Did a historical Jesus exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sparetherod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Sparetherod:
If there was no mother ship behind the comet, why did dozens of the Millenium Cult commit suicide? Sincerity is not proof is it?
Click to expand...
Dozens? Wow, that is impressive. This is your analogy to Christianity 2000 years later and still vibrantly alive? The Millenium Cult? How many generations beyond their “leader” did they last? That is the point regarding ALL of the witnesses that have followed Christ. Your example is analogous in only the most superificial of ways and is pitifully weak.
40.png
Sparetherod:
In his time, it might have been Hercules…did he exist? An appeal to tradition doesn’t prove anything, does it?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by “proof”, doesn’t it? If I see something with my own eyes is that “proof”? There is no proof,in the absolute sense, regarding history.
40.png
Sparetherod:
The thing I find interesting is that nobody said “He’s wrong, and I have objective evidence to prove it?” The scientific method and research are ignored. Faith and denial are the default mode. My only purpose…to get you to think like rational people.
Click to expand...
Which part of the scientific method was ignored? We have written records from eyewitnesses - you will claim they are forgeries. We have corroboration from independent historians - you will claim that they are hearsay. What, exactly, would “prove” the existence of Christ to you? And in the absence of that proof, I will note that you cannot prove that Christ did NOT exist - you simply make a decision based on the lack of evidence. I hardly consider that a proof either. Things exist independent of our ability to “prove” them.
So in the final analysis of what is reasonable, Christians have historical relics and traditions upon which we can reasonably form an opinion while you have absolutely nothing to prove that Christ did not exist.

Phil
 
john doran:
this is a good article:

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html
Click to expand...
I read this article and it says absolutely nothing: it keeps highliting other books to read - while stating nothing. Is it supposed to foster book sales or something? Could you please provide us with one piece of information from the article which caused you to characterize it as “good”?

Thanks,

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
I read this article and it says absolutely nothing: it keeps highliting other books to read - while stating nothing. Is it supposed to foster book sales or something? Could you please provide us with one piece of information from the article which caused you to characterize it as “good”?

Thanks,

Phil
Click to expand...
it hardly states “nothing” - it makes a good argument. and, as you note, it presents one with some direction in terms of principal reading.

what else should it have done?
 
Which part of the scientific method was ignored? We have written records from eyewitnesses - you will claim they are forgeries. We have corroboration from independent historians - you will claim that they are hearsay. What, exactly, would “prove” the existence of Christ to you? And in the absence of that proof, I will note that you cannot prove that Christ did NOT exist - you simply make a decision based on the lack of evidence. I hardly consider that a proof either. Things exist independent of our ability to “prove” them.
Click to expand...
Eyewitnesses? None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses…and for the later Gospels…clearly couldn’t have been…they’re written 50-60 years after the fact.
And no, I can’t prove Christ or unicorns don’t exist. I just don’t spend my sundays praying to either based on your evidence.
Guys, just take it all as you will…again, just trying to get you to think about it all.
 
40.png
Sparetherod:
Eyewitnesses? None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses…QUOTE]

John says that he is an eyewitness…please read the gospels before you make a bold statement like this.

Thanks.

in XT.
Click to expand...
 
But was John an eyewitness?
It is very clear that although the Gospels emerged in the last decade of the 1st century AD, they took a long, long time to be circulated and/or accepted which is strange if they are accurate reports of Jesus’ life. With regard to the eyewitness testimony for Jesus’ existence, there is certainly a problem. It is amazing that anything up to 70(100?),000 people saw Jesus, but no one made an eyewitness record of it. Mark was obviously not an eyewitness due to his host of errors concerning chronological, historical, geographical, and theological matters in 1st century Palestine; Matt. and Luke have to use Mark as their base (which they obviously wouldn’t have needed to do if they were eyewitnesses) and in John (Which even the church only hesitantly accepted into the canon) reports things that couldn’t have happened e.g. Jesus’ speech about drinking blood to a Jewish audience in John 6; it has to be rejected if the Synoptics are accepted as it conflicts with them, e.g. his dating of the Temple-clearing and the last supper etc in relation to the Passover. He also reports situations e.g. expulsions from the synagogue (l6:2) that didn’t occur until after 90 CE (i.e. Rabbi Gamaliel II’s official cursing prayer of the ‘Minim’ in ca. 90 CE). In the case of Paul, he gives virtually no detail about Jesus’ earthly life, other than he was a descendent of David, was crucified and was raised by God. If Romans, a genuinely Pauline letter, and the longest, is examined to discern Paul’s reference to Jesus’ earthly life, the silence becomes most apparent:
Click to expand...
I don’t make this stuff up.
 
40.png
Sparetherod:
But was John an eyewitness?
Click to expand...
You’re sincerely asking if one of Jesus’ apostles was an eyewitness? Interesting.
40.png
Sparetherod:
I don’t make this stuff up.
Click to expand...
No, you just uncritically cut-and-paste material made up by others.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
Sparetherod:
Eyewitnesses? None of the writers claim to be eyewitnesses…and for the later Gospels…clearly couldn’t have been…they’re written 50-60 years after the fact.
And no, I can’t prove Christ or unicorns don’t exist. I just don’t spend my sundays praying to either based on your evidence.
Guys, just take it all as you will…again, just trying to get you to think about it all.
Click to expand...
  • Both Paul and John specifically mention that they saw Christ. You are grasping at straws. They are eyewitnesses, and their testimony lines up with Matthew’s, Mark’s and Luke’s testimonies.
  • Please tell me why writings which began to circulate 50 years after his death “clearly could not have been from eyewitnesses”
  • We have have taken the information and have thought about it and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Your implication that we have not thought about it is simply bias on your part.
Phil
 
john doran:
it hardly states “nothing” - it makes a good argument. and, as you note, it presents one with some direction in terms of principal reading.

what else should it have done?
Click to expand...
I must have missed the “good argument” – would you mind cutting and pasting it - or at least summarizing it for me?

Phil
 
***** It is very clear that although the Gospels emerged in the last decade of the 1st century AD,

Please define “emerged” and exactly how this is known as a “fact”

***** they took a long, long time to be circulated and/or accepted which is strange if they are accurate reports of Jesus’ life.

Why would they need to be “circulated” in written form?

***** With regard to the eyewitness testimony for Jesus’ existence, there is certainly a problem. It is amazing that anything up to 70(100?),000 people saw Jesus, but no one made an eyewitness record of it.

The gospel authors did that.

***** Mark was obviously not an eyewitness due to his host of errors concerning chronological, historical, geographical, and theological matters in 1st century Palestine;

This does not prove that Mark was not an eyewitness.

***** Matt. and Luke have to use Mark as their base (which they obviously wouldn’t have needed to do if they were eyewitnesses)

I disagree, and I believe Matt precedes Mark. It is simply unknown.

***** and in John (Which even the church only hesitantly accepted into the canon)

this is known as hearsay - the fact is that the Church did accept it.
***** reports things that couldn’t have happened e.g. Jesus’ speech about drinking blood to a Jewish audience in John 6;

Why, exactly, could this not have happened? I see nothing preventing the possibility, and much predicting such a discussion.

***** it has to be rejected if the Synoptics are accepted as it conflicts with them, e.g. his dating of the Temple-clearing and the last supper etc in relation to the Passover. He also reports situations e.g. expulsions from the synagogue (l6:2) that didn’t occur until after 90 CE (i.e. Rabbi Gamaliel II’s official cursing prayer of the ‘Minim’ in ca. 90 CE).

Why do sequential conflicts render the account the witness as not being a witness? Perhaps the Gospels were written LONG after the actual events - that would, in addition to explaning some inconsistencies - explain why they appeared much later than Christs resurrection.

***** In the case of Paul, he gives virtually no detail about Jesus’ earthly life, other than he was a descendent of David, was crucified and was raised by God. If Romans, a genuinely Pauline letter, and the longest, is examined to discern Paul’s reference to Jesus’ earthly life, the silence becomes most apparent:

We know for a fact that Paul didn’t see Christ until after the Resurrection - why would he include details of his earthly ministry? Romans is a letter to a Church of Christians who already have heard the Gospel message: a rehash of Christs earthly life would play no part in it.
Everything from this paragraph is pure speculation. I realize you need more and that it would be nice if there were more, but you need to play the cards you’re dealt.

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
I must have missed the “good argument” – would you mind cutting and pasting it - or at least summarizing it for me?

Phil
Click to expand...
he argues the first and last of these points concerning the historical reliability of the gospels :

1*. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts.* The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
  1. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
  2. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
  3. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
  4. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
 
john doran:
he argues the first and last of these points concerning the historical reliability of the gospels :

1*. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts.* The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
  1. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.” Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
  2. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
  3. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
  4. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.
Click to expand...
I am so sorry - I knew something was wrong - I was talking about the OP article, not YOUR article. I have no idea why I “quoted” you in my response, I meant to quote the OP. I haven’t read your article but I will - it sounds good. Again, sorry - I goofed.

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
I am so sorry - I knew something was wrong - I was talking about the OP article, not YOUR article. I have no idea why I “quoted” you in my response, I meant to quote the OP. I haven’t read your article but I will - it sounds good. Again, sorry - I goofed.

Phil
Click to expand...
no problem…i had the suspicion that something was amiss, also.
 
Now Ive read it - it *is *excellent - thanks!

Did you read it SparetheRod? I only ask because I want you to ask questions and think about all the facts prior to accusing others of failing to do the same…😉

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top