Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

[Goat]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

The problem with Josephus is that antiquities 18 was a later addition (from about the 4th century). Antiquities 20 is suspect because the single phrase appears to be a copiers gloss, and is the 'the one called christ' is the exact phrase, word for word, found in a couple of the Gospels

As for acts, that was a religious document written in that early part of the second century (probably), and is decades after the events described, with a strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence.

Except for the very suspect report by Jospehus in the mid-90's, there is no non-christian source for Jesus. The earliest Christian source for Jesus was
maybe in the 50's, from someone who admits they never met him in the flesh, and who gave very little details about him. The later the christian report, the more elaborate the stories about Jesus.

There MIGHT have been a Yeshua/Jesus. The chances of the 'proto-jesus' matching the stories of the gospels is very low.

My personal opinion is that the figure that inspired Paul to write about a Jesus that was Cruxified was the figure of the Samaritan Messiah, who was executed by Pilot
in 36 C.E, and precipitated his removal from Judah. The name of the Messiah was not recorded by either Philo or Josephus. However, it was a messanic type of personality. This only slighly matches the stories... but it is the only Messanic
figure that is recorded by being executed by Pilot

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

The problem with Josephus is that antiquities 18 was a later addition (from about the 4th century). Antiquities 20 is suspect because the single phrase appears to be a copiers gloss, and is the 'the one called christ' is the exact phrase, word for word, found in a couple of the Gospels

As for acts, that was a religious document written in that early part of the second century (probably), and is decades after the events described, with a strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence.

People who confuse their own bias with fact leave little room for discussion.

See Alice Whealey for a fine summary of the Josephus controversey and Kirby on both Josephus and Acts. I'm at work and, therefore, do not have access to Udo Schnelle's text, but I fully suspect that he too lacks your certainty about the dating of Acts. As for its purpose, please substantiate this "strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence" that you've so casually contrived.

[Goat]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

The problem with Josephus is that antiquities 18 was a later addition (from about the 4th century). Antiquities 20 is suspect because the single phrase appears to be a copiers gloss, and is the 'the one called christ' is the exact phrase, word for word, found in a couple of the Gospels

As for acts, that was a religious document written in that early part of the second century (probably), and is decades after the events described, with a strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence.

People who confuse their own bias with fact leave little room for discussion.

See Alice Whealey for a fine summary of the Josephus controversey and Kirby on both Josephus and Acts. I'm at work and, therefore, do not have access to Udo Schnelle's text, but I fully suspect that he too lacks your certainty about the dating of Acts. As for its purpose, please substantiate this "strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence" that you've so casually contrived.

Yes, I have read Kirby. I disagree with him on Antiquities 20... and agree with him on Antiquities 18.

I think the author of Luke/acts using Josephus as a source is feasible, which means
Luke/Acts was written after 95 c.e. That certainly makes the works pseudo graphical in nature. The author of acts never claimed to have met Jesus either, but merely Paul, who never met Jesus in 'real life'. That makes it hearsay at best.

The motivation for the writing of both acts/luke is theological to begin with. I don't see how you can say that it is not.

If you take the writing at face value, then it might be evidence of Paul.. but not of Jesus.

The author of act/luke full acknowledges he is taking it from stories that came before.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

The problem with Josephus is that antiquities 18 was a later addition (from about the 4th century). Antiquities 20 is suspect because the single phrase appears to be a copiers gloss, and is the 'the one called christ' is the exact phrase, word for word, found in a couple of the Gospels

As for acts, that was a religious document written in that early part of the second century (probably), and is decades after the events described, with a strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence.

People who confuse their own bias with fact leave little room for discussion.

See Alice Whealey for a fine summary of the Josephus controversey and Kirby on both Josephus and Acts. I'm at work and, therefore, do not have access to Udo Schnelle's text, but I fully suspect that he too lacks your certainty about the dating of Acts. As for its purpose, please substantiate this "strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence" that you've so casually contrived.

Yes, I have read Kirby. I disagree with him on Antiquities 20... and agree with him on Antiquities 18.

Thank you for clarifying that we are dealing with your opinion rather than fact.

I think the author of Luke/acts using Josephus as a source is feasible, which means Luke/Acts was written after 95 c.e.

Thank you again, but the fact that you deem your opinion to be feasible is nice but hardly compelling.

That certainly makes the works pseudo graphical in nature.

Let's just call this a 'sketchy' argument at best.

The motivation for the writing of both acts/luke is theological to begin with. I don't see how you can say that it is not.

And I don't see where I have suggested anything of the kind.

[Goat]

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.

I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.

The problem with Josephus is that antiquities 18 was a later addition (from about the 4th century). Antiquities 20 is suspect because the single phrase appears to be a copiers gloss, and is the 'the one called christ' is the exact phrase, word for word, found in a couple of the Gospels

As for acts, that was a religious document written in that early part of the second century (probably), and is decades after the events described, with a strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence.

People who confuse their own bias with fact leave little room for discussion.

See Alice Whealey for a fine summary of the Josephus controversey and Kirby on both Josephus and Acts. I'm at work and, therefore, do not have access to Udo Schnelle's text, but I fully suspect that he too lacks your certainty about the dating of Acts. As for its purpose, please substantiate this "strong religious motivation for needing to 'prove' the existence" that you've so casually contrived.

Yes, I have read Kirby. I disagree with him on Antiquities 20... and agree with him on Antiquities 18.

Thank you for clarifying that we are dealing with your opinion rather than fact.

I think the author of Luke/acts using Josephus as a source is feasible, which means Luke/Acts was written after 95 c.e.

Thank you again, but the fact that you deem your opinion to be feasible is nice but hardly compelling.

That certainly makes the works pseudo graphical in nature.

Let's just call this a 'sketchy' argument at best.

The motivation for the writing of both acts/luke is theological to begin with. I don't see how you can say that it is not.

And I don't see where I have suggested anything of the kind.

The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work. You might dismiss the points I have as 'opinion'.. but you can't show that your viewpoint is anything more than 'opinion' either. The point of the matter is that Jospehus is highly suspect as a source, and you can not pin down when ACTS was written within a 40 year period.

That makes those two sources weak at best.

Now, if you could come up with a non-Christian source that predates the Jewish revolt, you might have something.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.

You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?

[Goat]

The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.

You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?

Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.
The person claimed to have traveled with Paul.. (and the story of the road to Damascus is very suspect to say the least)... and there is also indications that
it was written AFTER the first century was over (the very probable use of Josphus as a source for example). You are talking about someone who wrote at least 60 years after the alleged cruxificition. However, let's assume the Luke was a student of Paul.
He wrote at least 20 years after Paul's execution. He got much of his theology and stories from Paul.. who admits he never saw Jesus i n the flesh (see the Road to Damascus story in acts).

Is the writings of student of someone who claimed to have seen a person in a vision evidence that the person seen in the vision was real? IMO, no, it is not.
Is it possible that the student believed the story about seeing this person in a vision... Yes.. it is possible that the student believed the stories of his teacher,
and elaborated on them.

Does it mean the vision had any reality to it. NO, it does not.

[Jayhawker Soule]

The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.

You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?

Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.

Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?

[Goat]

The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.

You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?

Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.

Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?

I don't know. All I know it is fiction.