EarlOfLade

First of all, thank you for taking the time to post such a detailed answer. It's obvious to me that you are far more versed and educated in the issue than I am and hence if i try to argue with you, I will only look stupid (and I try to avoid that if possible ), so I will only say this: Jesus may or may not have been a historical person. You have shown through a series of arguments, your side of the story. I don't have the necessary background to discuss it in a professional manner.

aa5874

This is unbelieveable, you verify Jesus Christ's history with an unathenticated figure, Saul/Paul who is not known outside of the Christian Bible. No contemporary historian knows Saul/Paul. Saul/Paul, even in the Bible, does not know Jesus.

The conversion of Saul/Paul appears to be fictional, so too are his miraculous acts. Saul/Paul's epistle of Galations contradicts his post conversion story in the book called Acts.

Jesus Christ and Saul/Paul appear to be fictional.

dongiovanni1976x

No problem. Thank you. I found your question interesting and very important to the historical method. I cannot possibly argue with your statement that, "Jesus may or may not have been an historical person". It is not something we can say for certain, though I hold that the evidence is in favor of a Historical Jesus. However, something I believe that you and I likely agree on is that I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that Jesus was ever buried in a tomb or that the putative 500 witnesses mentioned in Corinthians experienced anything different than those people at modern revival shows who have some kind of collective "feeling" / a "presence" or an appearance thought to be Jesus just like the praetorian who supposedly saw Augustus rise into the heavens.
Romans did not give criminals a proper burial. Notable exceptions were extremely rare (see: Philo, In Flaccum, 83; Josephus, Life, 420-421; Plutarch, Antonius, 2; Cicero, Orationes Phillippicae 2.7.17-18) Rabbinic Law forbids tomb burial to criminals as well (See: Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7; exception: Tomb of their Fathers/Jewish burial duty to not allow someone hung on a tree etc in Deuteronomy) There is no
corroborating evidence outside of the Gospels that there was even a figure named Joseph of Arimathea, let alone that this seemingly mythic figure provided Jesus with a tomb (As well as the intra Biblical evolution of Josephs credentials). For the Roman’s to give up the body of Jesus for burial would have been a tacit acknowledgement of innocence. Pilate was concerned about keeping order at a time of year (Passover) when Jews from all over the Mediterranean were pouring in to worship in Jerusalem; And the event that led to Jesus’ death was most likely when he smashed all the business’ set up around the Temple…such acts do not go unpunished by the Romans.

dongiovanni1976x

How can Paul contradict something he didn't write? (i.e. Acts)

What are the minimalist conditions necessary, in your opinion, for a person in antiquity to be considered "more likely historical" than not?

achristianbeliever

I've tried to ask this question more than once. I hope you get a better response.

aa5874

I never claimed Saul/Paul wrote Acts, I wrote that the post conversion stories in Galations and Acts contradict each other.

There are no minimalist conditions 'set in stone' for any person in antiquity to be 'more likely historical'. Each person in antiquity must be taken on their own merit.

Of all the names, for the last 2000 yrs, the name Jesus Christ stands foremost, Wars have been fought and hundreds of thousands have died, not only for unbelief but for differences in belief.

In order for me to regard Jesus as historical, I would primarily want corroborated extra-biblical evidence of Jesus Christ's life on earth, and of course so far there is none. I have not seen any extra-biblical documentation where Jesus Christ talks to a contemporary historian or one with a description of his stature.

It is written in the Bible that multitudes followed Jesus Christ and he was known throughout the region, yet not a single contemporary historian was recorded to be in his audience. No historian has written that they actually saw Jesus Christ pray, preach or play.

The Christian Bible depicts Jesus Christ as full of wisdom by the age of twelve, he, according to the bible, was able to converse with doctors, however no historian, that I know of, has noted his brilliance. Jesus Christ as a religious leader, who is claimed to have at least 12 disciples, never wrote a single word as a record of his doctrine, this was left for Saul/Paul, another unknown controversial figure.

The non-propagation of his own doctrine in writing is very significant, because as we can see, the NT would be incomplete without the epistles, and Jesus Christ, incredibly, did not have a written word to console his multitudes of followers.

After having studied the Bible and extra-biblical information, I see nothing about Jesus Christ that is in the realm of reality. It is my opinion that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of similar beliefs systems prevalent at that time and with the help of Eusebius, Constantine and the Romans ,was able to survive to this day.

Chris Weimer

Can anyone hear double standard being whispered in aa's post?

achristianbeliever

in other words: I don't have one and don't want to use one otherwise I might risk showing a biased attitude towards Jesus.

In other words: I don't like Jesus and how some people have regarded him so I'm gonna do whatever is necessary to make him not historical in order to make myself feel better about these wackos who serve him.

In other words: In order to prove Jesus doesn't exist I'm gonna find whatever writings he doesn't have whatever they may be and use them to show his unhistoricity.

In other words: Jesus doesn't have this or that sure many other important figures in ancient history don't have those either but who cares this is Jesus and if he is God's son he has a responsibility to give me more proof.

In other words: Let me seeee.....oh Jesus didn't write anything down I'm gonna make that a requirement in showing whether or not a person is historical. Sure many other historical figures are the same but I'll ignore that fact and if anyone brings it up I'll ignore them as well.

In other words: I'm gonna stress the point that JESUS DIDN'T WRITE ANYTHING!!!! If I say it enough times people will listen to me and just ignore the faulty nature of such a criteria.

In other words: I've read Davinci Code and am taking it a step further to show that the Christian church created the greatest conspiracy in concocting this fake man. Sure any theory I come up with actually seems more probable with the idea that the stories of the Christian founder was based on a real person, I can't come with any evidence that this is what happened, I use a biased standard for Jesus that I don't use for anyone else, and any evidence that does show the opposite to my claim I just spout "not good enough or interpolation" but hey its Jesus he should have more evidence.

aa5874

The Mormonism is an example of how a religion can be started without any of the main spiritual characters existing as real human beings while the doctrine is being written.

Mormonism used the existing belief systems and modified or rejected existing texts to create a believable religion or doctrine. The followers of Mormonism were also persecuted and they had to flee from one state to the other, not unlike Christianity 2000 yrs ago.

And, unlike Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith had written the Mormon Bible before he died so that his followers could have a record of the doctrine of Mormonism, which was major step in keeping Mormonism alive, now today there are millions of followers of Mormonism..

Any real human religious leader would have written some doctrine, some manuscript for his followers, especially when it is claimed that Jesus Christ lived until he was about 33 years age. Jesus Christ has the footprints of fiction.

Chris Weimer

So you're saying that Joseph Smith never existed?