Tommy

What evidence for an "actual human Jesus" would HJers require? Our reconstruction of history is based around appraisal of sources some of which may be secondary. The gospels are seondary sources, the question is as to how reliable they are. I would question their reliability based on the lack of contemporary, independent corroboration for the public spectacles they describe.

Historians generally hold Socrates to have been a real person and Homer not to have been. This is based upon appraisal of the sources in the absence of an "actual human" specimin.

Sheshbazzar

Ha Ha! What a joke! You gotta be kidding! or simply delusional.

You weren't there in either the late first, or the early second century to know what texts these early messianic believers may have had in hand.
That the original, and earlier texts than what we presently have, either did not survive the ages, or simply have not yet been located, is no indication at all that such texts did not exist. <self-censored and deleted inflammatory observations.>

Effectively, the claims you have made in this thread have already been flushed by your fellow MJers.
They are so illogical, vacuous, and embarrasingly silly we would be ashamed to be found stupid enough to even attempt seriously presenting or defending them to the HJ faction.

Tommy

Defendents are found not guilty of their charge should insufficient evidence be presented to meet the burden of proof. The UK recently overturned the double jeopardy restriction so it theoretically possible for a defendent exonerated in an intial trial to be convicted based on fresh evidence.

Historical claims are found to be unsupported should inadequate evidence be presented. Reappraisal is hypothetically possible should fresh evidence be found.

Sheshbazzar is right: an absence of evidence is not conclusive evidence for absence.

aa5874

You were supposed to find holes in my conclusion. Simplying saying "Ha Ha! What a joke! You gotta be kidding! or simply delusional...." does NOT require any knowledge of the subject.

You have got to do better than that.

Come on, Sheeshbazzar!!!! You were not there. What evidence is supposed to be in the LATE 1st century to the early 2nd century???

You have IDENTIFIED the HJ problem--Catch 22.

HJers BELIEVE that Jesus existed because they ASSUME there was earlier evidence just like people of antiquity in the 2nd century.

Now, the Dated Text of the 2nd century and Later claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, was God the Creator, that Walked on water, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended.

Tell me Sheeshbazzar what would you expect earlier stories to say if they were found???

Would you NOT expect them to Also say Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, God the Creator that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ASCENDED??

Think about it!!! After all, the 2nd century and later writings would be COPIES if they are NOT original.

Would NOT the supposed original of gMatthew also claim Jesus was the Son of a Ghost???

Would NOT the supposed original of gMark also claim Jesus walked on water, transfigured and resurrected??

Would NOT the supposed original of gJohn also claim Jesus was God the Creator.???

We have a CATCH 22.

If the 2nd century and later writings are COPIES then the Originals would say virtually the VERY SAME thing that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and that the Pauline Jesus was NOT a human being.


The HJ argument is a Catch 22--a logical conundrum with NO way out..

aa5874

Well, in the first place a defendant is not even likely to be charged if there is an ABSENCE of evidence.

You very well know that long before a trial that evidence MUST first be collected to bring a charge.

Absence of evidence means NO argument or charge can be made.

Again, ALL things that are considered to be NON-EXISTING have ABSENCE of evidence of existence.

This is so basic and logical.

Absence of evidence of existence is IMPERATIVE to argue for NON-EXISTENCE.

Absence of evidence of existence CANNOT be used to argue for Existence.

This is basic and fundamental.

Now, HJers BELIEVE that there are earlier originals of the dated 2nd century and later writings but the originals will say the same thing--that Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator that walked on water.

Tommy

They might, what would that indicate?

This would be a different "catch 22" from the one in the OP:
- "In effect, HJers are attempting to prove exactly what they argue against. The BELIEF that Jesus did exist can be derived WITHOUT an actual human Jesus.

HJers BELIEVE HJ did exist because of information in the NT without ever seeing an HJ."

Tommy

You drew the comparison between absence-of-evidence and a trial defendent in post 20. My point was to contrast your conclusion of exoneration with a not-guilty that may yet be reappraised. Obviously the cops would have some cause to press a charge (or a historian to pursue a claim); the point of a trial/appraisal is to determine the strength of the case.


HJers believe there are fair grounds to believe there were earlier originals, they do not argue from current absence of evidence. If the earlier originals also favour Jesus with supernatural features this does not affect whether there ever was a real person upon whom the gospel description was elaborated.

LegionOnomaMoi

Logic is kind of like your kryptonite it appears. The "no way out" part is fairly specific. After all, circular reasoning and a number of other terms are used to describe situations in which there is "no way out." However, a catch-22 is a specific type of "no way out". Look at the examples in your link if the explanation itself is tripping you up. Another one is the (apocryphal?) method of trying witches: dunk the witch in water. If she drowns, she's innocent. If she lives, she's a witch and must be executed. Alternatively, if (under torture) the witch admits to being a witch, then she is a witch and must be executed. If she says she is not, then she's lying, which is what a witch would do, and therefore she is a witch who must be executed.

Leaving witches behind, we can turn to modern applications. A promotion exists at your job. However, the board has decided that as a great deal of power comes with this position they must carefully screen applicants to ensure that they don't have too much ambition or a power complex. Obviously (so says the board), anybody who wants this job clearly wants power, and is therefore too ambitious. So all applicants are turned down because of this. However, any person who wants the job must apply. No matter what choice of action the person makes, there is "no way out". They can't get the job, because applying means they will be disqualified, and not applying ensures they won't be considered.

Or, to bring this back to history and Jesus, let's say you claim you will listen to any expert who is unbiased and qualified, and if that expert tells you there is ample reason to think Jesus is historical, you will acknowledge that Jesus is historical. You offer a million dollars for such an expert, and thousands of PhDs get in line. However, as you question each, you ask them if they believe that Jesus is historical. If the applicant says he is, then you determine the applicant is biased and/or unqualified, and therefore can't be counted (and thus can't receive your million dollar reward). After a while, applicants catch on, and start saying they don't believe Jesus is historical. Well (you explain to them patiently) you are only offering the reward to applicants who are unbiased and qualified and who believe there is ample reason to think Jesus is historical. As these new batch of experts say they don't think so, they clearly don't count either. Consequently, no matter what choice the applicants make, "there is no way out".

Sheshbazzar

Actually, people who think through the PREMISE of your argument will detect its faulty premise even if they possess NO particular knowledge of the SUBJECT.
I, or no one living had to have 'been there' to detect the patent faultiness of your reasoning and the erroneous premise of your claims.
Paleographic and C14 tests employed to determine the dating of COPIES of manuscripts and fragments DO NOT and CANNOT be employed to determine when the ORIGINAL works were composed.
ALL they can be used to establish is that there WERE earlier writings, and track what changes may have been introduced in latter copies.

Unless you have some solid basis to argue that the manuscripts and fragments currently in our possession are the ORIGINALS, and come DIRECTLY FROM THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS, and thus are NOT COPIES, you are in essence, (and along with, and in accord with the consensus of textual scholarship) admitting that these remnants ARE only copies.
And if copies there perforce were earlier and as yet unlocated and/or unidentified originals from which what we have were copied.

So unless you are ready and able to defend the premise that the materials presently in our possession are THE ORIGINAL, and are the FIRST of these writings produced, and are DIRECTLY FROM THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS, your going on about their dating only proves that your argument is sorely lacking in the logic department.

THUS;
A. Either you concede that earlier documents must have existed,

B. OR you must defend a premise that the documents we now have are the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS and come DIRECT FROM THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS.

Do not be expecting anyone that is sane to be supportive of premise B which is what you would need to make your argument to be of any value.
Yada yada yada.
You are either also ASSUMING the same. OR you need to start backing up your NON-ASSUMPTION with your arguments and evidences that the documents we now possess ARE the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS and come DIRECT FROM THE HAND OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS.
Exactly the same thing.
Of course.
Real Scholars HAVE thought about it for ages, your empty argument was already dead on arrival.
Yes. There are no discernible nor logical reasons that it wouldn't. After all, that IS the ONLY STORY that is accpeted and taught by Christianity.
I would certainly expect so as it is part of THE STORY in every copy as yet unearthed
I would certainly expect so as every copy of John yet unearthed has consistently contained that claim. Pretty indicative of a likelihood of the original manuscript having contained the same claim.

it would be far more amazing to turn up one that didn't. Of course if one did it wouldn't BE that 'Gospel Which is According to St John' now would it?
No. You simply have an erroneous, silly, and vacuous claim that is without merit.
No one here has ever even attempted to argue otherwise.

The Christian believers have long believed, accepted, and taught it as an 'Article of Faith' that Jesus was begotten by means of The Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary, and that this is the Historical Jesus that lived, walked among men, and ascended into heaven. AS IS REPORTED IN THE GOSPELS.
Only apostates from those well known and long established teachings of the Christian Faith would posit or pretend that there was any other and unknown Jesus that was not 'begotten', born, lived, died, and arose from the dead, exactly as the Gospels reported.

And non-believers know and accept that that was and that that IS THE Jesus STORY.

END of STORY.

Nope. Also End of Story.




.

aa5874

Who are those "imaginary people"?? I am still waiting for you to find holes in my premise.


Again, what Originals are you talking about??? Why must there be Originals in the 1st century??

1. If Jesus did NOT EXIST in the 1st century then there would be NO originals about Jesus from the 1st century exactly as the evidence shows.

2. If the 2nd century Jesus stories are COPIES then we expect the Originals to ALSO claim Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and Asended.

We have a CATCH 22--THERE IS NO WAY OUT for the HJ argument--it is a logical conundrum.