An historian's view on Jesus

[Mr Walker]

I would never forget a being from outer space flying around, or a man with a jetpack either.

Precisely. But have half a dozen people present at the event, then wait fifty years for each to tell their story and THEN see how many discrepancies there are in their accounts even though it was a real event observed by them all.

I will never forget the sight of man in a jet pack, decades ago, at the Adelaide show, but if you asked me today details of his costume how old he was or the length of his hair i would not be able to say. i do remember the basic design and that it was a very short flight of only a minute or so. I think i remember the strong smell of kerosene or a similar propellant i was there, absolutely rapt, excited and watching intently. yet i couldn't find a single mention of it on google (it was way back in the 70s .)

Ok using some refined searching i found this, which is not exactly as i remember but might be the same device.

This was taken at the Adelaide show in 1981

http://www.nma.gov.a.../learning/arena

Edited December 28, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Theological Archaeology, Theological Egyptology, Theological Textual Criticism, Theological Linguistics, Theological History, Sociology and Theology.

Unless they're studying Stone Age man, Qa'a, Tolstoy, Spanish and the Russian Revolution.

No you are absolutely wrong there. I already gave examples of atheists in high positions and references that atheists and agnostics are common as students and teachers in biblical studies courses.

I am not sure where you get this idea from but biblical studies is a mainstream academic discipline and attracts experts from all the fields mentioned and others. MAny of them have no religious inclination or faith at all.

Turn it around. These are professional academics from many fields who have chosen to study one of the richest and controversial periods of antiquity Despite the name, biblical studies at university level is not, and has not been for a long time if ever, any type of theological or religious course. it is a study of biblical times. hence the requirements for linguistics, architecture, sociology, archaeology etc.

Many, if not most, of the professionals in this field came into it from other aspects of historical investigation like Egyptology or Byzantine studies and brought no religious bias, or baggage, with them at all. Would you think a professor of asian religions, had to be a believer in asian religions? . it is not even likely to be so. Why expect, then, a professor in biblical studies to be a christian?.

Theology is the study of a religion or belief. Biblical studies is NOT. it is a study of biblical times, people, places, history, language, cultures, architecture, trade routes, and transport systems economies and technologies etc. it, in reality, has almost no reference to christian belief at all, although it can be used to confirm or refute information found in the bible.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

The totally infallible group of academics that also thought Abraham was historical?

As much as you'd like it to be - academic consensus on historicity will never be a "get out of supplying evidence free" card.

Don't assume this is a decided argument The idea of abraham being, like christ, a real person around whom stories and a wider myth grew, is still widely accepted academic history.

At most it is debated and that debate is far from decided.

[Tiggs]

And from what I understand, it still is the general consensus that Abraham is a real figure of history (though mythologised due to the sands of time). I could be wrong on that, but that still seems to be the general view. Though it has found voice among some scholars that he is a total myth that never existed.

Based on what evidence? That he's mentioned in the Bible?

Is that the entirety of evidence required to be deemed historical by biblical scholars, these days?

Either way, questioning Jesus' existence has been around since at least the 18th Century and no one has yet to make a convincing case to sway the majority. I take it by your avoidance of my question that you don't actually know any historian of ancient history or classics who is employed at a university and believes Jesus never existed/was a myth.

I don't know any ancient historian or classical historian that's particularly interested in the historicity of Christ.

They tend to specialize into areas of interest. The ones that are interested in the historicity of Christ tend to be Biblical scholars.

I guess this answers one question, though - I have constantly brought up the "majority of scholars" and included "even the non-believers", and if you can't find a single historian at a university who is trained in ancient history and agrees that he is myth, then I think we can safely say that "the majority of scholars" actually do indeed include the vast majority, to the point that the only people who doubt is a select few who have no formal qualifications in the area of ancient history.

There are definitely people with PhD's in the relevant field who do believe, and who publish papers and peer-reviewed books on the subject.

You're adding an employment purity test - where the employment of those people is largely dependent on their willingness to believe otherwise.

Strangely enough - no one gets through the initial filter, and anyone who later changes their mind is summarily dismissed.

[Tiggs]

No you are absolutely wrong there. I already gave examples of atheists in high positions and references that atheists and agnostics are common as students and teachers in biblical studies courses.

Perhaps you gave those examples to someone else, but not to me.

Define "common".

Edited December 28, 2015 by Tiggs

[Tiggs]

Don't assume this is a decided argument The idea of abraham being, like christ, a real person around whom stories and a wider myth grew, is still widely accepted academic history.

At most it is debated and that debate is far from decided.

Let me refer you to here.

You'll perhaps note: By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

[DingoLingo]

Just my personal view here..

Was jesus a real person.. I honestly believe so.. was he the son of god.. no.. he was just a charismatic character like many who have appeared over time..

Is the bible the word of god.. no.. how could it be.. it was written by man.. that took a number of stories from different religions etc and made it their own..

There is one thing I cannot understand as a pagan.. so my Christian friends.. why do you make a slave of your god?

[Davros of Skaro]

I wonder why or how Simpsons or Family Guy became the yardstick to determine historical truth. Social commentary, yeah, I totally get that, but arbiters of historical truth.... yeah, not so much.

It's not.

My point is that it would peek curiosity in some to do the research. I hope that those that do are able to go beyond the Acharya S garbage and get with real scholarship (Carrier/Price).

[Davros of Skaro]

The historical cionsensus is fairly minimal but includes approx date of birth 3 -7 bc Baptised by john the baptist, preached a liberal version of judaic teaching, attracted a considerable local band of followers. Was put to death at the behest of the conservative jewish facton in power at the time via the authority of the roman governor.

Although there is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,^{[6][3][7][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4]} biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.^{[nb 5][13][nb 6][2]:168–173} While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,^{[nb 7]} with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.^{[16][nb 8][18][19][20]} C

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,^[2] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.^{[2][13][58][59]}

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.^[58] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."^[58] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.^[74] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.^[75][76][77] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.^[75][77][78]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.^[79] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.^[80][81][82]

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely

• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
  
• He called disciples.
  
• He had a controversy at the Temple.
  
• Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.^[13][83]
  
• Jesus was a Galilean.
  
• His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
  
• After his death his disciples continued.
  
• Some of his disciples were persecuted.^[13][83]
  

Scholarly agreement on this extended list is not universal.^[13][83][84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So we have universal consensus on a few critical facts, and widespread but not universal consensus on a slightly longer list

The embarrassment argument is a non-sequitur.

Jesus getting baptized by John is handing authority to Jesus. Josephus mentions the Baptist cult. There's no better way to push it aside than having God himself declare Jesus his son in the Gospel narrative.

As for the crucifixion. It's not only using Jewish theology of the scapegoat, but trying to cram select verses of the OT as prophecy.

Followers of the Attis cult would castrate themselves in public. There's no embarrassment when it comes to Religious belief.

As for a fantastical creature flying around in the ancient world? It would be the one detail not left out in the empty tomb narrative if it was true. Instead we have blatant myth building.

[Davros of Skaro]

Just my personal view here..

Was jesus a real person.. I honestly believe so.. was he the son of god.. no.. he was just a charismatic character like many who have appeared over time..

Did you check out the two Jesus lectures in my signature? If not then why not?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Based on what evidence? That he's mentioned in the Bible?

Is that the entirety of evidence required to be deemed historical by biblical scholars, these days?

Considering how much written information we have from that far back in time, I wonder what level of evidence you think would be sufficient?

I don't know any ancient historian or classical historian that's particularly interested in the historicity of Christ.

They tend to specialize into areas of interest. The ones that are interested in the historicity of Christ tend to be Biblical scholars.

I call bull dust on this, because there are scholars outside of the field of ancient history that do promote the Christ myth hypothesis. If there are scholars outside of the field of ancient history then the only reason there wouldn't be scholars inside that very field is that they have been taught the tools necessary to distinguish fact from fiction (yes, I just called the Christ-myth theory a "fiction").

You're adding an employment purity test - where the employment of those people is largely dependent on their willingness to believe otherwise.

Strangely enough - no one gets through the initial filter, and anyone who later changes their mind is summarily dismissed.

And once again you have ignored/overlooked the fact that Dr Dickson has expanded his criteria beyond biblical studies, and will accept anyone employed at a university with a degree in either classics or ancient history. But keep beating the biblical studies horse, maybe someone will ignore the other scholars and agree with you. Edited December 29, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Mr Walker]

Let me refer you to here.

You'll perhaps note: By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

Yet it is not as clear cut as the wiki article claims

Certainly direct concrete proofs of Abraham are non existent, but this is true of many accepted historical facts because history can be determined by contextual evidences and putting together diverse pieces of a jigsaw.

This site gives a completely different interpretation of the historicity of Abraham and how modern historians/archaeologists, and others, are interpreting his life and times.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/a/122710-CW-Archaeological-Evidence-About-The-Story-Of-Abraham-In-The-Bible.htm

[Mr Walker]

The embarrassment argument is a non-sequitur.

Jesus getting baptized by John is handing authority to Jesus. Josephus mentions the Baptist cult. There's no better way to push it aside than having God himself declare Jesus his son in the Gospel narrative.

As for the crucifixion. It's not only using Jewish theology of the scapegoat, but trying to cram select verses of the OT as prophecy.

Followers of the Attis cult would castrate themselves in public. There's no embarrassment when it comes to Religious belief.

As for a fantastical creature flying around in the ancient world? It would be the one detail not left out in the empty tomb narrative if it was true. Instead we have blatant myth building.

And yet the professional opinion is different. Why ?

A fantastical flying creature ? Where does that apear in the jesus narrative. ?

Are you assuming the angels mentioned in the story were other than human in appearance? The angel rolled back the stone and sat on it He was as bright as lightning (very similar to my angel which i had never realised before) . but he wore clothes as white as snow. There is no mention of fantastical creatures, nor of them flying. The text says it descended out of heaven, but doesn't explain the nature of this descent, or if it was actually observed . Like many descriptions of angels over the millenia, these were seen as men but very light bright shiny men in pure white clothes. Such "men" have appeared to humans from first human records to the present day. Pagans knew them as creatures or beings of light (sometimes fairy folk ) and the shining sidhe is one example.

I can personally testify ( for what its worth) that angels CAN look exactly as described here. What is more, their first, and sometimes only, words are OFTEN, "do not be afraid. " because their appearance and the nature of their sudden manifestation can indeed BE terrifying. They don't so much fly as manifest, using what appears to be some sort of transmat ability to travel.

I would have used words like, " The being shone as bright as lightning, and materialised on the ground before me." it was an assumption on the women's/writer's part that the entity had come from heaven. It could have been arriving from anywhere. Heaven was the generic term for the universe beyond earth, and especially the world above earth.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

PA

Considering how much written information we have from that far back in time, I wonder what level of evidence you think would be sufficient?

Sufficient for what? Putting aisde that "how much written information we have from that far back in time" largely reflects choices made by Christian "record keepers," certainty by natural means about the complete true history of the world is unjustified, period.

We do notice that the "level of evidence" for the existence of persons "that far back in time" varies widely among candidate persons. Restricting ourselves to a few key figures mentioned in the Gospels and Acts,

Pontius Pilate (highly confidently historical)

John the Baptist (confidently historical)

Simon Peter-Cephas (somewhat confidently historical)

Judas Iscariot (hmm... biblically historical)

Unless we accept a Jesus so minimal as to have had hardly any biographical connection at all with the Gospel Jesus, then our naturally justified confidence in Jesus cannot exceed our confidence in any of the four mentioned figures. Each of the figures is crucial to the truth of important Biblical incidents needed to recognize a candidate Jesus as the man whom all the fuss is about.

It follows that a recognizable Jesus must come last, possibly in a tie, on such a list, otherwise the confidence is not based on natural means. This is mathematics, not history or pastoral training. My own training, if any, is irrelevant.

(For all uncertain propositions A, B: A or B is not less credible than A. This is the generally accepted definition of credibility in uncertain propositions.

Example

"Pilate existed" implies and is implied by

"Pilate existed and spoke with Jesus or Pilate existed and didn't." Conclude that however confident I am that Pilate spoke with Jesus, that I am at least that confident that Pilate existed.

Conclude further that if I am any more confident that Jesus existed than Pilate existed, then I must be speaking about a Jesus who might not have ever spoken with Pilate. So, too, for the others on the list. Therefore, Jesus who spoke with everybody on the list is last on the list, possibly in a tie. QED)

[+Link of Hyrule]

PA

We do notice that the "level of evidence" for the existence of persons "that far back in time" varies widely among candidate persons. Restricting ourselves to a few key figures mentioned in the Gospels and Acts,

Pontius Pilate (highly confidently historical)

John the Baptist (confidently historical)

Simon Peter-Cephas (somewhat confidently historical)

Judas Iscariot (hmm... biblically historical)

The particular content of discussion with Tiggs was not about Jesus, however, but rather Abraham. That's at least 1500 years earlier than any of the four examples you provided. So may I ask again what level of evidence for an historical Abraham would be sufficient for you, considering what is available to historians today?

[eight bits]

PA

The particular content of discussion with Tiggs was not about Jesus, however, but rather Abraham. That's at least 1500 years earlier than any of the four examples you provided. So may I ask again what level of evidence for an historical Abraham would be sufficient for you, considering what is available to historians today?

As I already said in my post,

Sufficient for what? ... certainty by natural means about the complete true history of the world is unjustified, period.

Period is American English for full stop. No amount of evidence ever plausibly to be on offer suffices for certainty about the existence of a particular, individual and identifiable historical Abraham. We can always fantasize about time travel, etc. That has nothing to do with any real-life historian or discipline of history. "Historical Abraham" is a matter of opinion, and as I understand Tigg's point, expert opinion changed, much of the change coming not too long ago.

The topic of the thread is a historian's view of Jesus. I was thus amply justified in specializing a fully general problem that doesn't depend on how many millennia are "that far back in time" to the number of millennia in the topic situation.

[Davros of Skaro]

Yet it is not as clear cut as the wiki article claims

Certainly direct concrete proofs of Abraham are non existent, but this is true of many accepted historical facts because history can be determined by contextual evidences and putting together diverse pieces of a jigsaw.

This site gives a completely different interpretation of the historicity of Abraham and how modern historians/archaeologists, and others, are interpreting his life and times.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/a/122710-CW-Archaeological-Evidence-About-The-Story-Of-Abraham-In-The-Bible.htm

Wowzers Chief! You can keep your articles of "begging the question".

GET BACK IN THERE YOU!

[Davros of Skaro]

And yet the professional opinion is different. Why ?

A fantastical flying creature ? Where does that apear in the jesus narrative. ?

Are you assuming the angels mentioned in the story were other than human in appearance? The angel rolled back the stone and sat on it He was as bright as lightning (very similar to my angel which i had never realised before) . but he wore clothes as white as snow. There is no mention of fantastical creatures, nor of them flying. The text says it descended out of heaven, but doesn't explain the nature of this descent, or if it was actually observed . Like many descriptions of angels over the millenia, these were seen as men but very light bright shiny men in pure white clothes. Such "men" have appeared to humans from first human records to the present day. Pagans knew them as creatures or beings of light (sometimes fairy folk ) and the shining sidhe is one example.

I can personally testify ( for what its worth) that angels CAN look exactly as described here. What is more, their first, and sometimes only, words are OFTEN, "do not be afraid. " because their appearance and the nature of their sudden manifestation can indeed BE terrifying. They don't so much fly as manifest, using what appears to be some sort of transmat ability to travel.

I would have used words like, " The being shone as bright as lightning, and materialised on the ground before me." it was an assumption on the women's/writer's part that the entity had come from heaven. It could have been arriving from anywhere. Heaven was the generic term for the universe beyond earth, and especially the world above earth.

Since I don't take you seriously. Also I assume others understand what I'm talking about wether they agree, or not?

I'm just going to post to show what a farce the NT is.

Jonah 1:4-6

"4 But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

6 So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not."

Jonah 1:15-16

"15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

16 Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows."

Psalm 107:23-29

"23 They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;

24 These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.

25 For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.

26 They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.

27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end.

28 Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.

29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still."

Mark 4:35-41

"35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.

36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.

37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"

Sea of Galilee

Max. length 21 km (13 mi)

Max. width 13 km (8.1 mi)

Surface area 166 km2 (64 sq mi)

Average depth 25.6 m (84 ft)

Max. depth 43 m (141 ft)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee

How about it Stubbs!!!

Do you know what all this means!?

[Mr Walker]

Wowzers Chief! You can keep your articles of "begging the question".

GET BACK IN THERE YOU!

Sorry but this another incomprehensible reply. (but the cat is nice)

[Davros of Skaro]

Sorry but this another incomprehensible reply.

Beg all you want.

[Mr Walker]

Since I don't take you seriously. Also I assume others understand what I'm talking about wether they agree, or not?

I'm just going to post to show what a farce the NT is.

Jonah 1:4-6

"4 But the Lord sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.

6 So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not."

Jonah 1:15-16

"15 So they took up Jonah, and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.

16 Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the Lord, and made vows."

Psalm 107:23-29

"23 They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;

24 These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.

25 For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.

26 They mount up to the heaven, they go down again to the depths: their soul is melted because of trouble.

27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit's end.

28 Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.

29 He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still."

Mark 4:35-41

"35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.

36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.

37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"

Sea of Galilee

Max. length 21 km (13 mi)

Max. width 13 km (8.1 mi)

Surface area 166 km2 (64 sq mi)

Average depth 25.6 m (84 ft)

Max. depth 43 m (141 ft)

https://en.m.wikiped.../Sea_of_Galilee

How about it Stubbs!!!

Do you know what all this means!?

Oh come on haven't you ever been fishing in a small boat on the sea of Galilee?. it's notorious for its treacherous conditions .

And i have been on a much smaller body of water, skin diving and spearfishing in a 16 foot aluminium dinghy with a powerful yamaha outboard, when a strong south westerly change came up and we had to try and get home through waves nearly 3 metres high, That was hairy enough, let alone in a boat with no motor to keep you at the correct angle to the waves.

Astorm on the Sea of Galilee is described in Mark 4:37:

A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.

Luke 8 describes the wind and raging waves during this storm.Matthew calls it a furious storm without warning.

High cliffs overlooking the Sea of Galilee

Such storms result from differences in temperatures between the seacoast and the mountains beyond. The Sea of Galilee lies 680 feet below sea level. It is bounded by hills, especially on the east side where they reach 2000 feet high. These heights are a source of cool, dry air.

In contrast, directly around the sea, the climate is semi-tropical with warm, moist air. The large difference in height between surrounding land and the sea causes large temperature and pressure changes. This results in strong winds dropping to the sea, funneling through the hills.

Ancient fishing boat anchors discovered at the Sea of Galilee

The Sea of Galilee is small, and these winds may descend directly to the center of the lake with violent results. When the contrasting air masses meet, a storm can arise quickly and without warning. Small boats caught out on the sea are in immediate danger.

The Sea of Galilee is relatively shallow, just 200 feet at its greatest depth. A shallow lake is “whipped up” by wind more rapidly than deep water, where energy is more readily absorbed.

The USA's Great Lakes

Lake Erie [in the United States] provides somewhat similar to the Sea of Galilee. Erie is more than a hundred times larger, but it has the same 200 feet maximum depth, the shallowest of the Great Lakes. Lake Erie is especially well known as the stormy, moody member of the Great Lake system. It is easily stirred up by west winds to produce violent waves and even the largest fishing boats are put at risk.

if you look up the weather forecast for the sea of Galilee for this new years day you will see wind gusts of up to 30 knots (35 miles per hour) That's enough for a modern boating warning on our local waters. it is only a moderate gale on the Beaufort scale, but an indicator of what conditions on the sea of Galilee can be like on an ordinary day.

http://www.windfinder.com/forecast/lake_kinneret_sea_galilee

Wave heights in such conditions on new years day would be 4-5 metres or 13-19 feet No wonder it is such a popular spot for windsurfers, but a fishing boat from 2000 years ago? Not me, mate. And in gale conditions with winds just a few knots stronger than they will be on new years day, the wave heights go up to 7.5 metres or 25 feet .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale

[Tiggs]

Considering how much written information we have from that far back in time, I wonder what level of evidence you think would be sufficient?

I'd start with archaeological evidence that at least backs up that it was viable for him to have existed at the places it was claimed he was during the time period of his life.

I call bull dust on this, because there are scholars outside of the field of ancient history that do promote the Christ myth hypothesis. If there are scholars outside of the field of ancient history then the only reason there wouldn't be scholars inside that very field is that they have been taught the tools necessary to distinguish fact from fiction (yes, I just called the Christ-myth theory a "fiction").

People who have an infallible belief in a book whose main character walks on water should probably be very careful of what they choose to call fiction.

Again - not many people who spend their lives devoted to the study of, say, Egyptology, or ancient Greece are really going to care that much about the historicity of Jesus, especially given the socially uncontroversial consensus.

That said - historically, there have been occasional scholars within the field - such as Iosif Kryvelev, for example.

And once again you have ignored/overlooked the fact that Dr Dickson has expanded his criteria beyond biblical studies, and will accept anyone employed at a university with a degree in either classics or ancient history. But keep beating the biblical studies horse, maybe someone will ignore the other scholars and agree with you.

I don't care who agrees with me, or otherwise.

You know my thoughts on how useless expert consensus is as to whether something is actually true or otherwise.

Evidence > Consensus. Always and forever.

[Tiggs]

Yet it is not as clear cut as the wiki article claims

Certainly direct concrete proofs of Abraham are non existent, but this is true of many accepted historical facts because history can be determined by contextual evidences and putting together diverse pieces of a jigsaw.

This site gives a completely different interpretation of the historicity of Abraham and how modern historians/archaeologists, and others, are interpreting his life and times.

http://ancienthistor...n-The-Bible.htm

Genesis 11: 31

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there.

It's pretty specific as to which Ur it's talking about. It also shows that the person writing it knew that there was more than one Ur to choose from.

If you start with the conclusion that someone existed, then you can always find evidence that if you twist it, just enough, you can get it to look like it'll maybe, sort of, fit.

In this case - by claiming that the only text to document Abraham is actually wrong.

Like hammering in a jigsaw piece.

[Mr Walker]

Genesis 11: 31

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there.

It's pretty specific as to which Ur it's talking about. It also shows that the person writing it knew that there was more than one Ur to choose from.

If you start with the conclusion that someone existed, then you can always find evidence that if you twist it, just enough, you can get it to look like it'll maybe, sort of, fit.

In this case - by claiming that the only text to document Abraham is actually wrong.

Like hammering in a jigsaw piece.

True but that wasn't really my point. My point was that historians are are actually still debating and investigating the historicity of abraham rather than, as you suggested, simply concluding that he was a fictional character. There remains a strong body of thought that abraham WAS a real character upon whom oral stories were built and that those oral stories were( some considerable time later) written, down allowing for factual errors to appear

OF course you, and others, can have a view of history that, unless there is concrete proof for something then it didn't happen and isn't historical, but that is NOT how history works. It is the body of professional opinion which establishes historicity, because almost NOTHING of the past can be proven with absolute certainty to a body of skeptical academics who were not there at the time. . So compelling concrete evidence is nice (if it is actually possible) but, contrary to your opinion, it is NOT the way we establish the historicity of ANY aspect of our past because it is often lacking and yet we know that past occurred.

For example I might be the only witness to an event, which I then record, There is no way to prove that what i recorded matches what really happened but if enough historians believe it does(perhaps because of contextual evidences of events outside of but surrounding that which i recorded, perhaps because of logical coherence), then it becomes history.

And you know what? Even if i was lying or wrong in my record, if enough people believe it, then it becomes history, also.

[Aftermath]

@ Paranoid Android

I admit I probably won't be too active in this thread. Apart from being utterly sick of being the only Christian participating in such a debate

How do you suppose a Christian participate in such a debate? You know very well, as I do, this is all based on FAITH, as God has intended. A historical Jesus, the existence of God, the veracity of the gospels, etc. are all grounded in faith. Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” If these things are unseen, how can a Christian debate? No, no sir - a debate is not what is warranted. What is necessary is for the skeptics to believe the word of God and if that isn't enough no evidence will be enough (Romans 1:18-32). In my mind, a lack of participation from Christians is a good thing.