Sparrow

aa5874 asked for extra-biblical sources, which would rule out almost all of your citations. The remaining three are problematic and mostly testify that there were Christians, not there was a Christ. If there were in fact Christians in Palestine in 50CE, the gospels could still be largely false. There does not appear to be any extra-biblical or non-biblically derived corroboration of any detail of Jesus alleged life.

jjramsey

This can only be true if the contents of the NT are equally consistent with both a mythical Jesus and a historical Jesus whose life had been embellished.

Sparrow

It's up to you what you choose what to take seriously. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why anyone would take the gospels seriously, but that's not your problem, it's mine. Besides, the myth position is broad enough that even if there were a human named Jesus in Palestine in thie first quarter of the first century, Christianity could still be based on a myth.

Who knows what happened? One anecdote doesn't convey proof. If I were to show you compelling evidence that Buddha was historical would you be inclined to convert to Buddhism?

We must all remember that professional historians retain an understanding that goes unsaid for brevity. It's along the lines of: 'Based on the information we have which is subject to change if new information is found, person X is likely to be historical'. For an X = {Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great, Robin Hood, Paul Bunyan, William Shakespeare, etc.} it's just understood that there is some uncertainty that need not be expressed in each and every sentence. Professional historians also pretty much exclude miracles from their range of historical possiblities. What does that tell you about the Jesus they will find if they ever do?

dongiovanni1976x

Historians do not limit themselves like this though. Why would we expect to see sources written about some insignificant crucified criminal?

aa5874

The NT claims Jesus is historic, if you can recall, the NT is claimed to be the the Word of God. Those claims have been challenged and the NT has been found to be fictional.

The miracles done by Jesus with regards to the expulsion of spirits, we now know to be false. There is no medical evidence whatsoever to show that being blind, deaf, dumb or dead is the result of spirits or ghosts. In some instances in the NT, persons were diagnosed, in advance, of suffering with the ghost of deafness and dumbness which Jesus confirmed and then proceeded to cast out the ghost.

Those acts could not have occurred, and no multitude of persons could have seen Jesus do those acts. There is no extra-biblical evidence where the medical fraternity have been able to cure deafness, or any other disease, by casting out ghosts. No person today have been diagnosed with ghosts that cause one to be blind, deaf, dumb or dead.

The Christian Bible is filled with similar fictional acts, Jesus is then fictional or mythical. God, the father, has also been regarded as a myth for similar reasons.

Some say Jesus is still historic, I need extra-biblical evidence to support that view. So far, only speculation.

Sparrow

Historians do look at the quality of the evidence though, and often suspect bias when the documents have only been in the hands of those with motives to alter the documents to suit their own purposes. We do not know what passages ar accurate and which are interpolations.

While I lean to the mythical side, if there were a real Jesus in early first century Palestine, I think the most that he could be is an 'insignificant crucified criminal'. Now that I know you agree I think we should alert the Pope.

jjramsey

This simply does not follow. In fact, it is a black-and-white fallacy. You have assumed that the only two alternatives are total fact or total fiction, which is absolutely ridiculous considering that real personages have had myths accrue about them. That the NT cannot be total fact is readily apparent. That the contents of the NT are better explained as being pure fiction rather than a mix of fiction and fact is something for which you have yet to offer evidence.

aa5874

The Pope already knows, and the 'Church' knew 2000 years ago. Do you think a religious leader will admit wilful fraud and deception, and destroy his religion? They will never admit to the Myth of Jesus.

aa5874

I am looking for extra-biblical evidence for a historical Jesus, can you put your evidence on the table, so that I can scrutinise it. Just criticising my view is futile. I need evidence, not speculation.

How can one say that because real persons have myths said about them, then Jesus is historic. That is irrational. If we are dealing with Jesus, let's deal with the evidence for the historic Jesus. We need to be specific.

dongiovanni1976x

I don't think I have anything to disagree with you about. All we can do is pretend Jesus was a myth and look at the sources and then do the same while pretending he was a real person and see which is more plausible. While doing this we keep in mind the biases of the sources we are using- Paul does not seem to be setting up a conspiracy about Jesus being a real person, he is so preoccupied with his tenative position since he was not as great as others he knew about that HAD met the guy...he seems to just take it nonchalantly when we look at references to Jesus' putative "brother James"...such references do not seem to be a lone conspiracy when backed up with Josephus and Q (Mark's source). This is what tips the balance over the HJ side for me.