Non-Christian documents about the existence of Jesus Christ

[Robittybob1]

Roger. Truth, like gold, is wherever you find it. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer.

I am always searching for the mother lode. I'm not interesting in panning tonnes of rubble.

[Acme]

I am always searching for the mother lode. I'm not interesting in panning tonnes of rubble.

Feeling better then? The point is that gold is often found where one doesn't expect it and often is not found where one does expect it. It is possible to stumble on a mother load -where the mother load is the hard-rock deposit-, or divine its location through applying data from known loads and matching that to un-prospected locations of similar structure and makeup. However, a more sure method for locating a mother load is to pan through tons of rubble in gold producing placer deposits and work your way upstream until the placer deposits peter out, at which point you know the mother load is on either side and/or under you. Even then one has tons of rock to blast, chisel, chip, shovel, crush and refine to remove the gold.

 

Mining is dangerous and exhausting work and is sometimes its own reward.

 

The true value of people is not determined by their possession, supposed or real, of Truth, but rather by their sincere exertion to get to the Truth. ~Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

[Robittybob1]

Feeling better then? The point is that gold is often found where one doesn't expect it and often is not found where one does expect it. It is possible to stumble on a mother load -where the mother load is the hard-rock deposit-, or divine its location through applying data from known loads and matching that to un-prospected locations of similar structure and makeup. However, a more sure method for locating a mother load is to pan through tons of rubble in gold producing placer deposits and work your way upstream until the placer deposits peter out, at which point you know the mother load is on either side and/or under you. Even then one has tons of rock to blast, chisel, chip, shovel, crush and refine to remove the gold.

 

Mining is dangerous and exhausting work and is sometimes its own reward.

 

The true value of people is not determined by their possession, supposed or real, of Truth, but rather by their sincere exertion to get to the Truth. ~Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

How come you know so much about searching for gold? I was talking more in figurative speech where the "mother lode" would be the Risen Christ. Even though to find a gold bearing deposit felt a bit like panning up stream to see where the best yields might lie.

I found a nugget.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-5#entry831516

You didn't seem to join in that thread.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

How come you know so much about searching for gold? I was talking more in figurative speech where the "mother lode" would be the Risen Christ. Even though to find a gold bearing deposit felt a bit like panning up stream to see where the best yields might lie.

I found a nugget.

I have done a fair amount of prospecting and placer mining as well as some schooling in geology. My metaphor applies to seeking anything of great value. Sometimes the great value you find is not the great value you sought.

 

Metamorphose

[Robittybob1]

I have done a fair amount of prospecting and placer mining as well as some schooling in geology. My metaphor applies to seeking anything of great value. Sometimes the great value you find is not the great value you sought.

 

I love geology too, but have no experience or training. Does this sentence from Wikipedia on metamorphic rock seem correct?

 

Those temperatures seem quite low.

 

 

The original rock (protolith) is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C) and pressure (1500 bars)

 

Edited November 24, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

Hey, you both discuss as if you can take every gospel as a historical account. You can't: most of it is driven by a Christian agenda. Only those facts that do not fit the Christian agenda, are worth to test on other criteria of historicity.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Eise

[Ten oz]

Hey, you both discuss as if you can take every gospel as a historical account. You can't: most of it is driven by a Christian agenda. Only those facts that do not fit the Christian agenda, are worth to test on other criteria of historicity.

...and who decides which ones do or do not fit, Christian Theologians?

I personally do not accept that any certainty can be obtained through educated guessing without a means of verification. The motivations for forgeries, the reason for exaggeration, the style of a lie, or the presumed agenda of people thousands of years ago are not things I consider evidence of facts. Here in the United States our constitution was written by educated people well experienced in both governance and law. It was written to be clear. To be law. Today, just over a couple hundred years later scholars and politicians debate the Constitution constantly. The motivations of different signers, the intentions behind admendments, the meaning of specific words in the context they were used during the time frame the constitution was written, etc, etc, etc. And the authorship of the Constitution is far better documented than the Bible or its Gospels. Not only is the authorship documented but the motivations and beliefs of the authors of the Constitution are better understood. They wrote books, letters, op-eds, and had debates that were documented. They explained their intentions. And yet there is still debate. The courts still hear challenges and still feel the need to ask the supreme court for clarification. If the meaning of 2nd Admendment is still up for debate I find it hard to accept the the Gospels are not. We struggle to define words like "arms", "well-regulated", and "militia" in context to how/when they were used in the 2nd Admendment. Yet vauge remarks in Gospels written by unknown authors during timeframes that are only estimated provide clear evidence??

Allowing Christian Theologians to be the main historical experts on the historicity of the Bible and Gospels is akin to allowing the Federalist Society to be the same for the Constitution.

[Acme]

I love geology too, but have no experience or training. Does this sentence from Wikipedia on metamorphic rock seem correct?

Those temperatures seem quite low.

The original rock (protolith) is subjected to heat (temperatures greater than 150 to 200 °C) and pressure (1500 bars)

 

Yes it seems correct. (I don't see those temps at the link though?) Anyway, metamorphism is a dynamic process that depends not only on temperature and pressure but what the mineral content of the protolith is, how much water is present, and how long it cooks. A loaf of bread bakes in about 1/2 an hour, but leave it for 4 hours and you have charcoal. The rock I put the picture of was created in a very wet environment and formed when minerals dissolved and the solution found its way into cracks where as temps lowered and pressure was reduced the minerals differentially crystalized.

I'll relate that to my metaphor on research in regards to this thread by saying context is everything.

 

Hey, you both discuss as if you can take every gospel as a historical account. You can't: most of it is driven by a Christian agenda. Only those facts that do not fit the Christian agenda, are worth to test on other criteria of historicity.

While you have some very specific criteria about what constitutes 'accepted' history, it is nothing without the actual data. I have been submitting actual [historical] data and we all can jolly well debate it in terms of your criteria or our own as we see fit.

 

...and who decides which ones do or do not fit, Christian Theologians?

...

Allowing Christian Theologians to be the main historical experts on the historicity of the Bible and Gospels is akin to allowing the Federalist Society to be the same for the Constitution.

Here here! +1

[Robittybob1]

Yes it seems correct. (I don't see those temps at the link though?) Anyway, metamorphism is a dynamic process that depends not only on temperature and pressure but what the mineral content of the protolith is, how much water is present, and how long it cooks. A loaf of bread bakes in about 1/2 an hour, but leave it for 4 hours and you have charcoal. The rock I put the picture of was created in a very wet environment and formed when minerals dissolved and the solution found its way into cracks where as temps lowered and pressure was reduced the minerals differentially crystalized.

I'll relate that to my metaphor on research in regards to this thread by saying context is everything.

 

metamorphic rock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphic_rock

That whole bit was an aside but very interesting. Thanks and very odd how one topic blends in and metamorphoses with the topic of Non-Christian documents.

There was a phrase like this in the Gospel of Thomas wasn't there , "split a rock and I'll be there"? That was excessively paraphrased and completely from memory.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/thomas-anon.html

 

 

(77) Jesus said: I am the light that is over them all. I am the All; the All has come forth from me, and the All has attained unto me. Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Acme]

...http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-5#entry831516

You didn't seem to join in that thread.

I missed your editing this in. Can't really say what I was doing; I jump from interest to interest like frog legs in a hot skillet.

 

 

metamorphic rock -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphic_rock

That whole bit was an aside but very interesting. Thanks and very odd how one topic blends in and metamorphoses with the topic of Non-Christian documents.

There was a phrase like this in the Gospel of Thomas wasn't there , "split a rock and I'll be there"? That was excessively paraphrased and completely from memory.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/thomas-anon.html

You're welcome & nicely put. Nothing is not connected.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

I missed your editing this in. Can't really say what I was doing; I jump from interest to interest like frog legs in a hot skillet. ...

 

 

 

You're welcome & nicely put. Nothing is not connected.

What do you think ...."Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there" means?

[Acme]

What do you think ...."Cleave a (piece of) wood: I am there. Raise up the stone, an ye shall find me there" means?

It means Jesus was skilled at answering without answering. He speaks but says nothing. He makes the inane appear profound. The magus' verbal analog to the misdirection used in sleight of hand; the secret of the words. He acknowledges this and mocks the disciples without them knowing when he says: "(5) Know what is before thy face, and what hidden from thee shall be revealed unto thee; for there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest." (The only magic trick I have found well referenced that dates to Jesus' time and before is the cups & balls which is illustrated in the Hieronymus Bosch painting I posted earlier. The ball -what is hidden- is always shown to you at the trick's conclusion.) Tricks are done right in front of your face and yet even if you know they are tricks you do not know how they are done. Jesus figured this out on his own as boy and turned it to his profession. Edited November 24, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

It means Jesus was skilled at answering without answering. He speaks but says nothing. He makes the inane appear profound. The magus' verbal analog to the misdirection used in sleight of hand; the secret of the words. He acknowledges this and mocks the disciples without them knowing when he says: "(5) Know what is before thy face, and what hidden from thee shall be revealed unto thee; for there is nothing hidden which shall not be made manifest." (The only magic trick I have found well referenced that dates to Jesus' time and before is the cups & balls which is illustrated in the Hieronymus Bosch painting I posted earlier. The ball -what is hidden- is always shown to you at the trick's conclusion.) Tricks are done right in front of your face and yet even if you know they are tricks you do not know how they are done. Jesus figured this out on his own as boy and turned it to his profession.

I can only hope you are wrong. I have never considered it just straight out trickery before. Personally it wouldn't hold out for if the people that were healed weren't sick in the first place I think the populace would have soon seen through that.

[Acme]

I can only hope you are wrong. I have never considered it just straight out trickery before. Personally it wouldn't hold out for if the people that were healed weren't sick in the first place I think the populace would have soon seen through that.

The popularity, continuance, and belief in faith healing to this day belies your thinking. In the earlier example I cited concerning the woman 'healed' by touching Jesus' robe when Jesus didn't know she was doing it and only later took credit is another example of flim-flammery style and/or technique. (Not that taking credit for something one is credited with but didn't do is restricted to any particular person or group.) There is also the matter of the placebo effect inasmuch as people were coming to see Jesus expecting to be healed. Moreover as I have pointed out there were no end of magicians making and selling potions and spells who had no shortage of enthusiastic customers and testimonials. While no one commented on that article I cited on the decoded Egyptian papyrus, it supports what I just said as well as adheres 'strictly' to the purported topic of this thread, i.e. it is not a 'Christian' document and invokes Jesus.

[Robittybob1]

The popularity, continuance, and belief in faith healing to this day belies your thinking. In the earlier example I cited concerning the woman 'healed' by touching Jesus' robe when Jesus didn't know she was doing it and only later took credit is another example of flim-flammery style and/or technique. (Not that taking credit for something one is credited with but didn't do is restricted to any particular person or group.) There is also the matter of the placebo effect inasmuch as people were coming to see Jesus expecting to be healed. Moreover as I have pointed out there were no end of magicians making and selling potions and spells who had no shortage of enthusiastic customers and testimonials. While no one commented on that article I cited on the decoded Egyptian papyrus, it supports what I just said as well as adheres 'strictly' to the purported topic of this thread, i.e. it is not a 'Christian' document and invokes Jesus.

An invocation saying " "Seth, Seth, the living Christ."" is hardly invoking Jesus.!

 

OK to use a word like "belies"?? So you think faith healing "contradicts" my thinking? I don't see your connection with what I said. I take faith healing as the barometer of the truth. Test: See if someone was actually healed and judge it on that. Has there been a healing? If "NO" the preacher has not got the truth yet. If some improvement maybe there is some truth. That was going to be my gauge, but I haven't had the time to apply it fully.

I want to sort out the magicians from the apostles. Put them to the test. Expose them if necessary.

[Acme]

An invocation saying " "Seth, Seth, the living Christ."" [/size] is hardly invoking Jesus.!

I take it you didn't read all the article or that you misunderstood it. It said, "...Researchers believe that the codex may date to the 7th or 8th century. During this time, many Egyptians were Christian and the codex contains a number of invocations referencing Jesus. ..." It does not follow that the Seth/Christ line is what they referred to as 'referencing Jesus' not to mention they said 'a number of invocations'. Keep in mind 'christ' is the Jewish messiah¹ and the term predates its application to Jesus, though I haven't seen it explicitly appended to Seth before. I haven't seen a full text decipherment to see what all is there, but I have to presume that the decipherers know what they mean when they make their claims of referencing Jesus. Now I know you don't like sorting rubble but it seems to me due diligence would have you checking it out.² Certainly you don't want me to do it what with my research and exegesis being all suspect or such a matter.

 

OK to use a word like "belies"?? So you think faith healing "contradicts" my thinking?

No, I think that your thinking that believers would be calling foul contradicts what actually goes on with faith healing. (As well as what went on.) Then too, what's the logical fallacy called that refers to how many people that weren't healed aren't counted? Confirmation bias is it? Maybe there were folks calling foul but they were ignored.

 

I don't see your connection with what I said. I take faith healing as the barometer of the truth.

Ah; the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Not healed because they weren't truly faithful or some such I imagine.

 

Test: See if someone was actually healed and judge it on that. Has there been a healing? If "NO" the preacher has not got the truth yet. If some improvement maybe there is some truth. That was going to be my gauge, but I haven't had the time to apply it fully.

'No true Scottsman' again but this time it's the healer and not the healee that wasn't faithful enough. And how would you apply tests to Jesus' healings? Is there some record of the healed being checked up on later to see if they stayed healed? Or some record that they were checked on in the first place to see if they were even sick? What ancient writing records that?

 

I want to sort out the magicians from the apostles. Put them to the test. Expose them if necessary.

I recommend vivisection with Occam's razor. (I should note that not all the apostles were necessarily in on the scam and may have been dupes themselves. Jesus' 'knowing' stage hands may well not have been his disciples at all. Hired hands of the type Jesus is said to have defended and hung with of the criminal persuassion. And certainly they would not be outing him because then they would be confessing to crimes themselves.

 

There is also the matter that as far as historians and/or investigators can ascertain, none of the writers on Jesus actually knew him and so relied on second-third-fourth... hand accounts. Even if they had been witness, modern study has shown just how unreliable first-hand witnesses are in recounting actual events. It is just exactly this disjoint between what is perceived and what actually happens that stage magic relies on. "Nothing up my sleeve, see?" No, but there was something palmed in the other hand.

 

Edit:

1.

...from Greek khristos anointed one (from khriein to anoint), translating Hebrew māshīahMessiah]

source

 

2. Looks like we have to pony up some serious sheckels to read the translation. >>A Coptic Handbook of Ritual Power

Edited November 25, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

I take it you didn't read all the article or that you misunderstood it. It said, "...Researchers believe that the codex may date to the 7th or 8th century. During this time, many Egyptians were Christian and the codex contains a number of invocations referencing Jesus. ..." It does not follow that the Seth/Christ line is what they referred to as 'referencing Jesus' not to mention they said 'a number of invocations'. Keep in mind 'christ' is the Jewish messiah¹ and the term predates its application to Jesus, though I haven't seen it explicitly appended to Seth before. I haven't seen a full text decipherment to see what all is there, but I have to presume that the decipherers know what they mean when they make their claims of referencing Jesus. Now I know you don't like sorting rubble but it seems to me due diligence would have you checking it out.² Certainly you don't want me to do it what with my research and exegesis being all suspect or such a matter.

 

No, I think that your thinking that believers would be calling foul contradicts what actually goes on with faith healing. (As well as what went on.) Then too, what's the logical fallacy called that refers to how many people that weren't healed aren't counted? Confirmation bias is it? Maybe there were folks calling foul but they were ignored.

 

Ah; the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Not healed because they weren't truly faithful or some such I imagine.

 

'No true Scottsman' again but this time it's the healer and not the healee that wasn't faithful enough. And how would you apply tests to Jesus' healings? Is there some record of the healed being checked up on later to see if they stayed healed? Or some record that they were checked on in the first place to see if they were even sick? What ancient writing records that?

 

I recommend vivisection with Occam's razor. (I should note that not all the apostles were necessarily in on the scam and may have been dupes themselves. Jesus' 'knowing' stage hands may well not have been his disciples at all. Hired hands of the type Jesus is said to have defended and hung with of the criminal persuassion. And certainly they would not be outing him because then they would be confessing to crimes themselves.

 

There is also the matter that as far as historians and/or investigators can ascertain, none of the writers on Jesus actually knew him and so relied on second-third-fourth... hand accounts. Even if they had been witness, modern study has shown just how unreliable first-hand witnesses are in recounting actual events. It is just exactly this disjoint between what is perceived and what actually happens that stage magic relies on. "Nothing up my sleeve, see?" No, but there was something palmed in the other hand.

 

Edit:

1.

source

 

2. Looks like we have to pony up some serious sheckels to read the translation. >>A Coptic Handbook of Ritual Power

Had they quoted something with the word Jesus in it rather than "Christ" I would feel more confident.

I want to see them deliver healing as is suggested in Mark with the Lord Jesus confirming the word with signs and wonders. Stop the preachers blaming the faith of those seeking healing, but being challenged themselves "Am I telling the truth?".

That would be such a challenge to them.

Show them to be fakes if you can. If you are right I'm behind you.

[Eise]

...and who decides which ones do or do not fit, Christian Theologians?

 

No. Historians.

 

I gave the method you can use to criticise historians here. I gave the criteria that historians use here. Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme,Ten oz) have reacted on this. For that you react with global insinuations against historians, just doing away with all sources without even looking into them, and give wild speculations.

 

I personally do not accept that any certainty can be obtained through educated guessing without a means of verification. The motivations for forgeries, the reason for exaggeration, the style of a lie, or the presumed agenda of people thousands of years ago are not things I consider evidence of facts.

 

Yes, these are exactly criteria that sieve all that is very probably not true. What is left, which is not much, might be true, and be worthy to look at them against the other criteria I mentioned before. After applying these criteria, historians are left with these point that they assume fact:

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.

Nothing more: not that he did stage tricks (or not), not that he really healed anybody (or not), nor why he was crucified, etc. There are some speculations about other aspects of his life, but because the evidence is too thin, there is no general consensus about it under historians.

What no historian can proof:

• that Jesus was born from a virgin
• that he really did heal people
• that he resurrected,
• etc.

As long as you all do not criticise the mentioned criteria, or their application on the available material, your arguments are empty.

 

PS The infancy gospel of Thomas of course fall through. It fits the Christian agenda too well, it is written much later than the gospels of the NT, there are no independent sources that confirm the stories in it, and there are occurrences in it that do not fit into a Palestinian Jewish context from around 0 CE. It drops out on all 4 criteria.

[Acme]

No. Historians.

 

I gave the method you can use to criticise historians here. I gave the criteria that historians use here. Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme,Ten oz) have reacted on this. For that you react with global insinuations against historians, just doing away with all sources without even looking into them, and give wild speculations.

Your criteria are all well & good and your intent seems to be to end the discussion with your criteria hammer and have the last word. However this is a discussion forum and we are enjoying our discussion. You can always complain to the staff and appeal to them to split the thread.

 

Mean time I'm hitting the yellow brick road and off to see the wizard for the holiday. Color me on sabbatical for the next few days. Thank heaven for that miracle, eh?

[Eise]

Your criteria are all well & good and your intent seems to be to end the discussion with your criteria hammer and have the last word. However this is a discussion forum and we are enjoying our discussion. You can always complain to the staff and appeal to them to split the thread.

 

Mean time I'm hitting the yellow brick road and off to see the wizard for the holiday. Color me on sabbatical for the next few days. Thank heaven for that miracle, eh?

 

I don't want to end the discussion, but yes, I would like people to take the discussions serious. Call me boring, if you like. I was already suspecting that you were just amusing yourself, but, well, it is a bit funny on the 'science forums', isn't it? I think there are not many here who try to to see that history is also a science, be it of another kind than the hard sciences.

 

And you noticed I did not react on you anymore, but on ten Oz.

[Acme]

I don't want to end the discussion, but yes, I would like people to take the discussions serious. Call me boring, if you like. I was already suspecting that you were just amusing yourself, but, well, it is a bit funny on the 'science forums', isn't it? I think there are not many here who try to to see that history is also a science, be it of another kind than the hard sciences.

 

And you noticed I did not react on you anymore, but on ten Oz.

But you did react to me when you said "Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme, Ten oz) have reacted on this."

As to religion on a science forum I have argued a number of times that it doesn't belong, but the powers that be think otherwise. Inasmuch as this thread is tilted more to history I have joined in. Fake or otherwise, surely you can't argue that the texts we are discussing or their consequences are not in their basis, historical.

[Ten oz]

 

I don't want to end the discussion, but yes, I would like people to take the discussions serious. Call me boring, if you like. I was already suspecting that you were just amusing yourself, but, well, it is a bit funny on the 'science forums', isn't it? I think there are not many here who try to to see that history is also a science, be it of another kind than the hard sciences.

 

And you noticed I did not react on you anymore, but on ten Oz.

There is a science to history but it is less conclusive. No one is saying its all 100% nonsense. Some of us just don't believe/accept the same level of certainty you seem to. An educated guess is still only a guess.

[Acme]

...

Yes, these are exactly criteria that sieve all that is very probably not true. What is left, which is not much, might be true, and be worthy to look at them against the other criteria I mentioned before. After applying these criteria, historians are left with these point that they assume fact:

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.

Nothing more: ...

 

I have a bit of time before hitting the road so I'll just take up your challenge of fact. We will take just "Jesus came from Nazareth". Not only does it presume a real Jesus, it presumes a real Nazareth. And yet, when I look into Nazareth I find that it is itself a questionable appellation. While I'm sure we can look into other sources I will just start with Wiki as my time allows.

Nazareth @ Wiki

...Etymology

 

Nazareth is not mentioned in pre-Christian texts and appears in many different Greek forms in the New Testament. There is no consensus regarding the origin of the name.[6] One conjecture holds that "Nazareth" is derived from one[7] of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, נֵ֫צֶר, and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit.' One view suggests this toponym might be an example of a tribal name used by resettling groups on their return from exile.[8] Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep,"[9] and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place", implying the early town was perched on or near the brow of the hill, or, in the passive sense as 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position.[10] The negative references to Nazareth in the Gospel of John suggest that ancient Jews did not connect the town's name to prophecy.[11]

 

Another theory holds that the Greek form Nazara, used in Matthew and Luke, may derive from an earlier Aramaic form of the name, or from another Semitic language form.[12] If there were a tsade (צ) in the original Semitic form, as in the later Hebrew forms, it would normally have been transcribed in Greek with a sigma instead of a zeta.[6] This has led some scholars to question whether "Nazareth" and its cognates in the New Testament actually refer to the settlement we know traditionally as Nazareth in Lower Galilee. ...

So your fact is in fact not fact by your historical criteria because there is no consensus. Discuss.

 

Edit; I just came back to revise history and just strike out a few unjustified justs.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Acme

[Robittybob1]

 

... Yes, these are exactly criteria that sieve all that is very probably not true. What is left, which is not much, might be true, and be worthy to look at them against the other criteria I mentioned before. After applying these criteria, historians are left with these point that they assume fact:

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.

Nothing more: not that he did stage tricks (or not), not that he really healed anybody (or not), nor why he was crucified, etc. There are some speculations about other aspects of his life, but because the evidence is too thin, there is no general consensus about it under historians.

What no historian can proof:

• that Jesus was born from a virgin
• that he really did heal people
• that he resurrected,
• etc....

I think the healing aspect is higher up the list than you declare.

• Jesus came from Nazareth
• he had a brother James
• he met John the Baptist
• he was an apocalyptic preacher
• he was crucified under Pilate.
• that he really did heal people

[Ten oz]

No. Historians.

 

I gave the method you can use to criticise historians here. I gave the criteria that historians use here. Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme,Ten oz) have reacted on this. For that you react with global insinuations against historians, just doing away with all sources without even looking into them, and give wild speculations.

 

 

 

Yes, these are exactly criteria that sieve all that is very probably not true. What is left, which is not much, might be true, and be worthy to look at them against the other criteria I mentioned before. After applying these criteria, historians are left with these point that they assume fact:

• [*]Jesus came from Nazareth

[*]he had a brother James

[*]he met John the Baptist

[*]he was an apocalyptic preacher

[*]he was crucified under Pilate.

It is interesting how you have assumed an authoritarian/expert position and challanged posters to disprove the theories you support rather than prove the theories yourself. Your insistence of being in line with the majority in itself is evidence of nothing.

 

I personally prefer Bayesian Probability because at the end of the day many matters of history are unprovable. Often the best we can do is come up with probabilities. Not real solid conclusions.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability#History

 

You seem to prefer other historical methods. So let's look at wiki's "Historical Method":

1 - When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2 - Where was it produced (localization)?

3 - By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4 - From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?

5 - In what original form was it produced (integrity)?

6 - What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

 

Right off the top the New Testament and the Gospels fail 1, 3, 4, & 6.

1: Date - it is unclear when Jesus lived, if Nazareth existed, and when each gospel was written.

3: Authorship - it is unclear who wrote much of the Gospels

4: Analysis - it is unclear which Gospels inspired others and which are 2nd vs 3rd vs 4th vs etc hand accounts.

6: Credibility - the New Testament has none since much of it is clearly fiction. Even you toss aside resurrection while insisting other parts contain truth. Ultimately it has little credibility. Almost no one believes all of it.

So 4 out of 6 right off the top is bad. Sadly many theologians argue that we should ignore that. We should focus on what has continuity and not be distracted by what doesn't. IMO that is not a logical appoarch. What evidence do you have for any of the claims you outlined? Pilate was a real person. So because he was mentioned by default that makes the Gospels real? Surely there is better logic than that? You have posted a lot about the historical method. Why don't you apply it and educate us all on why the 5 definitive statements about Jesus' life you insist on are provably true?