Jesus was a Historical Figure

[Skitch]

Lol you guys dont care? Just wait when you're dead.

 

[malakadang]

A Court of Law is slightly different. A Court of Law hopes to recount events of the past in the first-hand present. That is to say, yes those events are in the past, but, they are in the present past if that makes sense. They are not events 2,000 years ago, they are events within a few years of each other, at best 40 years.

The Historic Method knows eyewitness testimony in the form of scriptures is far more reliable, hence, that is why they will prefer them over second hand accounts. However, if all sources point towards one direction then we can conclude one thing. A massive conspiracy, or enough to base a conclusion on.

If you want to discount Second hand sources from your own proof that is fine, but, you would be disregarding much history has to teach us, given that it uses the Historic method which allows Second hand sources.

 

[Terrankiller]

A Court of Law is slightly different. A Court of Law hopes to recount events of the past in the first-hand present. That is to say, yes those events are in the past, but, they are in the present past if that makes sense. They are not events 2,000 years ago, they are events within a few years of each other, at best 40 years.

The Historic Method knows eyewitness testimony in the form of scriptures is far more reliable, hence, that is why they will prefer them over second hand accounts. However, if all sources point towards one direction then we can conclude one thing. A massive conspiracy, or enough to base a conclusion on.

If you want to discount Second hand sources from your own proof that is fine, but, you would be disregarding much history has to teach us, given that it uses the Historic method which allows Second hand sources.

I am not saying we should disregard all events and persons based off of only second hand sources but we should question it is what I am trying to get at. I want people to think especially when some of the accounts are very far fetched.

 

[malakadang]

I am not saying we should disregard all events and persons based off of only second hand sources but we should question it is what I am trying to get at. I want people to think especially when some of the accounts are very far fetched.

Historians do question it, but, that is why they follow the Historic Method. We should question all second hand sources, for example, just because we read somewhere online that the World is 100 billion years old, doesn't mean it's true. However, if there is one source that says that, and 1,000 that say otherwise, chances are (not always) that the majority rules presuming it passes from a historic point critical textual analysis.

Historians have observed numerous scriptures pointing ultimately in the direction of a man named Jesus Christ.

 

[Terrankiller]

Historians do question it, but, that is why they follow the Historic Method. We should question all second hand sources, for example, just because we read somewhere online that the World is 100 billion years old, doesn't mean it's true. However, if there is one source that says that, and 1,000 that say otherwise, chances are (not always) that the majority rules presuming it passes from a historic point critical textual analysis.

Historians have observed numerous scriptures pointing ultimately in the direction of a man named Jesus Christ.

I agree with you. I have nothing else to add to this discussion.

 

[QuasiNoob]

I doubt any second hand accounts. They did not witness Jesus for themselves. We don't have second hand accounts in a court of law for a reason.

I already made clear that there is far too much of a contextual difference between a modern court of law and a first-third century ancient historian for your comparison to be warranted. You also failed to address my problems with the "secondhand/too late" objection, and are just repeating yourself.

Scholars have a reason to advocate for his non existence because the evidence is not reliable to begin with.

Actually, all but 3 contemporary NT scholars (to my knowledge) accept Jesus' existence as a historical figure. You are appealing to fringe "scholars" and treating them like the majority.

Saying he existing based off of second hand accounts and gospels is just ridiculous.

Dismissing something without actually giving a reason is just ridiculous.

Physical evidence is not necessary but it would certainly strengthen your case. If a piece of carpentry crafted by Jesus was known to exist and documented you wouldn't have to argue your case based off of secondary accounts.

Obviously it would HELP, but if it isn't NECESSARY (which it isn't), there is nothing to really help your case. Tons of people - including some modern characters - are accepted with no or dubious physical evidence.

Jesus could of existed (book burning and cities being destroyed was a prevalent thing in the past) but the evidence is just not enough to be convincing.

It doesn't matter if it "convinces" you. It matters what the majority of the evidence says.

 

[Jimmy]

Note that this debate is a separate debate from the existence of God, the resurrection, and the nature of Jesus, so please don't comment on those in this thread.

I'm a bit curious about this. Given that you think Christ's resurrection was a historical event, why is it not fitting to discuss this on a thread about his historicity?

 

[QuasiNoob]

I'm a bit curious about this. Given that you think Christ's resurrection was a historical event, why is it not fitting to discuss this on a thread about his historicity?

I wanted to focus on Jesus' historicity as a person, not necessarily the divinely revealed Son of God the Gospels make him out to be. I don't want this topic being sidetracked by the question of "who was Jesus" or "did Jesus do x/y/z". As I said above, I'll gladly comment on a separate thread on the issues, but I would prefer this one focus solely on his existence as a historical figure.