The Historicity of Jesus Christ

[Kafka]

Edward Gibbon, Barbara Tuchman, David McCullough

Oh jeeeeez. Someone gave Cypress another reason to list off authors.

Hey e'erbody! CYPRESS IS REALLY SMART. Just tel him that. He'll stop whining.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Do you wash your hands after picking your ass, Perry?

 

[IBDaMann]

You should contact libraries, bookstores, universities and holler at them that Edward Gibbon, Barbara Tuchman, David McCullough are worthless historians because they write about events they did not witness.

It looks like someone is having a bad day struggling with basic reading.

Historians don't need to limit their writing to events they personally witness. They limit their consideration to first-hand accounts. Am I the first person to teach you this?

Hearsay is never accepted by respectable historians. Of course anything, including the Bible, is fair game as a lead in the search for relevant first-hand accounts.

The evangelists Paul and Mark are offering reports of first hand accounts from the apostles themselves.

Whereas you have religious reasons for believing that the gospels were written by the individuals so attributed, historians do not. Historians have other reasons for presuming that the gospels were written by literate others after the deaths of the gospels' indicated ministers, to document those ministries after the fact. Historians presume that the gospel of Matthew, for example, was written after the death of Matthew by literate individuals in order to recount Matthew's ministry ... and much of that was hearsay, and all of it was twice removed from any first-hand accounts of Jesus.

Again, if one has religious reasons for believing that the gospels were written by the individual whose name it bears, as indicated by you and by the OP, that is fine, he should keep on believing. It's not history, but it's an important part of the faith. Enjoy.

 

[Cypress]

Historians don't need to limit their writing to events they personally witness.

Thanks for back-pedaling, backtracking, and belatedly adopting my position - that historical data can be mined from ancient, medieval, and early-modern literature and sources, without having to be a firsthand witness.

 

[Cypress]

Do you have a degree in shitposting too, Perry?

Master's degree in shitposting, PhD in frantic Googling.

 

[Litmus]

It looks like someone is having a bad day struggling with basic reading.

Historians don't need to limit their writing to events they personally witness. They limit their consideration to first-hand accounts. Am I the first person to teach you this?

Hearsay is never accepted by respectable historians. Of course anything, including the Bible, is fair game as a lead in the search for relevant first-hand accounts.


Whereas you have religious reasons for believing that the gospels were written by the individuals so attributed, historians do not. Historians have other reasons for presuming that the gospels were written by literate others after the deaths of the gospels' indicated ministers, to document those ministries after the fact. Historians presume that the gospel of Matthew, for example, was written after the death of Matthew by literate individuals in order to recount Matthew's ministry ... and much of that was hearsay, and all of it was twice removed from any first-hand accounts of Jesus.

Again, if one has religious reasons for believing that the gospels were written by the individual whose name it bears, as indicated by you and by the OP, that is fine, he should keep on believing. It's not history, but it's an important part of the faith. Enjoy.

when a first hand account goes through a historian its forever hearsay after that.

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for back-pedaling, backtracking, and belatedly adopting my position

Too funny! If you need to claim that I am somehow the one backpedaling when you concede my point and adopt my position, have at it.

- that historical data can be mined from ancient, medieval, and early-modern literature

No first-hand accounts can be "mined" from hearsay or literature.

 

[IBDaMann]

when a first hand account goes through a historian its forever hearsay after that.

Nope. First-hand accounts that "go through" an historian become footnotes.

 

[Litmus]

Nope. First-hand accounts that "go through" an historian become footnotes.

If it's not eyewitness testimony it's hearsay.

 

[Cypress]

Oh jeeeeez. I had to Google to find out who Edward Gibbon, Barbara Tuchman, and David McCullough are.

A surprising admission from a poster who claims to have a PhD.

Gibbon, Tuchman, McCullough are not exotic names, they are basically the Newton, Darwin, and Hawking of historians, and are well known universally to educated and reasonably well-read people.

 

[Hume]

A surprising admission from a poster who claims to have a PhD.

Gibbon, Tuchman, McCullough are not exotic names, they are basically the Newton, Darwin, and Hawking of historians, and are well known universally to educated and reasonably well-read people.

Obenebrator is probably Into The Night and his many fake names.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny! I am the one backpedaling

Yes, you are.
Historical data can be mined from the New Testament, the Roman and Jewish Sources, and the non-canonical writings of other Christians and Gnostics. That is my position now, that always has been my position, and it always will be my position.

Analytical history requires rational analysis and weighing the balance of probability.

Does it seem likely that a few peasants from Galilee got drunk on wine one night, and decided to fabricate a completely fake story about Jewish rabbi who was executed by the Romans - and somehow within just a couple of decades, thousands of people around the Mediterranean were writing and talking about him?

^^^ That's your position, you wrote the Gospels are completely urban myth.

Or is it more likely that all the Christian, Gnostic, Roman, and Jewish sources point to the probability that there really was a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who was executed by the Romans as a criminal?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Master's degree in shitposting, PhD in frantic Googling.

LOL Good point! That must be where Perry is now, frantically Googling something "intelligent" to post.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Obenebrator is probably Into The Night and his many fake names.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Perry and his incarnations have some slightly different personality traits than ITN and his socks.

 

[Cypress]

Obenebrator is probably Into The Night and his many fake names.

Possibly, but Perry's trolling seems distinctly different from the duo of IBDumbass and ITN

 

[IBDaMann]

If it's not eyewitness testimony it's hearsay.

Correct. First-hand accounts will always be first-hand accounts, and historians include first-hand accounts as footnotes to support what they are saying. This enables historians to bring multiple first-hand accounts together to produce a bigger picture.

 

[Hume]

Possibly, but Perry's trolling seems distinctly different from the duo of IBDumbass and ITN

Perhaps. But Obtenebrator never discusses anything and always promises to have something important to say. He never does. Just hate filled personal attacks.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Possibly, but Perry's trolling seems distinctly different from the duo of IBDumbass and ITN

Perhaps. But Obtenebrator never discusses anything and always promises to have something important to say. He never does. Just hate filled personal attacks.

Agreed about Perry. Notice how he loves to stalk Cypress. Sybil attacks everyone who disagrees with his delusional view of the world. IMO, like CO/goat, Sybil has an education, but is clearly irrational.

A few years ago there was a Polish New Yorker here who went by many names, including Witold Pilecki, before he was banned for rule 14 violations. He was clearly retarded and lived at home with his parents even though he was over 30. He tried to behave as if he was an intellectual, but like Perry, was incapable. IMO, Perry and Witold have a lot of the same mental attributes even though I believe them to be different people.

I agree with Cypress that Perry and Sybil are different people due to behavioral differences.

 

[IBDaMann]

Historical data can be mined from the New Testament, the Roman and Jewish Sources, and the non-canonical writings of other Christians and Gnostics. That is my position now, that always has been my position, and it always will be my position.

Your values have not changed over the passage of time. I get it, Kamala.

Your position is erroneous. No historical data can be mined from the New Testament, but religious doctrinal information can. You are simply conflating the two concepts.

Analytical history requires rational analysis and weighing the balance of probability.

Nope. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are showing once again that you are too stupid to learn.

Does it seem likely that ...

History is not determined by what anyone considers to be the most likely events to have occurred. Nobody owns the unobserved past and nobody is responsible for fabricating "the official timeline."

You really must be new at this.

^^^ That's your position, you wrote the Gospels are completely urban myth.

I never held that position. I hold that historians have no choice but to treat the Biblical character of Jesus as an urban legend because of the complete absence of any first-hand accounts. Otherwise, historians would have to be treating urban legends as actual history. Historians are required to limit their consideration to first-hand accounts; all else can at most be used as leads in the pursuit of more direct and relevant first-hand accounts.

FYI - I consider the Bible to be a compilation of conventional wisdom that provides keen insights into many different things. I enjoy discussing it as a text for what it reads and what it means (in English). For religious significance, I typically cite gfm7175 as my authoritative reference for the "Christian position" and I cite Into the Night as my authoritative source on how Christians are to interpret any specific passages in the Bible.

Note: Into the Night officially disagrees with me, but my reading of the Bible tells me that the cubit is God's official unit of measure, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Perhaps. But Obtenebrator never discusses anything and always promises to have something important to say. He never does. Just hate filled personal attacks.

I find it interesting that you would say this. I can't recall you ever having anything important to contribute beyond personal attacks. Did I just miss your items of import?