I know. You really are not very bright.
The Historicity of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
For a Christian, sure. From the perspective of a disciplined professional historian, they don't count.
A Christian's faith alone is sufficient for him to be convinced him that Jesus was a real historical figure and that the accounts attributed to him are completely credible.
An historian, on the other hand, will point to the doubt that the gospels were actually written by the person indicated, and that they might actually have been written by others who claimedwitness to those teachings, e.g. John's gospel being written by some literate individuals who claimed to have witnessed John's ministry about Jesus, meaning that Jesus might have never actually existed and was a character fabricated by John, or that even John and his entire ministry was a fabrication by some literate individuals.
An historian needs first-hand accounts, and he applies a certain level of dubiousness to any and all hearsay. Hence the complete absence of first-hand accounts of Romans writing about Jesus casts heavy doubt on an historian who is not motivated by Christian faith. Of course, Christian faith has the characteristic of removing such doubt.
When you say that the Gospels represent independent sources, you are saying that you are a Christian and that you have no doubt about the gospels' credibility in "revealing" the historicity of Jesus. To that, I respond "Good for you. Put your faith to good use."
You are not, however, going to convince anyone of said credibility in any absolute sense, and Christians would be ill-advised to try pursuing such. The Christian faith rests on its underlying message, not on any quantity of surviving documentation, and no absence of documentation can kill a message's resonance.
The gospels are words. Archaeology cannot confirm anything about words.
... could not confirm anything by any historian's standards. They provided no first-hand accounts of Jesus, and merely commented on what they learned from having read the gospels, just as any Christian can do today.
It really doesn't matter at what even he laughs.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I don't speak "moron", sorry.
ZenMode
Well-known member
For anyone who is religious, faith has to be sufficient because of the lack of actual evidence.
Don't engage. All Hume wants to do is troll the thread. That's all Hume ever does.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I do not. I treat it like an Aesop's Fables.
To those who are convinced that the gospels are all true, there simply isn't any that is false, and claims of such are inconsequential.
Too much word salad to slog through
You're free to believe there is no historical data attainable from the Christian writings, even though that would make you a laughing stock in all reputable ancient history and religious studies university departments
^^^ Attempts to surreptitiously change and divert the topic of the thread.
The topic is whether or not the man Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical person.
The topic is not whether he was divine, whether the miracles literally happened, or whether everything in the Christian canon is literally true.
You used to say nobody wrote anything about Jesus for six decades, so after reading my posts you finally learned that claim was incorrect.
But you are still shooting wide of the mark.
The earliest gospel was probably written at least 30 years after the crucifixion, not two decades. But it credibly can be interpreted as the firsthand reports of Peter, as recorded an organized by his companion Mark.
Paul's letters are the Christian writings that are more like about 20 years after the crucifixion.
But in Corinthians, Paul mentions much earlier writings or oral reports about Jesus he had received and passed on to the churches of his mission. Corinthians is written around 50 AD, and Paul began his ministry to the gentiles in the early 40s or late 30s. So these earlier reports or writings Paul received and shared with his ministry arguably go back to the earliest years of the Church in Jerusalem in the 30s.
Wrapping up, we have historical data points showing that there were reports of Jesus going back to the earliest days of the Jerusalem church in the 30s, and the evangelists Paul and Mark were in direct contact with the original Apostles of Jesus.
Wrong.
Which is what I've been talking about. But you haven't read my posts so you look like a moron.
Maybe you should read my posts before you respond.
I'm sure he just forgot.
Perry is having an emotional meltdown
