Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Lots of toe stubbing in this thread!

Good thing I wear steel toe shoes.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

John T wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:19 am The historian Josephus who witnessed first hand the Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation wrote that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1.

Therefore, a historical Jesus existed.

Of course the mythicists will claim the references to Jesus by Josephus are all interpolations yet, they have no proof, only wishful thinking. :scratch:

Academic double standards abound in the make-believe world of the mythicist.
I had to go all the way back to my first post to see how the mythicists might have misinterpreted my original post.

So, if I could clarify once more by fleshing out my line of reason (more or less in the form of a syllogism) it may make more sense like this:

Question by alias: Why are historicists so certain that Jesus existed?

Answer: 1. Did Josephus witness the Jewish revolt first hand, Yes or No?
2. Did Josephus write that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, Yes or No?
3. Did Josephus give a historical account of the murder of James the brother of Jesus in The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 20, chapter 9, 1., Yes or No?

If yes to all, then Jesus certainly existed.

The problem lies in that most mythicists are not aware of other sources regarding James outside of Antiquities. Therefore, they felt confident in the false claim that Josephus' sole mention of James being the brother of Jesus can be chalked up to an interpolation. Oh, the anger they must have felt when they learned that James was mention more than once by Josephus as the brother of Jesus.

Then came the toe stubbing trying to discredit any mention of the historicity of Jesus based on the connection to James by historians.

Perhaps they should stop now before their toe blister turns into gangrene. :tomato:

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by neilgodfrey »

John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:49 pm 2. Did Josephus write that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, Yes or No?
Eusebius wrote that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem; (not "one of the main causes of the war" itself).

He said the siege of Jerusalem happened immediately upon the death of James as vengeance for the death of James. (A problematic detail if we insist on using Eusebius as a source for events and documents over 200 years before his time.)

He does not say the Jews rebelled because (or even partly because) they were incensed over the death of an innocent man. I always interpreted Eusebius's words as a claim that the siege of Jerusalem was divine vengeance for the death of James.

I have never read any historian suggesting that the death of James was one of the factors that provoked the Jews to rebel against Rome.

And Josephus nowhere said that it was.

And Eusebius did not say that Josephus said that, either.

Eusebius, chapter 23:
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.515 James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pm
Ulan wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:00 pm
No matter what you believe Eusebius talked about, mistaken attribution or lost texts, John T specifically used Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9,1 as a source for his claim, and this is false. That's basically the end of it.

The point that he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a mythicist is just icing on the cake. But what does one additional error of judgment matter to a purely ideological warrior?
Toe stub number 6.

Actually, I didn't deny it, just your false interpretation of what I posted. Nor do I believe it is due to a reading comprehension problem on your part because I clarified my point six ways to Sunday. Rather, it appears you were too embarrassed to admit you didn't know there were others sources or perhaps if you are a mythisict you don't want others to know. Either way, out of intellectual dishonesty you default to attacking the messenger.
John, you still don't make any sense. Stop for a moment and try to think. My first post was about the point that you mixed up your authors. Authors, with an "s" at the end. Which means "plural". Several people. Several sources.

With this piece of inanity out of the way...
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:43 pm But in doing that you painted yourself in a corner by dismissing out of hand the writings of Eusebius and Josephus regarding James the brother of Jesus. Something no historian would do but a mythicist sure would.
Telling made-up stuff about what other people allegedly wrote doesn't help, either. You have to combine these two points (writings of Eusebius and writings of Josephus) in your desperate attempt to be right. And yet, every historian will tell you that we don't have these words from Josephus. It's not only "mythicists" (the way you use this word is more or less meaningless; it just labels people whose opinion you don't like) who see the most likely source of the words Eusebius quoted here in the writings of Hegesippus.

Anyway, as you are now at the point where you blatantly misrepresent the arguments of your discussion partners in order to make any point at all, I will leave you to counting imaginary toe stubs that only exist in your mind.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:27 pm
John T wrote: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:49 pm 2. Did Josephus write that one of the main causes of the war was due to the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, Yes or No?
Eusebius wrote that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem; (not "one of the main causes of the war" itself).
Toe stub number 7.

Actually you still got it wrong. It was Hegesippus not Josephus that said the immediate siege of Jerusalem was due to the murder of James the Just. Book 2 chapter 23 (19).

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Ulan wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:02 am
Telling made-up stuff about what other people allegedly wrote doesn't help, either. You have to combine these two points (writings of Eusebius and writings of Josephus) in your desperate attempt to be right. And yet, every historian will tell you that we don't have these words from Josephus.
Toe stub number 8.

Yet, that is all you did was make-up things about what I meant in my posts.
Hypocrisy much? :facepalm:

Are far as your false/laughable claim that every historian agrees with your mythicist ideology in that Josephus never wrote about James the Just is well, exactly the point that I said I would make. That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.

You should try to stay off that toe for awhile and put some ice on it. ;)

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Secret Alias »

John T

Eusebius writes AFTER THE CITATION of Hegesippus:

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:58 am John T

Eusebius writes AFTER THE CITATION of Hegesippus:

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,516 “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”
Yes, that is correct. That is, Eusebius is done with the testimony of Hegesippus and now moves on to the testimony of Josephus.
Although your translation is not exactly the same as C. F. Cruse. it is close enough, please proceed.

The big problem we have here is that too many mythicists do not understand who is writing about whom and when. Something a historian would have little trouble deciphering.



John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by Ulan »

John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:55 am Are far as your false/laughable claim that every historian agrees with your mythicist ideology in that Josephus never wrote about James the Just is well, exactly the point that I said I would make. That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.
This illustrates my point nicely: You are unable to extract proper information of texts you read. This summary of what I allegedly claim (of course you wouldn't find any such statement from me to back your claim up) is a real head-scratcher. Also, what all of that has to do with mythicist ideology or what this mythicist ideology has to do with me is equally puzzling. You don't make any sense in anything you write.

Which probably is explanation enough why you are still insisting that you didn't write what you wrote. But go ahead and continue with your foot fetish.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

Post by John T »

Ulan wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:38 pm
John T wrote: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:55 am Are far as your false/laughable claim that every historian agrees with your mythicist ideology in that Josephus never wrote about James the Just is well, exactly the point that I said I would make. That is, mysticists are not interested in history but only in promoting their fictitious ideology that Jesus did not exist.
This illustrates my point nicely: You are unable to extract proper information of texts you read. This summary of what I allegedly claim (of course you wouldn't find any such statement from me to back your claim up) is a real head-scratcher. Also, what all of that has to do with mythicist ideology or what this mythicist ideology has to do with me is equally puzzling. You don't make any sense in anything you write.

Which probably is explanation enough why you are still insisting that you didn't write what you wrote. But go ahead and continue with your foot fetish.
All of your personal insults aside, are you saying you do believe Jesus existed?
That is a simple yes or no question.


Thanks in advance.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Post Reply