Cheerful Charlie

All such claims should be judged false and lies until proven otherwise with hard evidence. Anything else is being gullible.

CC

aa5874

Well, let me give you the NT's description of Jesus and you can decide whether he is myth or man.

Jesus pre-existed before he was born- John 1:14
Jesus was conceived through a Ghost- Luke 1:35
A Ghost entered his body after baptism-Mark 1:10
Jesus was put on the roof top of the Jewish Temple by the Devil and asked to jump- Matthew 4:5-6
Jesus transferred devils to 2000 pigs-Matthew 8:29-33
Jesus changed his appearance, and two long-dead persons appeared before him-Matthew 17:3
The dead can hear the voice of Jesus-John 11:43-44.
Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Jesus walked through the walls or roof a building with the doors closed- John 20:19
Jesus went from earth to heaven, he vanished-Luke 24:51

Now these are all clearly mythical events, I assess Jesus to be a mythical figure and reject all claims associated with him.

BALDUCCI

Firstly, it is quite possible to have myths about people who have actually lived. That doesnt make the people mythical. There are many myths about Chez Guevarra, for example, as well as myths about Ronald Reagan (that he was a great communicator)

Secondly, some of these are descriptions of the experience of observers, not scientific descriptions of actual events. While an observer may have experienced an illusion, the fact that they have that experience and recount it, with their interpretation, can be an historical fact. That isnt a case for arguing that the existence of Jesus is a myth.

Thirdly, if it is possible to find explanations for at least some of these, that would again leave open the question as to whether Jesus existed, and may confirm that he did. BUt he may have been a very different person to that portrayed in the Gospels, and that is my own position.

mountainman

"Trances and visions and hallucinations
were a feature of the age.
Perhaps Constantine had seen a rare
cross-like natural phenomenom,
produced by the sun.

At any rate,
whatever the explanation,

Constantine was able
to convince himself that
he had been granted
a supernatural experience."

p.354.
The Ancient Historians (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Michael Grant

aa5874

Che Guevara, the Latin-American guerilla, is documented to have been born June 14, 1928 and died Oct. 9, 1967. There are eyewitness accounts of Che Guevara. Anecdotes or stories whether true or not do not affect the fact that Che Guevara was alive.

Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the USA, is also documented to have been born and died. And there are eyewitness accounts of Ronald Regan. Stories about Reagan do not affect the fact that he was recorded to have lived.

By contrast, there are no credible extra-biblical records of the birth and death of Jesus. There are no credible extra-biblical eyewitness account of him. There are only anecdotes, which are internally inconsistent, and these are myths, fiction or incredible.

So, if I dream that you are dead, then that would be an historical fact.

You mean that Jesus was a case of mistaken identity or identity theft. That is, the wrong person was called Jesus in the Gospels, he had another name , his mother was not Mary and he was not on the roof of the Temple with the Devil.

Johnny Skeptic

Which historian(s) made the claim? How many alleged eyewitnesses were there? How do you propose that we separate actual eyewitnesses from alleged eyewitnesses?

andrewcriddle

This is found in Suetonius and IIUC Tacitus.
Apparently the miracles were performed in public before many eyewitnesses.
IMHO the real problem is not whether the eyewitnesses were really eyewitnesses but whether or not this miracle was deliberately 'staged' to aid Vespasian.

My initial point was that we find strange claims not only in overtly religious works like the Gospels but also in secular histories of the ancient world.

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

We use the principle of analogy, which states that, lacking evidence to the contrary, things proceeded in the past much as they do in the present. Given that we know that modern claims of supernatural events always turn out to be either misrepresentations or con-jobs a la Uri Geller, we assume the same for supernatural claims from the past. On the other hand, crossing a river is an activity we still see done today, so we don't immediately dismiss it. Robert Price, in The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), discusses this and other principles in some detail in Chapter 1.

Gerard Stafleu

Johnny Skeptic

Well, for me, the most important issues in the entire Bible are the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of people who interviewed eyewitnesses. Are you saying that you can make a credible case for Christianity without using the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of people who interviewed eyewitnesses?

How do you propose that people evaluate whether or not Jesus, or anyone else, performed miracles? Do you believe that Jesus performed miracles?

Diogenes the Cynic

From Tacitus:

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.
(History 4:81)

From Suetonius:

Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success.
(Life of Vespasian 7.2)

From Cassius Dio:

Following Vespasian's entry into Alexandria the Nile overflowed, having in one day risen a palm higher than usual; such an occurrence, it was said, had taken place only once before. Vespasian himself healed two persons, one having a withered hand, the other being blind, who had come to him because of a vision seen in dreams; he cured the one by stepping on his hand and the other by spitting upon his eyes. Yet, though Heaven was thus magnifying him, the Alexandrians, far from delighting in his presence, detested him so heartily that they were forever mocking and reviling him. For they had expected to receive from him some great reward because they had been the first to make him emperor, but instead of securing anything they had additional contributions levied upon them.
(Roman History 65:8)

Truth be told, these are much better attested healing miracles than anything in the New Testament but the prevailing scholarly view (even in ancient times) was that the healings were staged (just like "miraculous" healings have always been staged and still are to this day).

As to your OP, I think there is a difference between unverified, but theoretically plausible (or even probable) historical claims and claims which are prima facie IMPOSSIBLE.

It is not theoretically possible that either Jesus or Vespasian performed any miracles. It IS theoretically possible that Julias Caesar crossed a boundary stream. While the latter may not be provable in an absolute sense. it at least has the advantage of not being impossible.

Impossible claims are self-negating. Merely possible but unverified claims are not.