romans had finished with the descendants of Israel. The significant difference, in this context, with the one that the Romans later grew to detest as 'the Galilean' was the allegation that he was not killed by crucifixion, but was in a significant sense still alive, having by-passed a Roman seal on his tomb, appeared to many, and returned to a spiritual home from which he had evidently come.

So the evidence for Jesus must centre on the likelihood of his resurrection, though it is not limited to that. It is dogged circularity to say that resurrection is impossible. If Jesus was as claimed, the manifestation of deity, resurrection is only to be expected. The claim for resurrection must be examined in the whole historic circumstance. That includes the whole Bible, from its first word until its last. It includes all relevant extra-biblical history, including that of those who opposed the lore of Jesus, which includes many who laid claim to follow him, though quite obviously did not do so. This history includes a great silence following the close of the New Testament, a silence of any whose belief was aligned to that of the authors of the NT. It includes history right up to the present day, when there are thousands of mutually contradictory claimants to following of Jesus, who is evidently perceived to have existed. It includes the propriety or otherwise of those who discuss his existence, or who claim to interpret his teachings, because those teachings were of a moral nature, of a quality that may be said to have never been surpassed. The genuine historian cannot ignore the moral content of Jesus' alleged teaching, and also ignore the moral quality of the world that this teaching addressed. To ignore it is to admit that Jesus really did exist, and was resurrected.

It's quite true that the Bible cannot be cited as an authority in order to insist on acceptance of HJ. But there is no such insistence; at least, there is none outside certain parts of the USA. It cannot be proved that Jesus existed; or that he did not. The historicity of otherwise of Jesus is therefore an open question. If Jesus did not exist, or was considerably less than claimed, then that is the causation of the uncertainty. If, otoh, Jesus was as claimed, the uncertainty must be deliberate, and argument about historicity is ultimately without satisfactory conclusion.

sotto voce

This very issue is claimed to centre on crucifixion, or otherwise. Yet Spin doesn't seem to want to discuss his own OP!

Sheshbazzar

The problem with this is again circularity. One must assume that all that is presented in the Bible from Genesis forward is historical on the basis that the Bible represents it as being history.
Even if one accepts that resurrection from the dead is possible, that does nothing at all to provide any evidence that this particular Resurrection ever happened.
It remains simply a story within a text of religious stories, that has never been, cannot be, corroborated by any evidence external to the content of that text.
When you bring in the entire Bible (Scriptures) as being 'proof' of your premise, you only magnify the circularity problem;
Jesus existed because the Scriptures say he did. The Scriptures exists because Jesus existed and used them.

with Apologies to spin.

sotto voce

That was not stated, and is not true. The Bible is a historic circumstance. (Unless one is going to question whether the Tanakh existed at the supposed time of supposed Jesus. In which case, one has to venture a hypothesis as to when the Tanakh came into being, and to what purpose. There is of course abundant scope in that respect, if the form of current scholarship is any sort of guide.)

Quite so. But who would ever suppose that it could be? Can we muster better than specious arguments?

That's not true, actually. But even if it was true, is this not only what may be expected? If somebody says that a religious caste is a hypocritical nest of vipers, is it all that surprising if those so described turn a blind eye? If somebody says that even thinking about adultery is wickedness, is it all that surprising if those who think little of committing adultery pretend to be deaf? What would be remarkable would be Sanhedrin 'viper' evidence of every public occasion allegedly recorded in the gospels. What would be remarkable would be imperial records of the crucifixion of Jesus and of the circumstances surrounding his resurrection, as believed. Roman emperors and patricians were up to a lot more than adultery. One would sniff a rat, in those circumstances.

sotto voce

Bubbles from among the lobster pots. That gets you off the hook, Shesh.

Sheshbazzar

Actually it is. You cannot provide any verifiable evidence that this alleged figure ever existed outside of Bible stories that depend upon other fictional Bible stories.
Not one situation nor conversation found within the Gospels texts can be corroborated by any contemporary sources outside of those texts.
There is no evidence external to the Bible's highly improbable and fictional accounts that this character was ever born.
There is NO external verifiable evidence that he was 'born' in Nazareth, ever went into Egypt, ever conversed with The priests in The Temple as child, ever turned water into wine, was ever baptized by anyone, ever held a conversation with Satan on a pinnacle of The Temple, ever had twelve disciples, ever healed a single person, ever taught a single parable, ever cast out a demon, ever argued with the Pharisees, ever raised any person from death, ever created a ruckus in The Temple, was ever put on trial, or was ever crucified.....much less rose from the dead, and now sits on Gawd's right hand in some invisible imaginary heaven.
None of this is verifiable as history. You may as well be trying to provide evidence that the tale of 'Jack and the Beanstalk' is history. 'Jesus on a cross' is no more verifiable history than is Jack on a beanstalk.

Sorry spin. posted before seeing your request.

Toto

That's one leaping non sequitur.

Especially since Jesus does not seem to have done anything in the past 2000 years to improve the moral quality of this world.

sotto voce

Or Bible accounts. Why don't you come at historicists with an ax, to settle their hash? Such coercion as 'fictional stories' merely shoots yourself, and in a region higher than the foot.

Of course there is evidence. There is no forum, to my knowledge, about the historicity of the Egyptian deity Amun, or of the Incas' Inti. So this very thread, this forum, is evidence. It's not proof, but you didn't ask for that, and I've said it isn't available, anyway. If you live in a Western town, there are within walking distance probably half a dozen places where sane, intelligent people who believe in a historical Jesus reckon to actually talk to him. They, and people the world over, don't do that with Amun, Inti, Poseidon, Toutatis or any of thousands other supposed deities that have been prayed to. Jesus knocked every last one out of the pantheon. That's evidence.

Your doctor, your lawyer, your child's teacher, your chief of police, your bank manager, your national leader, may well regard Jesus as historical. These are not people who can be dismissed, as people who read astrologists or chase UFOs. That's evidence.

But Nazareth exists. Nazareth exists within the region prophesied (apparently) in the Tanakh as the country of the Messiah. And there's loads more where that comes from, that has filled many books.

But there was a temple, and there were priests, according to extra-biblical records.

Pharisees were there to be argued with, according to extra-biblical records.

Ruckus? How can one be a historian with attitude?

If there was no resurrection, what made us talk to each other?

But my methodology must not be ignored. One must demonstrate that the Biblical accounts are impossible. That's never been done yet.

Circularity. Category error. We know that this is a fable constructed for children.

Sheshbazzar

Of the same quality as the visions and predictions of astrologist's, and the UFO abduction stories, or those wearing their tinfoil hats.
They most certainly can be dismissed. What they claim to 'believe' is most often unexamined, irrational, delusional, uncredible, and utterly lacking in rationality. I find Christian beliefs to be the embodiment of ignorance and evil.
A Pentecostal Church of 'old time religion 'Holy Rollers' adjoins my property on the East, and the Catholic Priest 'Father John' lives on the property to my West.
I am a good and genial neighbor with both. But I will not sit down to drink a glass of their favorite flavor of Kool-Aid with either. if you get my drift
Which provides no evidence at all that the Biblical Jebus ever existed.

Which provides no evidence at all that the Biblical Jebus ever existed.

Which provides no evidence at all that the Biblical Jebus ever existed.
What is described in the TEXTS, fashioning a whip of cords, overturning the tables, and 'driving out the money-changers' (which The Law, which then still in effect, made essential) is a causing a 'ruckus' whether the historian has an 'attitude' or is utterly dispassionate.

Someone long time ago wrote a bunch of religious horse-shit and some are stupid enough to think it is real history.

Unfortunately for you, your 'methodology' is irrational based upon uncritically accepting old religious tales at face value, and may be ignored as being without value.
The onus is not upon us to demonstrate anything other than that these accounts are not history. The content of the texts themselves does that.

As you are the one making claims for the historicity of the Biblical accounts, The onus is upon you the claimant, to demonstrate that those Biblical situations that are simply 'possible' did in actual fact take place at the time and in the manner alleged within the texts.
But you cannot employ the circular reasoning of employing the texts to prove the content of the texts.
To make your case you need to provide external contemporary non-apologetic confirmation for each of these alleged events. THAT has never been done yet, and is why the content of your texts can still be accounted as being simply fictional religious writing.

To quote from your favorite fable; "Little children...." (Matt 8:3, Jn 13:33, Gal 4:19, 1 Jn 2:1 & 2:12-13, 18, 28. 1Jn 3:7, 18 & 4:4 & 5:21)
As well as perhaps another hundred or more similar children's texts.
Your favorite fable was constructed for the gullible and little children.
Jebus fits in right along with the Tooth Fairy, Peter Cotton Tail, the Easter Bunny, and Santa.
The Fable is older and much more elaborate but of no more substance.
A cultural death cult 'cult' icon not to be questioned or doubted, because if you do very 'bad things' will happen to you. Like this loving god will burn you in hell forever and ever.
But the greater danger has always been from the actions of Jebus's lunatic followers, whom real history shows to have tortured and murdered countless millions 'in Jeebus's name!' to establish and maintain that vile perversion called Christianity.

sotto voce

So will MJers henceforth dismiss HJ doctors, lawyers, teachers, police, bank managers, national leaders? Maybe they will have to colonise another planet.

And the rest of your post can very justly go in the garbage.