Historical Proof of Christ (part 2)

[createdtoworship]

I will update the OP with the quotes of other jews and non jews that believed Jesus not only existed but was crucified. (I have another thread on solid proof of Jesus resurrection), this one is historic proof that he existed in general. See there is something called "verisimilitude." Ask any jewish non christian archaeologist in Israel and they all honor the 4 gospel accounts as they have 'verisimilitude." Alexander the Great for example has no manuscripts that have this. Ptolemy Alexander's friend's accounts did not have 'verisimilitude." For example. The statues of Alexander are late or have uncertain dates. There are no writings of Alexander, and no official biography. There is mythical elements to Alexander the great. Many believed he was divine. So if I was to say the John Rylands Gospel of John which is about 40 years after the death of the last disciple is unhistoric, then we must also say that Alexander the great is unhistoric. Because if Jesus is not historically valid, the for sure Alexander the great never existed. Hannibal never crossed the alps and you can basically toss out all of ancient history for that matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will update the OP with the quotes of other non jews that believed Jesus not only existed but was crucified. (I have another thread on solid proof of Jesus resurrection), this one is historic proof that he existed in general. See there is something called "verisimilitude." Ask any jewish non christian archaeologist in Israel and they all honor the 4 gospel accounts as they have 'verisimilitude." Alexander the Great for example has no manuscripts that have this. Ptolemy Alexander's friend's accounts did not have 'verisimilitude." For example. The statues of Alexander are late or have uncertain dates. There are no writings of alexander, and no official biography. There is mythical elements to alexander the great. Many believed he was divine. So if I was to say the John Rylands Gospel of John which is about 40 years after the death of the last disciple is unhistoric, then we must also say that alexander the great is not historic. Because if Jesus is not historically valid, the for sure alexander the great never existed. Hannibal never crossed the alps and you can basically toss out all of ancient history for that matter.

I don't think that you understand the nature of proof. Bringing up Alexander the Great does not help you since there is far more evidence for him than you seem to think. Much more evidence than there is for Jesus. For example there is the works of Callisthenes. He was a historian that accompanied Alexander the Great. He was not a sycophant either since he did criticize him towards the end of his career. Though his original works do not exist his work was widespread and the works of several that quote his originals do exist. This alone is better evidence than we have for Jesus.

There are records of orders that he made, with his name listed as the source. There are records of countries defeated by him describing the battles. The list goes on for quite a while on Alexander. Both from people that supported him and opposed him. For Jesus there is sometimes doubt that historical records speaking of a "Jesus" is the same one as the Christian Jesus. It was a common name back then.

Though I do agree that Jesus probably was a historical figure it is an error to try to claim that he was proven, especially when you bring people that we do have massive evidence for, such as Alexander the Great. Your argument makes it look as if Jesus did not exist when one looks into the facts.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are records of orders that he made, with his name listed as the source.

There is several gospels historically accurate with verisimilitude that show Jesus orders too. So if it's good enough for Alexander it's good enough for Jesus right? And don't say that the divine aspect of Jesus writings make it unhistorical, because Alexanders successors thought he was divine too, because of the swiftness and success of his attacks.

 

[createdtoworship]

anyway, everyone.....I thought I would post something to bless all the members of this thread, and also to hopefully awaken this thread out of the grave.....


lets resurrect this topic!

anyway, hey peoples who are stuck at home, here is 2 free weeks of christian streaming on me.....not really on me, but it's free anyways till end of april. They have a series called chosen, everyone loves it.... VidAngel | Watch Movies However The BLEEP You Want

it's an app that you have to download on a tablet, or phone.

don't be bored, don't watch stuff you shouldn't, encourage your faith!

 

[Caliban]

I will update the OP with the quotes of other jews and non jews that believed Jesus not only existed but was crucified. (I have another thread on solid proof of Jesus resurrection), this one is historic proof that he existed in general. See there is something called "verisimilitude." Ask any jewish non christian archaeologist in Israel and they all honor the 4 gospel accounts as they have 'verisimilitude." Alexander the Great for example has no manuscripts that have this. Ptolemy Alexander's friend's accounts did not have 'verisimilitude." For example. The statues of Alexander are late or have uncertain dates. There are no writings of Alexander, and no official biography. There is mythical elements to Alexander the great. Many believed he was divine. So if I was to say the John Rylands Gospel of John which is about 40 years after the death of the last disciple is unhistoric, then we must also say that Alexander the great is unhistoric. Because if Jesus is not historically valid, the for sure Alexander the great never existed. Hannibal never crossed the alps and you can basically toss out all of ancient history for that matter.

Verisimilitude, as you are using it, is not providing support for the underlying supernatural claims of Christianity. There are many thing in the Bible which reflect reality. It does not give credibility to the supernatural claims by simply saying some things are real, true, or have verisimilitude. Those things are probably not in question. You will find verisimilitude in other religious works as well; that is not evidence for the supernatural claims within each tradition.

There is a higher standard of evidence required for the supernatural claim that a man rose from the dead than for the claim that Alexander conquered large parts of the west. One claim is rather normal, one requires a bit more skepticism. Comparing the validity of an historical Jesus and Alexander are wildly different. The plausibility of the claim MUST be considered. You would be on similar footing by claiming both were merely mortal or both divide. But that isn't the claim is it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Verisimilitude, as you are using it, is not providing support for the underlying supernatural claims of Christianity. There are many thing in the Bible which reflect reality. It does not give credibility to the supernatural claims by simply saying some things are real, true, or have verisimilitude. Those things are probably not in question. You will find verisimilitude in other religious works as well; that is not evidence for the supernatural claims within each tradition.

There is a higher standard of evidence required for the supernatural claim that a man rose from the dead than for the claim that Alexander conquered large parts of the west. One claim is rather normal, one requires a bit more skepticism. Comparing the validity of an historical Jesus and Alexander are wildly different. The plausibility of the claim MUST be considered. You would be on similar footing by claiming both were merely mortal or both divide. But that isn't the claim is it?

I will reply to your post, first provide evidence of this claim:

You will find verisimilitude in other religious works as well

as far as I know not even the entire Bible has verisimilitude, as far as I know just the gospels of the new testament do. I could very well be wrong on this I admit, I simply heard it from a lecture. But never the less I would be interested in any religious books that had it. In order for it to have it, a professional in the field of history or archaology or both, should verify it has verisimilitude. I await your reply.

 

[Caliban]

I will reply to your post, first provide evidence of this claim:


as far as I know not even the entire Bible has verisimilitude, as far as I know just the gospels of the new testament do. I could very well be wrong on this I admit, I simply heard it from a lecture. But never the less I would be interested in any religious books that had it. In order for it to have it, a professional in the field of history or archaology or both, should verify it has verisimilitude. I await your reply.

I did not make a claim, I'm not sure what you are referring too. Please elaborate.

There is nothing astounding about an authors ability to employ verisimilitude. As someone who teaches this literary device every year, I can tell you, It's in every work of fiction. A book exhibiting verisimilitude is not evidence for its historical accuracy. I would suggest doing some more reading on this literary device before using it as evidence for your claim.
A definition and some examples:
Verisimilitude - Examples and Definition of Verisimilitude

 

[createdtoworship]

I did not make a claim, I'm not sure what you are referring too. Please elaborate.

There is nothing astounding about an authors ability to employ verisimilitude. As someone who teaches this literary device every year, I can tell you, It's in every work of fiction. A book exhibiting verisimilitude is not evidence for its historical accuracy. I would suggest doing some more reading on this literary device before using it as evidence for your claim.
A definition and some examples:
Verisimilitude - Examples and Definition of Verisimilitude

a word can be used differently in different contexts, in ancient documents verisimilitude may mean something else.....this is the context of what I mean

Getting Jesus Right: How Muslims Get Jesus and Islam Wrong

also here is a quote I found online:


"New Testament scholars, historians, and archaeologists view the gospels as essentially reliable, because they exhibit verisimilitude, a Latin word that means “they resemble the way things really were.” That is, the contents of these writings match with what we know of the place, people, and period described in the document.

Their contents cohere with what is known through other written sources and through archaeological finds. Their contents give evidence of acquaintance with the topography and geography of the region that forms the backdrop to the story. The authors of these documents exhibit knowledge of the culture and customs of the people they describe. Ancient narratives that possess these characteristics are used by historians and archaeologists.

The New Testament Gospels and Acts exhibit a great deal of ver-ee-similitude. They speak of real people — Pontius Pilate, Herod Antipas, Annas, Caiaphas, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Felix, Festus — and they speak of real events — the death of John the Baptist, the death of Agrippa I. They speak of real places — villages, cities, roads, lakes, mountains — which are clarified and corroborated by other historical sources and by archaeology.


He continues with more examples, and then compares the canonical gospels to later non-canonical gospels.

In contrast to the verisimilitude of the New Testament Gospels and the Book of Acts, . . . stand the gospels and gospel-like writings of the second century, such as the gnostic gospels and Syria’s Gospel of Thomas. These writings do not exhibit verisimilitude, at least not verisimilitude with early first-century Jewish Palestine."
History and Verisimilitude: "Real" vs. "Realistic"

 

[Caliban]

I did not make a claim, I'm not sure what you are referring too. Please elaborate.

There is nothing astounding about an authors ability to employ verisimilitude. As someone who teaches this literary device every year, I can tell you, It's in every work of fiction. A book exhibiting verisimilitude is not evidence for its historical accuracy. I would suggest doing some more reading on this literary device before using it as evidence for your claim.
A definition and some examples:
Verisimilitude - Examples and Definition of Verisimilitude

That is not a claim; it is simple, undisputed fact. You claimed there is another use of verisimilitude that differs from literary use; please demonstrate that with evidence from a scholarly source. You may cite a reputable source as evidence or you may ignore my post and move on to a more credulous audience. Let's have it.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is not a claim; it is simple, undisputed fact. You claimed there is another use of verisimilitude that differs from literary use; please demonstrate that with evidence from a scholarly source. You may cite a reputable source as evidence or you may ignore my post and move on to a more credulous audience. Let's have it.

At first I thought that I was thinking of something different than you. But it looks like we are talking about the same thing, so I was wrong and I don't need to prove something that is admittedly not accurate. But you do, you made the comment that other works have verisimilitude, so please provide quotes from authorities of the documents that 'verisimilitude exists in those documents.' Secondly we will examine their credentials and thirdly their arguments.

 

[Tolworth John]

I will update the OP with the quotes of other jews and non jews that believed Jesus not only existed but was crucified. (I have another thread on solid proof of Jesus resurrection), this one is historic proof that he existed in general. See there is something called "verisimilitude." Ask any jewish non christian archaeologist in Israel and they all honor the 4 gospel accounts as they have 'verisimilitude." Alexander the Great for example has no manuscripts that have this. Ptolemy Alexander's friend's accounts did not have 'verisimilitude." For example. The statues of Alexander are late or have uncertain dates. There are no writings of Alexander, and no official biography. There is mythical elements to Alexander the great. Many believed he was divine. So if I was to say the John Rylands Gospel of John which is about 40 years after the death of the last disciple is unhistoric, then we must also say that Alexander the great is unhistoric. Because if Jesus is not historically valid, the for sure Alexander the great never existed. Hannibal never crossed the alps and you can basically toss out all of ancient history for that matter.

Read Dr Barry Habermas and William lane Craig, both provide ample evidence based on the writings of historians and antient writers for the historical facts of the gospel.

You are trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[createdtoworship]

Read Dr Barry Habermas and William lane Craig, both provide ample evidence based on the writings of historians and antient writers for the historical facts of the gospel.

You are trying to reinvent the wheel.

I believe the Bible sir. The conversation is that the gospels and acts are the only ones that have verisimilitude that we know of. The other poster said there were other works that have it, so I asked for documentation.

 

[Tolworth John]

I believe the Bible sir. The conversation is that the gospels and acts are the only ones that have verisimilitude that we know of. The other poster said there were other works that have it, so I asked for documentation.[/QUOhi

Historians have a process of assesng historical claims and of forming an assessment of the accuracy of the historical records. Things like, the more references there are, the close your event, whether hostile or friendly etc etc
Habermas has read ever historians assesment of the crucifixion and resurrection. Craig has he minimum facts accepted by historians.
That is why they should be read.

 

[createdtoworship]

Historians have a process of assesng historical claims and of forming an assessment of the accuracy of the historical records. Things like, the more references there are, the close your event, whether hostile or friendly etc etc
Habermas has read ever historians assesment of the crucifixion and resurrection. Craig has he minimum facts accepted by historians.
That is why they should be read.

Well do you have examples of verisimilitude in ancient historic writings? Moreso than what Craig or Habermas claim? If not, then I presume they know more about this.

 

[Tolworth John]

Well do you have examples of verisimilitude in ancient historic writings? Moreso than what Craig or Habermas claim? If not, then I presume they know more about this.

I am repeating wat thy, among many othes have said.

 

[createdtoworship]

I am repeating wat thy, among many othes have said.

So you agree with everything they believe about the Bible?

 

[Caliban]

At first I thought that I was thinking of something different than you. But it looks like we are talking about the same thing, so I was wrong and I don't need to prove something that is admittedly not accurate. But you do, you made the comment that other works have verisimilitude, so please provide quotes from authorities of the documents that 'verisimilitude exists in those documents.' Secondly we will examine their credentials and thirdly their arguments.

I guess you did not read the link in my previous post where I did that. Verisimilitude is an everyday occurrence in literature. it is not rare, special, or especially noteworthy. It is a literary device authors use to give their stories a feeling of real life. Read Aristotles book Poetics; it explains it:
The Poetics of Aristotle, by Aristotle

If you have access to JSTOR, this is relevant:
Kirby, John T. "Aristotle's" Poetics": The Rhetorical Principle." Arethusa 24.2 (1991): 197-217.

 

[createdtoworship]

I guess you did not read the link in my previous post where I did that. Verisimilitude is an everyday occurrence in literature. it is not rare, special, or especially noteworthy. It is a literary device authors use to give their stories a feeling of real life. Read Aristotles book Poetics; it explains it:
The Poetics of Aristotle, by Aristotle

If you have access to JSTOR, this is relevant:
Kirby, John T. "Aristotle's" Poetics": The Rhetorical Principle." Arethusa 24.2 (1991): 197-217.

Verismilitude is increased with how historic the work is, are the place names real place names, are the people groups real, are the landmarks real, are the rivers and cities real, are the kings and queens real. I won't question wither a philosophy book has verisimilitude (But again I think we are talking two different things). Again the gospels have a degree of verisimilitude that from what I have seen and still see, no other ancient document has. So if we are to say the Bible is unhistorical, or a myth, then all ancient history is also a myth.

 

[Tolworth John]

So you agree with everything they believe about the Bible?

Depending who you are referring to.I now ha thy cofirmt the accuracy and reliabilit of the Bible.

 

[createdtoworship]

Depending who you are referring to.I now ha thy cofirmt the accuracy and reliabilit of the Bible.

then I would agree with them. Do you believe that?