The Best Case for Jesus

[Peter Kirby]

You did a great job of providing evidence. Hats off great work. No real disagreement by me, nor should there be, by anybody.

Thank you.

I think your personal interpretation of the evidence is a fine opinion, but one of many different credible opinion's available from these limited resources.

Yeah! Going through so many sources in whirlwind fashion, it is impossible really to address all the issues with every text, and everybody is going to find something to disagree with. I don't mind being called out on any errors naturally.

There is an explanation for the total of this evidence, and why we have it. Something happened in the past that created this evidence. The current hypothesis not only fits into the puzzle with precision, nothing else even makes a lick of sense, not only that the brightest minds on the planet have taken their best shots at alternative hypothesis, and have failed miserably.

Had another hypothesis been plausible, you would think in the last hundred years, someone could have at least been able to explain this evidence with some amount of credibility. But this is flat missing.

Well, yes, something did happen. One of two things happened:

(a) a historical Jesus existed, had disciples, got crucified, was preached as the risen Messiah, ... Gospels
(b) a cult of Christ existed, they mined the Septuagint, he got reified as a founder figure of the movement, ... Gospels

[outhouse]

I'm looking for evidence for Jesus in these epistles

In the context of theology, what would you expect to find, that could actually seal the deal????? Would any sentence ever prove anything to anyone, knowing how they wrote this theology steeped in rhetoric and mythology?

So perhaps they thought Jesus was a man?

Which is a very important statement to me.

Because they did think Jesus was a man. And they all did so on faith alone.


There is importance to be placed on the fact so many did believe he walked and died for their sins, without a single naysayer.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm looking for evidence for Jesus in these epistles

In the context of theology, what would you expect to find, that could actually seal the deal????? Would any sentence ever prove anything to anyone, knowing how they wrote this theology steeped in rhetoric and mythology?

I'm not "looking for" it in the sense that I'll be quite put out if I don't find it.

I'm looking for it in the sense that I'm canvassing the ancient sources for the purpose of the essay... positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. If it's not positive evidence, it's simply not positive evidence.

[outhouse]

(a) a historical Jesus existed, had disciples, got crucified, was preached as the risen Messiah, ... Gospels


(b) a cult of Christ existed, they mined the Septuagint, he got reified as a founder figure of the movement, ... Gospels

OK, can we Ben Franklin these?

The only issue I see, is that in (a). your (b) also exist.

A cult of Christ existed in high numbers.

[Peter Kirby]

(a) a historical Jesus existed, had disciples, got crucified, was preached as the risen Messiah, ... Gospels


(b) a cult of Christ existed, they mined the Septuagint, he got reified as a founder figure of the movement, ... Gospels

OK, can we Ben Franklin these?

The only issue I see, is that in (a). your (b) also exist.

You can have (b) without (a). Also, the phrase "reified as a founder figure of the movement" is meant to deny (a).

A cult of Christ existed in high numbers.

Clearly....

[outhouse]

. It's the thematic intent of the Gospel of Mark to illustrate the failure of the disciples. Why?

.

Personal opinion.

Historical or mythical.

Rhetorically highlight Jesus perceived self sacrifice. It was not a group effort, it was a single mans sacrifice.


I see the Aramaic Galileans running as far and as fast away as they could get, knowing Romans had a habit of cutting the head off a snake. And with this happening to John already, they had already lived this once.

[outhouse]

the phrase "reified as a founder figure of the movement" is meant to deny (a).


....

Sorry my bad.

Tired tonight, had to look it up.

[steve43]

As the best possible case that can be made for the historicity of Jesus, there is enough ambiguity in the evidence here that we cannot conclude that the problem has been settled once and for all


.

You did a great job of providing evidence. Hats off great work. No real disagreement by me, nor should there be, by anybody.


I think your personal interpretation of the evidence is a fine opinion, but one of many different credible opinion's available from these limited resources.

But one important piece is missing, the conclusion of what all this poor evidence is about, what it adds up to. What inspired Paul and the other authors to write what they did, and when they did it. How did it spread like fire through the Empire.


There is an explanation for the total of this evidence, and why we have it. Something happened in the past that created this evidence. The current hypothesis not only fits into the puzzle with precision, nothing else even makes a lick of sense, not only that the brightest minds on the planet have taken their best shots at alternative hypothesis, and have failed miserably.

Had another hypothesis been plausible, you would think in the last hundred years, someone could have at least been able to explain this evidence with some amount of credibility. But this is flat missing.




I think we can search forever for stronger evidence, but there will never be "one piece" of evidence in a limited amount of evidence that would every be able to satisfy anyone. With this type of poor evidence, your not going to find one piece that would work, no matter how credible.

the positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus:

I would also add the lack of some evidence, as positive evidence.

Example, Not even the enemies of The movement denounced his historicity. Yet even though Paul a perceived father of the movement, has quite the negative literature that survived.

Excellent point, Outhouse. When, exactly, DID a critic or non-believer come out with the assertion that Jesus never existed as a historical person?
Was it hundreds of years later- perhaps well into the second millennium?

I am reminded of those who doubt that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. No one seriously brought forth that hypothesis until more than 150 years after Shakespeare's death.

[ericbwonder]

I'll have to read this later.

[Peter Kirby]

I would also add the lack of some evidence, as positive evidence.

Example, Not even the enemies of The movement denounced his historicity. Yet even though Paul a perceived father of the movement, has quite the negative literature that survived.

There is importance to be placed on the fact so many did believe he walked and died for their sins, without a single naysayer.

I discuss this:

Not too much weight should be placed on this, however, because we are imposing modern notions of debate and rhetoric on the past if we expect the ancients to argue that there is no evidence for a man named Jesus just because there wasn’t any known to them. Apart from the occasional philosophical skeptic, that just wasn’t the standard operating procedure. Much more powerful, rhetorically, was to concede something to your opponent and then to add further revelations to the tale that discredit it (for example, that the disciples stole the body, or that a Roman soldier impregnated Mary). They invented Panthera while we today ask whether we even know that Jesus existed and dismiss the infancy narratives out of hand. The invention of the printing press no doubt plays a part in our confidence about getting the whole picture of the historical evidence available, something the ancients could never be sure about.