aa5874

Can you tell me the number of historians who agree that Jesus is historic, and the the number of historians who disagree. I would like to get a breakdown of the statistics. Thanks in advance.

And by the way, when last was your list updated?

Solo

It's just a guess But really, if you follow the threads here you can see that those who support the myth origin are either buffs (like myself) or academic marginals.

The one truly scholarly type (G.A.Wells) in the group, has recently defected and now declared himself for historic existence. His argument relied on the "silence of Paul" and a reading of certain passages in Paul (and some of the pastorals) as exclusive of the "historic" gospel Jesus. He could not support the argument, especially when the evidence of the Jewish "heretical" Christians (the Nazoreans/Ebionites) shows a belief in a Jesus who was fully a human figure.

I hope you understand that feeling reasonably assured that a historical figure of Jesus existed and that some of the gospel material relates to a human, is not a belief that the miraculous events of the gospels are history or confessing there was a God walking on the earth.

Jiri

aa5874

I guessed you did. I guess you may have to retract some of your previous statements.

You appear not to have read the Bible, Jesus 'miraculous acts' were seen by eyewitnesses, real people. Numerous real people, according to the NT, were miraculously healed. The disciples of Jesus were witness of his miraculous acts, real people were raised from the dead, and real people saw Jesus do those acts. It is written in the NT that Jesus said to his disciples, 'Greater works than this shall you do'.

If you now claim that these miracles were fictious, the eyewitnesses were fabricated, his disciples never saw Jesus do any 'works' and Jesus never admonish his disciples to do 'greater works', then the entire Gospels is fiction, including Jesus and His Father. The Christian Bible is then untrustworthy, nothing writing in that Book has any credibilty.

jjramsey

Here you go with the black-and-white fallacy again: if some of X is fiction, then all of X is fiction.

aa5874

I am not talking about 'X'. Who is 'X'. What 'X'. Deal with the issue.

Jesus is claimed to be the Son of a Ghost, did that really happen?
Jesus is claimed to perform miracles, did they really happen?
Jesus is claimed to have died and raised, did that really happen?
Jesus is claimed to ascend into heaven, did that really happen?

I say no, the events above did not happen, Jesus is fiction.

I will deal with 'X' another time.

jjramsey

I am dealing with the issue, which is that your approach is utterly fallacious. If the statement, "If some of X is fiction, then all of X is fiction," is not true for any value of X, then it is still not true even if you plug in "the Bible" or "the Gospels."

Alexander the Great was claimed to be the son of a God. Did that really happen?
Charles Manson was claimed to have levitated a bus. Did that really happen?

I say no, the events above did not happen, Alexander the Great and Charles Manson are fiction.

aa5874

Can you start a new thread for 'X'.
I have repeatedly ask for evidence for the historicity of Jesus, so far only speculation. All evidence point to a fictitious Jesus. His birth, life, resurrection and ascension are miraculous. Miracles are not known to occur, miracles are improbable, some say impossible. Jesus the Christ is fiction, only blind belief can bring Jesus the Christ to life.

jjramsey

Why should I? The whole point is to show that your approach is fatally flawed, because it cannot distinguish between an X that was totally legendary and a real X with legends added on.

Solo

I appear not to have read the Bible to people who deny the existence of religious metaphors, i.e. biblical literalists and their atheist mental equals.

So, you are saying that because it is written, it must be either believed literally or it must be absolutely rejected as rubbish. Right ? There is no other possibility. Do I understand you correctly ?

Where does the NT word use the phrase "real people" ? Where does it use the word "eyewitnesses" ? Do you understand that Jesus "works" had something to do with with the "(Holy) Spirit" ? How do you read that ? What does it mean to you ? The effect of the "Spirit" is often likened to the effect of wine or alcohol in the texts. Do you know why ? You haven't got a clue, do you ? :wave:

Jiri

Doug Shaver

X is a book, and you are talking about it. You are implying that if part of a book is fiction, then it must all be fiction. Such reasoning is nonsensical.