A question about the historical Jesus

[ribozyme]

I am curious about the way Catholics respond to people like Earl Doherty. How do Catholics deal with his arguments. I most certainly do not believe in Christianity, but I also do not find credibility in his hypothesis that Jesus did not live historically.

 

[Veritas41]

I’ve never heard of Earl Doherty, but I take it from your post that he takes the position that Jesus never existed, which has been a pretty commonly held position by many skeptics. I’m not well versed in this area, but I do know that even the Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus as well as other ancient historians. Seems strange they would mention someone who never existed.

Here is a link with specific references you may want to check out:
danielpipes.org/comments/27898

 

[ribozyme]

I’ve never heard of Earl Doherty, but I take it from your post that he takes the position that Jesus never existed, which has been a pretty commonly held position by many skeptics. I’m not well versed in this area, but I do know that even the Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus as well as other ancient historians. Seems strange they would mention someone who never existed.

I agree with your post, but I think you should have used “skeptics” in quotation marks.

 

[JimG]

The Church did not just arise in a vacuum, but in a historical context which is quite well documented. Jesus is one of the more thoroughly documented historical figures ever, certainly better documented than many of his famous contemporaries in the Roman world.

The New Testament writings are, themselves, primary source documents. So are the early Church Fathers. It is quite easy, even disregarding the NT, to reconstruct what the early Church knew and believed about Jesus simply by reading the very early Church Fathers. Try a book like Four Witnesses–The Early Church in her Own Words by Rod Bennet, for some context.

Or even a book such as The Christians As the Romans Saw Them by Robert Wilken, which purposely excludes from consideration all self-accounts by the Christians, concentrating only on their appearance in Roman writings usually adversarial to them.

 

[dranzal]

In addition to the points already mentioned, the New Testament only makes sense if it is true.

Frankly, if I was going to make up a religion and write stories to support my religion, the “leader” would be larger than life. He would be everything the people thought they wanted–a strong, very Jewish general like leader. He would have a core group of followers that would be more like majors and colonels to round up the troops (so to speak). My made up stories would look nothing like the New Testament. If He was made up, those writers were shooting themselves in the proverbial foot!

Their leader, Jesus, was born into a poor family. He apparently had no problem breaking Jewish laws. He went out of His way to hang out with known sinners. He deliberately chose coarse fisherman to follow Him. He even refers to the leader of the followers as “Satan” at one point. The followers all run away from Him in His time of need. At no point during His life do they seem to “get it”. The leader of the followers and future leader of the Church actually denies he knows Him to save his own skin.

I could go on.

This is a clear example of truth being better than fiction. It is unlikely that someone would have written a “made-up” story to start a religion in this way.

 

[dranzal]

In addition to the points already mentioned, the New Testament only makes sense if it is true.

Frankly, if I was going to make up a religion and write stories to support my religion, the “leader” would be larger than life. He would be everything the people thought they wanted–a strong, very Jewish general like leader. He would have a core group of followers that would be more like majors and colonels to round up the troops (so to speak). My made up stories would look nothing like the New Testament. If He was made up, those writers were shooting themselves in the proverbial foot!

Their leader, Jesus, was born into a poor family. He apparently had no problem breaking Jewish laws. He went out of His way to hang out with known sinners. He deliberately chose coarse fisherman to follow Him. He even refers to the leader of the followers as “Satan” at one point. The followers all run away from Him in His time of need. At no point during His life do they seem to “get it”. The leader of the followers and future leader of the Church actually denies he knows Him to save his own skin.

I could go on.

This is a clear example of truth being better than fiction. It is unlikely that someone would have written a “made-up” story to start a religion in this way.

 

[rwoehmke]

While some of the history in the OT may be questionable, as one moves from the later writings of the OT into the NT the historical accuracy improves a great deal. Writings by people like the Church Fathers in the first half mellinium AD seem to pretty well substantiate that the NT was written by people who witnessed what is reported there. Some folks have difficulty accepting the truth of this history, but I find it pretty credible and tend to ignore what I call the “babblers” who have difficulty with it. I don’t mean to say that the “babblers” are all mean spirited; its more that I can’t understand the basis for their “scepticism”.

 

[jbuck919]

In addition to the points already mentioned, the New Testament only makes sense if it is true.

A non-believer would say exactly the same thing and mean the opposite of what you do.

We’ve had some posts here (not necessarily yours) which imply that the New Testament is adequate biography. It is nothing of the sort. Biography is a very modern endeavor, perhaps no more than a century and a half old. Everything written about anyone’s life before then is anecdotal and tendentious, and this goes doubly true for a religious leader.

Are there truly biographical moments in the Gospels? Obviously. Can we tell which ones they are? Only with extreme speculation and assumption. The historical books of the Old Testament (Kings, Chronicles, etc.) are probably more reliable than the Gospels in this respect. This does not mean that we cannot draw valid conclusions about Jesus even from a “neutral” perspective, but it remains true that sacred scripture tells not how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven.

 

[franko2]

Newbie here, did jesus really live definately and secular sources confirm this! You should check it out