Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Oooohh look ... a deepity.  
Do you even read the tripe you write ? 
Denying the existence of evidence is exactly the the same as "deny the evidence exists". 
You just wrote yourself a stupid little tautology. Snort. 

I see someone has a comprehension issue. I'll dumb it down for you.

When someone denies the existence of evidence, it will never deny the fact that the evidence still exists nonetheless.

Now ... read ... that ... very ... slowly.

I did old fella. It's the same fucking thing. 
Your deepity sucks.

I see someone still has a comprehension issue.

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

Put it all together now. You can do it if you try. Pray to Jebus!

[Schrodinger's Outlaw]

what evidence?

[Minimalist]

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

You're goddamn right it is, Son.



Whether you like it or not, there it is.  And your churchie fuckheads are lying shits.

[Bucky Ball]

I see someone has a comprehension issue. I'll dumb it down for you.

When someone denies the existence of evidence, it will never deny the fact that the evidence still exists nonetheless.

Now ... read ... that ... very ... slowly.

I did old fella. It's the same fucking thing. 
Your deepity sucks.

I see someone still has a comprehension issue.

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

Put it all together now. You can do it if you try. Pray to Jebus!

Well at least you reworked it so it makes sense now.

[Free]

We have hard, ( as in carved in fucking stone!) evidence that the name of Chrestus was known in Rome in the mid first century BC and the term Chrestianos was in use in the early first century AD.

You have no evidence whom that referred to. It was not a name. It was a title.

And the evidence you have is from "Christian sources." The 2 oldest bibles in existence have the name "Christian" spelled as "Chrestian." We have a Roman historian, Tacitus, telling us that the "Chrestians" got their name from "Christ." We have ancient documents showing how Christians objected to being called "Chrestians," and Christus being called "Chrestus."

So they were all quite confused then.

 Quick question:Why do some people keep insisting 'evidence ' is synonym for 'proof' ?.  It ain't. 

Evidence is ANYTHING presented in support of a claim.  It may be  but is not necessarily proof. 

Hence the  bible and various ancient sources such as say Flavius Josephus and Tacitus
 are all evidence  in support  of Christianity. What they are not is proof .

In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

2. Synonyms & Antonyms for evidence

Synonyms: Noun

• attestation, 
  
  
• confirmation, 
  
  
• corroboration, 
  
  
• documentation, 
  
  
• proof, 
  
  
• substantiation, 
  
  
• testament, 
  
  
• testimonial, 
  
  
• testimony, 
  
  
• validation, 
  
  
• voucher, 
  
  
• witness
  

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

[Bucky Ball]

Oooooh, big letters. It must be true.

[Free]

I did old fella. It's the same fucking thing. 
Your deepity sucks.

I see someone still has a comprehension issue.

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

Put it all together now. You can do it if you try. Pray to Jebus!

Well at least you reworked it so it makes sense now.

Nawww ... I thought the first time i dumbed it down you would understand it. But, it just wasn't enough, so I brought to down to a grade 2 level.

[Free]

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

You're goddamn right it is, Son.



Whether you like it or not, there it is.  And your churchie fuckheads are lying shits.

And what do you think this is evidence of?

Hint: 

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

[grympy]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries" is an argument by consensus, a logical fallacy.

Following that argument means that at least some the claims of the bible are proof or that the writings of the Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of Jesus.

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. What it is not is proof of absence.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus of "likely' or 'probable'

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like
Yeshua bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans.

That the religion which came to be called Christianity has little anything to do with the poor little rabbi who was crucified.

That the New Testament is the the mythology. Reading Bart Ehrman's "The Lost Christianities" and "Misquoting Jesus " has helped me reach a position with which I am comfortable.

I do not claim to be a biblical scholar, nor do I have the ambition of becoming one. Quite happy to remain a dilettante . IE Lacking the competence to be able to assess the arguments put by Free and Min. I already regret sticking my beak in about "evidence" . I shall try not to do so in future

[Minimalist]

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

I don't give a flying fuck if it says "ass-wiper of Caesar."  The point is it was found in a first century BC tomb which kind of puts your fucking jesus shit right in the crapper since you assholes assign a first century AD date to him even though he doesn't make it into the official record until late in the 2d century AD.

Somewhere, someone much smarter but probably with a lot less integrity than you, came up with the idea to steal the whole "christos" idea and meld it with this jesus bullshit.  And assclowns have been making excuses for it ever since.

[mordant]

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. By that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like 
Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans.

That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified.

My understanding is that "mythicist" is the position that Jesus is totally invented and not based on a discrete historical person, whereas "traditionalist" or "historicist" is the position that Jesus was in fact a discrete historic person.

My position as a mythicist is that it is possible but unlikely there was such a man, but both of us (and Free) agree that the fabulist mythos written about Jesus is just that and nothing more.

[Minimalist]

You are correct, Mordant.

The mythicist position is that the jesus is as purely mythical as Osiris and Odin.

The bible jesus position is that he was a miracle working god boy who actually lived on earth, died, came back to life and flew up to fucking heaven.  (You have to be a real dope to fall for that!)

The HJ position is that there was some guy who got himself killed and some later "followers" made up a lot of shit about him.

[Free]

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

I don't give a flying fuck if it says "ass-wiper of Caesar."  The point is it was found in a first century BC tomb which kind of puts your fucking jesus shit right in the crapper since you assholes assign a first century AD date to him even though he doesn't make it into the official record until late in the 2d century AD.

And so you somehow think that the letters of Paul, which mention Jesus ad nauseam, were written late in the 2nd century? All the other letters in the NT are also late 2nd century writings? The letters of Pliny and Trajan are all late 2nd century? 1st Clement, Justin Martyr, etc etc etc??



Chrestus was a common name in Greek culture. Historical records conclusively demonstrate that the Greeks mispronounced Christus as Chrestus because, to the trained ear the pronunciation is virtually identical, which resulted in the variable spelling. Same with Chrestians and Christians.

This has all been proven. Not merely asserted, but proven as factual according to historical evidence.

Somewhere, someone much smarter but probably with a lot less integrity than you, came up with the idea to steal the whole "christos" idea and meld it with this jesus bullshit.  And assclowns have been making excuses for it ever since.

"Somewhere, someone, sometime ...."

Where? Who? When?

Where's the historical evidence? I can wait. Take all the time you need.

[Free]

My position as a mythicist is that it is possible but unlikely there was such a man, but both of us (and Free) agree that the fabulist mythos written about Jesus is just that and nothing more.

My position isn't really that much different.  It is possible and more likely there was such a man rather than there wasn't. The evidence favors this likelihood, and works against it being unlikely.

[Bucky Ball]

The evidence is still going to exist regardless if you deny its existence or not.

You're goddamn right it is, Son.



Whether you like it or not, there it is.  And your churchie fuckheads are lying shits.

And what do you think this is evidence of?

Hint: 

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

So then, .... you admit the word Chrestus is neither a name nor a title, and has nothing at all to do with an historical Jesus. 
Thank you. 
Finally.

[Free]

You're goddamn right it is, Son.



Whether you like it or not, there it is.  And your churchie fuckheads are lying shits.

And what do you think this is evidence of?

Hint: 

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

So then, .... you admit the word Chrestus is neither a name nor a title, and has nothing at all to do with an historical Jesus. 
Thank you. 
Finally.

It can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and that is determined by the context.

[Bucky Ball]

And what do you think this is evidence of?

Hint: 

It says, "Good Guard of Caesar"

So then, .... you admit the word Chrestus is neither a name nor a title, and has nothing at all to do with an historical Jesus. 
Thank you. 
Finally.

It can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and that is determined by the context.

Which is also beside the point. 
A noun or an adjective are not titles or names. 
Again you admit ... your Chrestus does not support your contention.

[epronovost]

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like 
Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. 

That would actually be closer to the reductionist position which is the most often adopted by scholars on the subject with mythicist being in minority and triumphalist considered kookoos.

[jerry mcmasters]

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like 
Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. 

That would actually be closer to the reductionist position which is the most often adopted by scholars on the subject with mythicist being in minority and triumphalist considered kookoos.

Yeah that's a historical Jesus position there grympy.

[Free]

So then, .... you admit the word Chrestus is neither a name nor a title, and has nothing at all to do with an historical Jesus. 
Thank you. 
Finally.

It can be used as both a noun and an adjective, and that is determined by the context.

Which is also beside the point. 
A noun or an adjective are not titles or names. 
Again you admit ... your Chrestus does not support your contention.

Are you asking me to educate you as to what a noun is?

Seriously?

[Free]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries"  is an argument  by consensus,  a logical fallacy.

Nothing "bollocks" about it dude. It's been in the lexicon for decades.  It's very easy to verify as well. Simply google the following, with quote marks included:

"What Proof Do You Have?"

And when I say "some dictionaries" I am not using an argument by consensus, but merely showing how "some dictionaries" have recognized how the word "proof' has become synonymous with "evidence" in the modern lexicon, and have adjusted for it.

If what I am saying isn't true, then perhaps you need to explain the 155,000 Google results that demonstrate how the word "proof" is being used as a substitute for "evidence."

By all means, the floor is all yours.

Following  that argument  means that at least some the claims of the bible are  proof or that the writings of the  Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of  Jesus. 

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  What it is not is proof of absence.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed  with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus  of "likely' or 'probable' 

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified. 

Well then, sorry to inform you, but your position is not mythicist, it's historicist., which is my position. 

[grympy]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries"  is an argument  by consensus,  a logical fallacy.

Nothing "bollocks" about it dude. It's been in the lexicon for decades.  It's very easy to verify as well. Simply google the following, with quote marks included:

"What Proof Do You Have?"

And when I say "some dictionaries" I am not using an argument by consensus, but merely showing how "some dictionaries" have recognized how the word "proof' has become synonymous with "evidence" in the modern lexicon, and have adjusted for it.

If what I am saying isn't true, then perhaps you need to explain the 155,000 Google results that demonstrate how the word "proof" is being used as a substitute for "evidence."

By all means, the floor is all yours.

Following  that argument  means that at least some the claims of the bible are  proof or that the writings of the  Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of  Jesus. 

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  What it is not is proof of absence.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed  with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus  of "likely' or 'probable' 

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified. 

Well then, sorry to inform you, but your position is not mythicist, it's historicist., which is my position. 

Oh, please dude me no dudes.  You may call me  'mate" or 'dickhead ' or even stubborn old bastard.  "Dude" is a vulgar Americanism. 

 Not mythicist?  Oh, then what are we arguing about?  Is it a matter of  degree, or semantics? Or is it I who is being pedantic?  Where do you draw the line?   I'm perfectly happy with my position that the New Testament is the mythology of Christianity. The includes Saul Of Tarsus' putative letters.

Seems I'm mistaken about the current meaning of 'evidence' , my apologies.

 That leaves me confused; what  do you call something produced  as evidence which isn't proof?   Does it stop being 'evidence' ? Or does it become 'not credible evidence,' or perhaps 'hearsay evidence? . Seems imprecise, but what  do I know.

[Free]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries"  is an argument  by consensus,  a logical fallacy.

Nothing "bollocks" about it dude. It's been in the lexicon for decades.  It's very easy to verify as well. Simply google the following, with quote marks included:

"What Proof Do You Have?"

And when I say "some dictionaries" I am not using an argument by consensus, but merely showing how "some dictionaries" have recognized how the word "proof' has become synonymous with "evidence" in the modern lexicon, and have adjusted for it.

If what I am saying isn't true, then perhaps you need to explain the 155,000 Google results that demonstrate how the word "proof" is being used as a substitute for "evidence."

By all means, the floor is all yours.

Following  that argument  means that at least some the claims of the bible are  proof or that the writings of the  Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of  Jesus. 

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  What it is not is proof of absence.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed  with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus  of "likely' or 'probable' 

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified. 

Well then, sorry to inform you, but your position is not mythicist, it's historicist., which is my position. 

Oh, please dude me no dudes.  You may call me  'mate" or 'dickhead ' or even stubborn old bastard.  "Dude" is a vulgar Americanism. 

 Not mythicist?  Oh, then what are we arguing about?  Is it a matter of  degree, or semantics? Or is it I who is being pedantic?  Where do you draw the line?   I'm perfectly happy with my position that the New Testament is the mythology of Christianity. The includes Saul Of Tarsus' putative letters.

Seems I'm mistaken about the current meaning of 'evidence' , my apologies.

 That leaves me confused; what  do you call something produced  as evidence which isn't proof?   Does it stop being 'evidence' ? Or does it become 'not credible evidence,' or perhaps 'hearsay evidence? . Seems imprecise, but what  do I know.

I understand your confusion. I also use the Queen's English. I don't like using the word "proof" as a substitute for evidence, but I think that's Americanism for you. Yet, there it is. The only reason I interjected was to show you how it has crept into the American lexicon, and thereby going global. I understand perfectly that proof really means "proven" as opposed to how evidence indicates support that can lead to the proof of something.

The reality is, we are not actually arguing. You simply, like many others, misunderstood my position due to how Minimalist intentionally mischaracterizes my position. He thinks I'm some kind of a closet Christian just because I think the argument supporting historicity is a better argument than the one supporting mythicism.

That's all this is.

[Cavebear]

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

The truth will never be known, therefore the best you can do is approximate it as best as possible according to all available information.

Your assumption that the claims of the various monotheistic religions are "evidence" is the fault in your presentation.

False.

Firstly, the Greeks were polytheistic. Secondly, we have 3 competing religious cultures involved, which eliminates bias.

It's evidence, and it's considered evidence by virtually all professionals in the field.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. First, I know that the Greeks were polytheistic. One of my continuing arguments is that human religious ideas have progressed gradually from "a deity for every stream and tree" to a few humanistic beings controlling broad powers to a single deity and that a single deity will eventually fade into none.

Second, I find the idea of "3 competing religious cultures involved, which eliminates bias" to be rather weak, given that they all arise from the same origin. That certainly doesn't eliminate bias. The minor differences among the judaic, christian, and islamic beliefs are so minor, an atheist can barely tell them apart. The differences strike me as debating which end of the egg to crack...

Third, what's this about "considered evidence by virtually all professionals in the field"? What evidence? What professionals? What field? I usually see that kind of phrase by paranormal conspiracy theorists.

Enlighten me...

[Cavebear]

"In past times, that was true. But in the modern lexicon they are now synonymous. Some dictionaries now reflect that:---"

Bollocks.

"some dictionaries"  is an argument  by consensus,  a logical fallacy.

Nothing "bollocks" about it dude. It's been in the lexicon for decades.  It's very easy to verify as well. Simply google the following, with quote marks included:

"What Proof Do You Have?"

And when I say "some dictionaries" I am not using an argument by consensus, but merely showing how "some dictionaries" have recognized how the word "proof' has become synonymous with "evidence" in the modern lexicon, and have adjusted for it.

If what I am saying isn't true, then perhaps you need to explain the 155,000 Google results that demonstrate how the word "proof" is being used as a substitute for "evidence."

By all means, the floor is all yours.

Following  that argument  means that at least some the claims of the bible are  proof or that the writings of the  Roman apologist Flavius Josephus are say proof of the historicity of  Jesus. 

You don't get to change the rules because they're inconvenient.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

An absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.  What it is not is proof of absence.

Again, the word "proof" has been adopted as a substitute for "evidence" in the modern lexicon.

I accept that ancient history needs to be assessed  with different criteria than modern history. This due to the relatively limited amount of evidence . I accept the certainty is relatively uncommon. Instead, scholar opt for educated guesses, to reach a consensus  of "likely' or 'probable' 

Regarding the  historicity of Jesus, I think my position is called 'mythicist'. Buy that I mean it seems likely that a man called something like Yeshua  bar Yusuf lived in first century Judea. That he founded a small Jewish sect. That he was crucified by the Romans. That the religion which came to be called Christianity  has little  anything to do with the  poor little rabbi who was crucified. 

Well then, sorry to inform you, but your position is not mythicist, it's historicist., which is my position. 

Oh, please dude me no dudes.  You may call me  'mate" or 'dickhead ' or even stubborn old bastard.  "Dude" is a vulgar Americanism. 

 Not mythicist?  Oh, then what are we arguing about?  Is it a matter of  degree, or semantics? Or is it I who is being pedantic?  Where do you draw the line?   I'm perfectly happy with my position that the New Testament is the mythology of Christianity. The includes Saul Of Tarsus' putative letters.

Seems I'm mistaken about the current meaning of 'evidence' , my apologies.

 That leaves me confused; what  do you call something produced  as evidence which isn't proof?   Does it stop being 'evidence' ? Or does it become 'not credible evidence,' or perhaps 'hearsay evidence? . Seems imprecise, but what  do I know.

Well, to be fair, first "dude" may be a "vulgar Americanism" but it generally means "an equal". And sometimes a superlative ("man that guy is real DUDE"), though I doubt it was meant that way in this usage.

Second, dictionaries are not authorities of definitions. They are records of general/current usage. One of my aunts worked on the Third Webster's International Dictionary and explained that in detail when I asked about it. Word meanings change through time. I recently noticed in a newspaper article about words that "silly" used to just mean "fun-loving", and it used to be normal that happy straight people were "gay".

Third, proof and evidence are not the same thing. Evidence is a fingerprint or tracks in the snow. Proof is an uncontestable accumulation of facts that lead to a conclusion.