MS2 wrote: IanS wrote:MS2 wrote:IanS wrote:No. It is THE question.
Weird. How do you know it is THE question? Was there a memo I didn't get?
Yes, actually it does seem there is a message, an explanation, that you are definitely not getting!
Perhaps you'd better go open a new thread where you can promote your message then. Because this thread is and always has been one where people can argue whatever points they wish about and relevant to 'Historical Jesus'.
I'm not "promoting any message", except to say that we now know from modern science (since about 1800-1850), and from all modern democratic legal processes (since about 1850-1900), that the only credible reliable way to judge any situation is on the basis of genuine evidence of that which is being claimed.
That does NOT mean evidence of something
other than that which is being claimed. It means evidence which actually supports the claim.
In the case of the bible being presented as evidence of Jesus - the only evidence in the biblical writing, is actually evidence of the writers religious beliefs in a figure that the writers had never known. That is evidence of religious belief. It's not actually evidence of Jesus! Is it!? Answer - no it most definitely is NOT!
MS2 wrote:What counts in any logical honest 21st century educated discussion, is what genuine evidence exists to support the claim that is being made. And the claim which you, Owdhat and all other HJ people are making, is that it's logical and sensible for you to believe that Jesus was probably a real person.
I can't speak for Owdhat, but that isn't the claim I make in this thread. I've told you this before. The claim I make is that of the various possible explanations for the surviving evidence from the period, the best one appears to me to include a man called Jesus who did some preaching, gathered a few followers and got crucified.
That is exactly what I just said to you - you believe that Jesus was more likely to be real than not, correct? And afaik, you are saying that the evidence suggests that to you, yes?
And what I said to you is that what you are calling your evidence, is actually only evidence of 1st century religious faith from people who produced no actual evidence of knowing Jesus at all. What they wrote, i.e. your evidence, was a book of UN-evidenced religious faith. And that is your evidence, religious faith!
MS2 wrote:I've told you repeatedly that this does NOT equate to a claim that that surviving evidence makes the sort of case that would deliver a guilty verdict in court.
I did not mention any guilty verdict in court! What I said was that you, Owdhat and all HJ people here, say you believe that Jesus was more likely real than not, right? And you claim that there is good evidence to support your belief, right? Well I have just explained above , and at least 50 times before in great detail, why you do not in fact have any such evidence of Jesus. What you have is only
un-evidenced statements of religious faith from 1st century (or more likely 4th century) biblical writers!
Or alternatively - if you want to say that you are
not basing your HJ belief on evidence, then frankly that sinks your case altogether.
MS2 wrote:IOW - what you and Owdhat are trying to say is that you believe in Jesus by putting your trust in the religious faith beliefs of the biblical writers ... biblical writers whose only "evidence" was their religious faith in a figure entirely unknown to any of them! You are trusting to 1st century religious faith (and that was actually faith in the constantly supernatural).
You've been told repeatly that equating what I think about a simple historical question to religious belief is bollocks. Your insistence on repeating it only looks like propaganda on your part.
Well that is just an angry flailing-about piece of desperation from you, in which you give no content whatsoever. What I think about your response to your "simple historical question", is exactly what I have just told you above 3 times! What I think you are saying, because you have said it countless times, is that you believe there is good evidence to persuade you that Jesus was most probably a real person. And I have just explained to you 50 times or more why your evidence is NOT evidence of Jesus at all, but only in fact evidence of un-evidenced 1st century religious faith.
MS2 wrote: If you are going to express positive belief in something, then you can only reasonably do that on the basis of genuine reliable evidence of that which is being claimed. Otherwise what you are actually doing expressing a faith belief.
There you go with the bollocks again. I think HJ is part of the best explanation of the evidence that has survived. That is what good history does. It looks for best explanations of evidence from the past. If I thought that there was a better explanation without HJ but continued to believe in HJ anyway, then you would have a point. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT.
Exactly - so you do think as I have repeatedly said
"I think HJ is part of the best explanation of the evidence that has survived." . But the evidence which has survived in the biblical writing, is most definitely only evidence of the writers un-evidenced religious beliefs in the past legends of a figure who none of those biblical writers had ever known. That is a fact isn't it? If you say that is not a fact and that instead the biblical writing does contain evidence of Jesus rather than just evidence of the writers beliefs in Jesus, then please quote from the bible any actual evidence of Jesus known to any single person who ever wrote anything at all about Jesus ... just quote the actual evidence of Jesus known to any of those writers. Do not quote un-evidenced statements of gospel writers beliefs ... quote where the gospel actually produces evidence of Jesus ever known to anyone.
IOW - to put it all even more simply it’s no use you repeatedly shouting “bollocks” and throwing your toys out of the pram. The fact is that you think the bible does contain actual evidence of Jesus, sufficient for you to believe he was more likely than not a real person. But in fact the bible contains absolutely no such evidence of Jesus. What it contains as evidence is only evidence of peoples 1st century beliefs in a legendary messiah of the past who none of them had ever known.
And (repeat) that is evidence only of the writers religious beliefs (in fact their beliefs in the multiply supernatural). It is not evidence of a Jesus figure known either to any of those biblical writers, or to anyone ever named by any of those biblical writers (nobody ever named in the bible ever wrote to confirm any such knowledge of meeting Jesus).
by 
