Facts Regarding Jesus

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:15 pm

From here:

WinePusher wrote: ...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

d.thomas · Post by **d.thomas** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:33 pm

.

There are no verifiable facts when it comes to an "historical" Jesus, just a never ending supply of opinions.

.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:41 pm

d.thomas wrote:.
There are no verifiable facts when it comes to an "historical" Jesus, just a never ending supply of opinions.

I s'pose then we should count this as Fact 1

fredonly · Post by **fredonly** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:44 pm

Provide some verifiable facts about Aristotle.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:01 pm

fredonly wrote:Provide some verifiable facts about Aristotle.

He is NOT the subject of this OP.

That fact is verifiable if you had actually read the OP, as there is absolutely no mention of him within the Title, or the text of the OP.

fredonly · Post by **fredonly** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:38 pm

JoeyKnothead wrote:
fredonly wrote:Provide some verifiable facts about Aristotle.
He is NOT the subject of this OP.

That fact is verifiable if you had actually read the OP, as there is absolutely no mention of him within the Title, or the text of the OP.

OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity. The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist. There are various things about his life that historians think are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.

The so-called "facts" (although probably too strong a word) about Jesus are simply the things that historians feel are likely to have occurred. E.g. itinerant preacher, faith healer, said "blessed are..." a number of things.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:47 pm

From Post 6 :

fredonly wrote: OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity.

Yet so many Christians carry on about the "historical Jesus".

fredonly wrote: The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

But notice, the challenged statement indicates that Jesus actually existed or acted in a fashion that can be positively known.

fredonly wrote: There are various things about his life that historians thin[k] are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.

Thinking something is not showing it to be truth.

(edit because surely you can understand 7 looks a lot like 6

)

Question Everything · Post by **Question Everything** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:57 am

fredonly wrote: It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.

So why then didn't Philo write about Jesus?

In Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, R.G. Price wrote: Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

fredonly · Post by **fredonly** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:58 am

JoeyKnothead wrote:From Post 6 :

fredonly wrote: OK, pardon my subtlety. My point is there there are no verifiable facts about anyone in antiquity.
Yet so many Christians carry on about the "historical Jesus".

It sounds like you have a false impression. It was religious skeptics who started the trend of trying to decipher the historical Jesus - deconstructing the story behind the theological cloud of the Bible. Liberal minded Christian scholars joined in using the same secular methodology; conservative Christian "scholars" held to their biases.

JoeyKnothead wrote:
fredonly wrote: The study of history is about determining what is likely to have occurred. It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.
But notice, the challenged statement indicates that Jesus actually existed or acted in a fashion that can be positively known.

I agree that calling them "facts" is too strong. We only have educated guesses, some more plausible than others.

JoeyKnothead wrote:
fredonly wrote: There are various things about his life that historians thin[k] are somewhat likely to have occurred. None are verifiable - because that's the way history works.
Thinking something is not showing it to be truth.

Of course. However, does this mean you would reject all historical research and analysis because it can't be proven true? e.g. I read a relatively recent theory about Christopher Columbus, that he was actually Spanish and not Italian. An interesting, and (as far as I can tell) plausible theory. But no one could possibly say this is an established, proven fact. So what?

fredonly · Post by **fredonly** » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:14 am

Question Everything wrote:
fredonly wrote: It is more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't exist.
So why then didn't Philo write about Jesus?

In Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ, R.G. Price wrote: Philo's writings foreshadow Christian ideas in many ways
Almost all of the works of Philo are preserved
Some of Philo's writings may have been used by the authors of the Gospels
Philo's life perfectly spans the supposed life of Jesus
Philo was a community leader and active in the social movements of his day
Philo reported on the political and religious events of his day
Philo provides the only contemporary account of Pontius Pilate in all of ancient literature
Philo personally knew several of the historical figures in the Jesus story
Philo would surely have written about someone like "Jesus Christ" if he had known of him
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm

At best, this is a theory similar to the one about Christopher Columbus being Spanish. Probably it is less credible than that. Is this theory widely embraced by other scholars?

It seems to me you are insisting that if Jesus existed, then certainly Philo would have written about him. I'm sorry, but this is not logically valid. There are any number of reasons why Philo might not have written about Jesus. Two obvious possibilities are: 1) he hadn't heard of him (why should you be so certain that he would have?)
2) Philo saw nothing noteworthy to write about - Jesus was one of many itinerant preachers.

I also have to ask: who is R.G. Price? What are his credentials? I'm sure he's done some research, but does he have any scholarly credentials? Has he been published in peer reviewed journals? A quick skimming of his section on Philo implies he's relying on the fallacy: absence of proof implies proof of absence.