ercatli

I'm sorry Stephen, but I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't know that "Biblical scholars never address what Paul actually says" (that seems like a very strange thing to say) and I don't know what the elephant in the room is (I mean, I understand the expression, just not how you're applying it).

Have you got anything to say to me about my original question: why should I change my belief (in your opinion, if you think I should)?

Steven Carr

I have no idea what belief you have. Do you believe, like Paul,that Jesus was somebody Jews had never heard of, apart from Christians preaching about him?

If not, your quarrel is with Paul, not with me.

ercatli

No and no. I've never ever thought that nor seen any reason to believe that. Do you believe it, and if so, what are your reasons?

spin

I've used "hysterical Jesusist" before, but I was restraining myself here.

All you did was cite opinions here, cover your ass here and here, talk of the books you've read here, list names here, explain that you gave a consensus opinion here, talk about scholars here and here, but present evidence about the past? Nothing. You are confused if you truly think that you argued a historical case in that thread.

You seem to number umpteen and one who has no presentable reason for holding the belief that there was a historical Jesus. Try as one can to get them to up their efforts, none of the umpteen and one ever, ever puts any evidence on the table.

Here, this is for your peers to come:



It is just so repetitive.


spin

Steven Carr

Well, I can only go by what Paul says was the reason Jews were unbelievers/.

Romans 10

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news

Paul makes a good point. How could the Jews believe in the good news? Unless Christians had been sent to preach about Jesus, they would have had nobody preaching to them.

spin

I didn't need an answer, but I needed to you confront each one. Most of them require you to get over your willing acceptance of partisan analysis.

I guess you missed the logic of the questions I posed you.

If it's important, face a big learning curve.

Nothing that I didn't already know.

Observing you.

You've got the books. Consult the great men, show the evidence and prove me wrong.

Working with the resources that everyone has available to them, there is no evidence to show that Jesus was a historical figure. The basis for this is knowing the nature of the resources available.

Sadly, you are really asking me to do your job for you. You are the one who has faith that Jesus was historical and you don't know how to demonstrate it, so you ask for others to do the negative of what you yourself need to do, so that you avoid doing it while having something to shoot at. This is the usual tack of the historical Jesusist.


spin

spin

Here's the bookend partner of my previous smilie:




spin

show_no_mercy

Bible scholars do not have more or less evidence than you. All of the things they've read in relation to this amorphous mess of early Christianity is open to you. You can read the documents yourself. The only challenge is that you have to rely on their translations of the documents since none of them were originally written in English.

That's the only roadblock, and it's still not much of a roadblock.

The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is the belief that he existed. And these beliefs were expressed in highly theological, sectarian writings. Do you not realize that the entire reason for the existence of the gospel of Matthew is to be a polemic against Mark? Just check out Matthew's reaction to Mark's treatment of Peter.

John is a polemic against those Christians who thought that Jesus was just a spirit being without flesh and blood. This means there were enough Christians who thought this that it deserved its own independent gospel. Who knows what Jesus would have said and done if John's version of Jesus hadn't won out.

Really. This primary evidence for Jesus is theology and polemic. These Christians are using Jesus as their mouthpiece to express what they believed about Jesus. How can you trust these type of writings to contain anything authentic about the man? Jesus is a sockpuppet. How do you determine whether Jesus actually said "I and the father are one"? Did Jesus say that? Or did some gentile Christian who hated Jews make Jesus say that?

Someone else said that history is just human activity in the past. Since we have no writings from Jesus himself, there's really no concrete methodology to dissuade someone from thinking that the Jesus of the gospel narratives is just sockpuppet all the way down. People would do this today to promote their own agendas -- just watch any of the ads when an election is coming up. The only difference between modern politicians slandering and quote-mining each other and Jesus is that the misquoted politician can actually defend themselves. Jesus can't defend himself because he's just a character in highly theological writings. The authors could make him say and do anything they wanted to promote their agenda.

Hell, even the Muslims did as much.

Sure, there could have been a person named Jesus who began the cult. But what can we possibly know about him? What methodology can we use to separate the authentic Jesus from the sockpuppet Jesus? I don't think there is any.

aa5874

If experts dis-agree on a matter you must look at the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusion. Jurors do that all the time.

You have no obligation to accept the view of experts when they are in dis-agreement.

And if you rely on experts, why do you not accept the view of the experts that Jesus was not historical?

DNAReplicator

I would want to challenge any belief you have in anything for which you have insufficient evidence. And I think you have insufficient evidence to claim you have definite knowledge that Jesus was historical. You have an opinion, based on your assessment of other peoples opinions, which are also subject to the same lack of evidence

As long as you are intellectually honest about what can be known, I have no particular desire to de-convert you from being a Christian. However it is unusual for Christians to admit to being unsure about Jesus.

Yes, but they are peer reviewed opinions based on scant evidence. They may be 'sensible' opinions which many others share, but because the evidence is scant there will be a reasonable chance that they are completely wrong.

I would personally go along with the consensus view that there was a HJ, on grounds of parsimony. However, 'parsimony' is useless, as it really is just another way of saying that the challenge to my assumptions and prejudices are a minimum.

The key work here is 'probable', which implies that the conclusion may be wrong.

I don't know about your particular brand of faith, bust most Christians 'believe' that Jesus existed, rather than think that this is where the balance of probabilities takes you. I'm sure you could present a good argument that he probabaly existed, but you can only really make this argument stick if you also then recognise that the same argument leaves you with the real possibility that he did not, and that there is currently no way to be certain.

You can conclude anything you like based on an absence of evidence. Just don't expect much of a sympathetic hearing if you claim definite knowledge based on that evidence. And expect a tirade of abuse from rationalists if you attempt to convince others to believe as you do without evidence.

My personal hobby horse is to try and get believers to apply a more critical eye to their faith, not for them to de-convert. So if you are sure that there was a HJ, I will challenge your conviction. If you accept that you can’t really be sure and are prepared to honestly ask difficult questions of your faith, then you are welcome to it.

(However, the real reason you should change your belief is that the evidence for Jesus is solid and convincing when compared to the evidence for God.)