Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
HAHA! I think I finally know how orthonorm feels
Presumably you require the bones DNA tested of Christ. More than 90% of history does not work that way. I guess you really don't believe in virtually all of history before the 1600's !
It's like asked for mathematical proof that Rome existed. Thats not the criteria for historical facts, I've listed the criteria.
Actually there is a city full of archaeological ruins and plenty of primary source manuscripts and coinage to attest to its historicity.
Hey, link me up to all those primary manuscripts of Roman personalities, I beleive I've already quoted the worlds leading expert on that topic but you don't seem to read what I've wrote.
The gospels are written NOT as fiction but as actual history. It even uses the classic jewish structure of historical narratives. Heck, if ever you read the bible, the apostles themselves say they are writing history.
Yes but that was not my analogy. You were using textual criticism as evidence of the historicity of the Gospels, my point was that we have plenty of contemporary novels today which are quite historically accurate to describe our modern time period, and yet they are entirely works of fiction. So we can use this evidence to draw a picture of day to day life in the time period, but not as any kind of clinching evidence for any of the characters in the text, be they fictional, real, or otherwise.
Not only am I familiar I even listed the criteria of how historians do figure out what is historically factual about jesus AND gave you the source
Remember this? -
most New Testament scholarship tries to establish specific facts about Jesus without assuming the general reliability of the Gospels. The key here are the so-called “Criteria of Authenticity” of which the following are some of the most important:
(1) Historical congruence: S fits in with known historical facts concerning the context in which S is said to have occurred.
(2) Independent, early attestation: S appears in multiple sources which are near to the time at which S is alleged to have occurred and which depend neither upon each other nor a common source.
(3) Embarrassment: S is awkward or counter-productive for the persons who serve as the source of information for S.
(4) Dissimilarity: S is unlike antecedent Jewish thought-forms and/or unlike subsequent Christian thought-forms.
(5) Semitisms: traces in the narrative of Aramaic or Hebrew linguistic forms.
(6) Coherence: S is consistent with already established facts about Jesus.
For more check out see Robert Stein, 'The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity'
No, that is a field of historical study called textual criticism, but that is not a smoking gun. Historians use this method to draw inferences about the setting and environment contemporary to any period in history, but not as clinching evidence to support every claim of the text. For that, we need concrete archaeological evidence such as scrolls, manuscripts, carvings, etchings, coinage, statues, paintings, manuscripts, bones, clothing, etc etc etc.. none of which exists to support the claim that Jesus existed or didn't exist. I of course believe He existed, I just don't believe there is any factual evidence to support my belief, and no one here has demonstrated any.
Actually, I didn't claim that at all, I did say I did NOT find those statistics credible, but there has only ever been ONE scholar who denies the historacity of Christ. That means EVERY other historian agrees Christ is a historical figure. Why?? Well, because of all the criteria that must me met for something to be considered a historical fact has been met !
I will reiterate again, and in caps. I AM NOT CLAIMING JESUS NEVER EXISTED, I AM SAYING RIGHTFULLY THAT THERE IS NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE OF THIS. 100% OF SCHOLARS WOULD AGREE WITH THIS BECAUSE IT IS A FACT OF REALITY, PERIOD. Any historian worth his career would admit that there is no primary source evidence from archaeology or otherwise. It is not to say that Jesus did or didn't exist, in fact in history we can't make those claims necessarily about ANY figure, but we can accept the limits of our evidence. Until 1961 Pontius Pilate may not have actually existed either, then we found both the Pilate Stone AND a coin mentioning his inscription, BAM, primary source evidence
Well, I've already said that there is no primary source. And explained, in detail, why that doesn't figure in the historical fact of Christ's existence. I've also explained in detail, why and how we know the manuscripts we DO have jive with the primary texts.
Yes, the authenticity criteria are for textual criticism - to see if they are historically accurate or not! I'll expand :
For instance, let’s consider the criterion of ”multiple attestation.” If we have independent accounts of the same event, this rule says it’s more likely to be historical than fictional because it would be most unusual if two authors independently made up the same story about the same event. Isn’t it remarkable that we should have two, independent virgin birth narratives about Jesus? If you apply this rule of multiple attestation to Jesus’ birth narratives, then we have good grounds for believing that he was born in Bethlehem and born of a virgin. Why? Because we have it attested in independent narratives—Matthew and Luke are independent of one another in their sources at least.
Another rule for establishing the historical nature of an event is the principle of dissimilarity. This rule says that if you can show that an event or saying of Jesus’ life is unlike anything in prior Judaism and also unlike anything in the Church that followed him, then it’s highly probable that it belongs to the historical Jesus himself. So this criterion of dissimilarity can be a very positive help in establishing events as historical. Incidentally, this rule doesn’t mean that if some of Jesus’ statements are similar to those found in Judaism or the early church, then this indicates that they’ve been borrowed from these sources.
Another rule is the criterion of embarrassment. This rule says that if you find elements in the narratives that are awkward for the early Christian Church, or perhaps even embarrassing, then these too are most likely to be historical rather than to have been invented by the Church.
FOR EXAMPLE, In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact.
There are other criteria as well. In fact, there’s a long list of them, but these are just a few. Historians apply them all the time to secular narratives with a view towards establishing their historical credibility.
Colin Hemer, in his book, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History goes through Acts with a fine-toothed comb with a view toward assessing Luke’s credibility as an ancient historian. He pulls out a wealth of historical detail from the book. He assesses the historical information that he finds in terms of facts that would have been the general knowledge of anybody living at the time down to details so specific that only an eyewitness could have known about them. And he establishes convincingly the historical credibility of Luke as an historical author.
If you have multiple attestations independently all saying the same thing, and then ALL these accounts are constantly being verified by archeological evidence, its generally thought most of it is accurate. To say Luke was right about all this accurate detail but then totally lied about a fairly large aspect of his narrative-the existence of jesus-but took pains to accurately note the different accents, ship trading roots, bath houses... is madness !
Wow 100 % of scholars would say that there is no tangible evidence that Christ never existed ? Care to name.....um...even one from ANY peer reviewed lititeure ?
I'll just repost my quotes, NONE of these guys are conservative scholars, but are in fact skeptics :
According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,
"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert
that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."
According to Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming
. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd."
According to Johnson, "The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and executed by crucifixion."
The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact
According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts
According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."
As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."
Even the most sceptical critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most sceptical scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926:
"Most of the miracle stories contained in the gospels are legendary or at least are dressed up with legends. But there can be no doubt
that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed the sick and cast out demons"
even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain
that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”Since you disagree with almost every expert in this field, I must ask you, what evidence do you have that the Gospels are false ?
Especially when they are constantly vindicated by archeological evidence, there are independent sources all saying the same things, and every historian on earth disagrees with you !
Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, why do you say this author is not trustworthy ?
Why does every historian on this planet disagree with you? To over simplify, 5 reasons :
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." They are written as Historical documents.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
SO On the basis of the five reasons I listed, we are justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong. At the very least, we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right. The person who denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.