delusional

[QUOTE=Transient;5796127]No, I said the methodology of ancient history. For more recent history there is more primary evidence around. Common sense come into it of course. It may not be common sense to believe that aliens had landed, but:

a.) Since it refers to current events, it can be checked out.

b.) Since books have been written about somebody called Winston Churchill, and films have been made about him, and there are photographs of somebody who is supposedly Winston Churchill, a good prima facie explanation of those facts is that there once was somebody called Winston Churchill. Of course you could come up with more way out explanations, but there is no obvious reason for doing so, unless you have a preconceived agenda.

What is more, unlike their twenty first century counterparts, there is no record of first or second century opponents of Christianity making the claim that Jesus was a myth; presumably because they knew otherwise, and so did everybody else. (Even though there is no shortage of other reasons, that is the number one reason why the idea is not even entertained by professional historians.)

Transient

[QUOTE=delusional;5796198]More likely that the unholy roman catholic church burned any opposition books and expelled the rebels.
You and the rest of christendom put way to much faith in your RCC brothers.
As to the rest, well I don't accept any stories about aliens, ghosts etc unless I am able to personally verify it - which is almost never possible.
So until I experience something then if it is supernatural then I ignore it.
I suggest you do the same.

Toto

There is no record of Jesus in the first century, much less of any opposition to Christianity.

There are records in the second century of Christians disputing the nature of Jesus, and there are some records of opposition to Christianity. Neither the proponents nor the opponents made an issue of whether Jesus existed; but it is a stretch to assume that this is because everyone knew he existed - how would they have known? Jerusalem had been destroyed.

I am going to ask you to start documenting your claims. Which professional historians have you read on this issue? Can you quote even one who thinks that this is the number one reason for not entertaining the idea that Jesus was a myth?

Otherwise, I think you are repeating ideas that you don't know much about, or possibly making things up that sound reasonable to you.

aa5874

So, tell me then on what basis was Homer's Achilles believed to be a mythical figure?

In "The Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius, it is written that Vespasian truly made a blind man see by spitting in his eyes. Do you accept such a thing as true or acceptable?

Anything about Jesus of the NT can be absolutely rejected until credible historical evidence is found.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

Suetonius is an interesting case study as an historian.
Here are my notes on Suetonius on ... JC.

Julius Caesar (ruled 49 - 44 BCE)

claimed descendancy from the divinity of Venus. (See coins).
the coins of the emperors were a form of propaganda.
He built the "Temple of Venus" in Rome.
He decimated the Gallic Celts; a million deaths and a million slaves. (25)
The Gallic resistance fighter Vercingetorix brought to Rome and killed
Does a coin of Caesar's show on the obverse Vercingetorix?
That he drank very little wine was a fact "not even denied by his enemies" (53)
introduced the Julian Calendar - 365.25 days in Rome.
"The die is cast" - He was an enemy of the state; and a dictator. (32)
Note than Ammianus Marcellinus also describes him as a dictator.
he "bought a pearl costing six million sesterces" for Servilia. (50)
he covered great distances with incredible speed, often arriving before his messengers (57)
Used the term "comrades" in the assembly with his soldiers.
He bribed his way to secure in Rome the role of "Pontifex Maximus". (59)
he rejected "kingship". (79)
He was publically lamented at his death (87)
"above all the Jews, who even flocked to the place for several successive nights". (87)

Redaction is the process of knitting a literary patchwork quilt of a story by combining the elements of many disparate source material narratives. How much of a redaction is the new testament? Is the New Testament a new testament of Zeus - For in him we live and move and have our being.?

Best wishes,


Pete

delusional

On the basis that he was never supposed to be a historical figure. He was a character in a play (and poem).


You are confusing two different questions - whether Jesus existed, and whether he performed historical acts. Whereas the one is almost universally accepted amongst professional historians, the other is not. (The latter depending upon their religious beliefs.)


Like I said, mythicists will try and explain away any evidence which doesn't suit them. They sound exactly like religious fundamentalists explaing away the evidence for evolution. (The primary reason for accepting evolution, amongst non specialists, is that almost all professional biologists accept it. The primary reason for accepting the historicity of Jesus, amongst non specialists, is that almost all professional historians accept it.)

And don't come back with that thing about the "argument from authority." If I was going to build a nuclear power station, I would rather accept the authority of a nuclear engineer, than accept your ideas of how to go about it.

Toto

delusional has yet to provide the names of the professional historians he relies on.

And now he seems to know as much about biology as history. The reasons for accepting evolution can be explained to anyone with a basic education. Biologists do not ask you to rely on their expertise, they provide the facts.

Mr. delusional: this repetition of stale canards about mythicists is not acceptable discussion here. Pleae provide your sources and make an argument that does not depend on insults.

delusional

If you want some names:

Geza Vermes
Paula Fredrickson
Edwin M. Yamuchi

The last is a Christian, so I don't suppose that would surprise you, but the other two are Jewish, with no sympathy for Christianity.


Historians could give reasons why they think Jesus was a historical figure, but it still requires you to have some respect for the fact that they are professionally qualified if you are going to attach more weight to their opinions than to those of the man nextdoor.

rahrens

Not quite. We respect their professional opinions when they use generally accepted professional methodology to examine the issues and evidence at hand. It is their experience that enables them to have a wider view of other possible evidence that may impact upon new evidence.

I am sure that Toto could point to any number of professional historians whose opinions are NOT widely respected due to problems with methodology or professionalism.

Such respect is not automatic, it is earned by years of hard work.

delusional

Yes, well pointing to the questionable Methods of Michael Behe wouldn't entitle you to cast asspertions upon the generality of biologists. It is peer review which settles the matter.