ApostateAbe

The historical Jesus position can be falsified by one of the many sets of spurious parallels to Jesus being shown accurate (like Kersey Grave's 16 crucified saviors or something). But falsifiability is not all there is to a sound theory. There is also confirmability. The historical Jesus position is certainly confirmable, and I think it has been confirmed to a sufficient extent.

andrewcriddle

I posted on this in an earlier thread.

Although the origins of Rastafarianianism in the West Indies occurrred when Selassie was a far-away figure, the later visit of Selassie to Jamaica in 1966 and visits to Ethiopia by leading Rastafarians are important factors in the subsequent growth of the movement.

Andrew Criddle

fatpie42

Don't the gnostic myths count as spurious parallels? I'm not sure what you mean...

By what?

I'm going to have to side with aa5874 on this one. You haven't, as yet, provided any reliable confirmation of a historical origin for Jesus.

ApostateAbe

The spurious parallels I am talking about are the modern nonsense of so many mythical characters in history being just like Jesus. If those were shown to be accurate, then the historical Jesus would be falsified. Look up Kersey Graves to see what I mean.
The evidence, in my mind, is the failed prophecy of Jesus and the ad hoc justifications, the associations of Paul with Peter and James the brother of Jesus (attested against interest and in passing), the crucifixion of Jesus and the ad hoc adaptations, the set of accuracies of the historical environment given in the gospels, and the similarities of early Christianity with so many other known cults that became religions. I would be happy to provide further details. Each of these topics are huge.

Kapyong

Gday,

So, when will this board be renamed 'aa5874's preaching forum'?

Honestly, almost every thread on Jesus for years now has been polluted with the SAME preaching by this fool.

Hardly worth coming here anymore.


K.

Transient

Man you guys could argue about this for the next 100 years each day and never prove anything at all.
I bet no-one could prove that King Arthur did not exist let alone "Jesus".
It is impossible to prove much at all from history - it's all about perceptions and percentage chances in each person's mind.

Transient

Don't use the word fool mate - that is not a nice insult and what goes around often comes around.
When people resort to abusive language they go down in my estimation.

aa5874

This is not true at all.

The historicity of Jesus has only been assumed not confirmed.

There is no credible historical evidence for Jesus of the NT.

You have not presented a single piece of historical evidence for Jesus, only an assumption that an assumed failed prophecy written in the NT can be assumed to be spoken by Jesus.

You are just repeating erroneous information.

How can anything about Jesus be assumed to be true when the very NT made claims about Jesus that can be proven or shown to be completely false?

aa5874

This is what I expect from people who have nothing to contribute.

fatpie42

I think I understand what you mean, but I disagree.

Let's look at the existence of God arguments often pursued here. One common argument is the problem of evil. I would argue that the problem of evil does not falsify a good God, but it makes one less likely.

Similarly similar trends in other mythical figures does not falsify the historical Jesus, but simply makes him less likely. There is every possibility that Jesus' historical activities have parallels with preceding myths and that could even be a reason why it felt so natural for writers to slip mythical ideas into the narrative when describing that historical figure.

There, see? I've not only shown that such an argument would fail to falsify a historical Jesus, but I've even shown that a dodgy argument in favour of a historical Jesus could be formulated out of it! :banghead:

Okay let's just clarify the issue quickly:
- We've already looked at the failed prophecy so I'll leave that one for now.
- The association of Paul with Peter. I find myself wondering whether, aside from the title of 'apostle', what link does Paul actually claim there to be between Peter who he associates with and the figure of Jesus. It seems rather odd that the origin of Peter's name, his 'keys to the kingdom of heaven' and his denials of Christ after the crucifixion are never considered relevant by Paul in his writings (I could imagine Paul having quite a lot of scope to include them). Might this not be another reason to suppose that the narrative of the gospels was a later construction (certainly it seems pretty uncontroversial to claim that the sections on Jesus' birth are later constructions, so why not other parts too)?
- The association of Paul with James the brother of Jesus. What's your take on the idea that "brother of the Lord" was a title, not a reference to family connections?
- the crucifixion of Jesus and the ad hoc adaptations I'm not sure what you mean here. What ad hoc adaptations? Also, what is your view of the idea that Jesus was actually stoned to death, as described in the Talmud? (I just had this thrown at me in another thread.)
- The set of accuracies of the historical environment given in the gospels. We both know that there are a hell of a lot of historical inaccuracies in the gospels (which is remarkable when they are describing a setting from only 30-60 years previous - including the birth narratives). What historical accuracies are you referring to?
- The similarities of early Christianity with so many other known cults that became religions. Didn't you just say that such similarities could potentially falsify the historical Jesus? Why are you now putting them forward as evidence in favour of it? *confused*

Ok, I don't expect you to go into too much detail at this stage. Just frame the debate for me so we can see where we are on the same page and where I am missing the point.