Did Jesus Exist? (Pros and Cons)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sepharad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it’s obvious what the Christian response to this would be.
 
Hello Sepharad.
Last night I read a posting of yours on another thread. I am paraphrasing, but the gist of it was that you seemed surprised that Catholics didn’t follow the Talmud. I believe that you acknowledged that the Talmud was an oral tradition that had been around for 100s of years before it was put down into writing.
In your signature on the other thread, you included a link to a website (yours?) that included an analysis of the “historical” Jesus. The material, suggests that since the Gospels were written about 100 years after the life of Jesus, they couldn’t be trusted for accuracy. You (If it is your website) suggested that there are only about 40 words that we know for certain that are in the Gospel that can be accurate.(I don’t concede this, of course, because I believe that the scriptures are divinely inspired)
It seems to me that you are being a bit uneven-handed. You seem to trust the veracity of the Talmud, though it was written 100s of years after the origin of the oral tradition, yet you seem to suggest that (I assume that this is the gist of your post) Catholics can’t trust scripture because it was written a mere 100 years later.
Do you believe that the Talmud is divinely inspired? If so, you must understand that that is how the vast majority of people who visit this site feel about the New Testament.
 
On the other thread you did not indicate whether you felt the Talmud was divinely inspired. Since you seem to hold it in high regard, I am going to make a leap of faith (no pun intended) and assume that you do feel that it is divinely inspired.
You seem to make many assumptions on your website (if the website is yours) that the stories in the Gospels would have changed over the 100 years before they were written. That would be a guess on your part.
It seems that we KNOW that the Talmud changed over the years that it was in the oral tradition. A Jewish poster on the other thread seemed to acknowledge that the Talmud makes veiled references to Jesus. If that is so, then there were additions made to the Talmud as the years went by. I’m not trying to knock the Talmud. I am, however, trying to point out that you are being extremely inconsistent.
 
The fact that first century Jews did not prove He does not exist is enough for me 😛
 
dessert said:
Well you have to ask yourself also did Mathew exist or John? These are people that walked with Jesus and recorded genealogies, and their grave markers as well as Peters all claim to have been Christians. It isn’t just Jesus Christ that you would be disputing.
Click to expand...
The writers of the gospels in the NT were not the apostles of Jesus, the early church attached their names to the respective gospels, but the writer of “Matthew” was not Matthew the tax collector…the writer of “John” was not John brother of James.

That is “tradition” set down decades after the gospels were written. Truth is we do not know who "penned’ the gospels…they didn’t sign them. The myth of who actually wrote the gospels was developed by the second century, but it is “sacred myth” not fact.
 
Publisher said:
The writers of the gospels in the NT were not the apostles of Jesus, they used their names, but the writer of “Matthew” was not Matthew the tax collector…the writer of “John” was not John brother of James.

That is “tradition” set down decades after the gospels were written. Truth is we do not know who "penned’ the gospels…they didn’t sign them.
Click to expand...
the first Christians who were taught by the disciples and who passed down what they have taught knew well who they took their teachings from…no one doubted where they got them from…surely it wasn’t a debatble question in the first century.
 
inJESUS said:
the first Christians who were taught by the disciples and who passed down what they have taught knew well who they took their teachings from…no one doubted where they got them from…surely it wasn’t a debatble question in the first century.
Click to expand...
The first gospel probalby appeared around 50-60 AD and was given the name “Mark”…and tradition held…the gospels weren’t signed.

If the “sacred myth” of who wrote the gospels has meaning for you, then definitely you should hold on to it…I do not believe the evidence supports it…
 
In the New Testament era certain genealogical records were stored in public archive in the temple mount, while others were maintained by private families. There were biological family trees and legal line of descent.
 
Publisher said:
The first gospel probalby appeared around 50-60 AD and was given the name “Mark”…and tradition held…the gospels weren’t signed.

yea not signed neither did the authors leave an identity card. When the first church fathers, who were disciples of the apostles, talk about who the teachings are from by naming the 4 apostles, and why 4 gospels as one gospel, i guess they are much more reliable that 19th century critics…those people witnessed the apostles and knew what they were talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Publisher said:
The writers of the gospels in the NT were not the apostles of Jesus, the early church attached their names to the respective gospels, but the writer of “Matthew” was not Matthew the tax collector…the writer of “John” was not John brother of James.

That is “tradition” set down decades after the gospels were written. Truth is we do not know who "penned’ the gospels…they didn’t sign them. The myth of who actually wrote the gospels was developed by the second century, but it is “sacred myth” not fact.
Click to expand...
Actually, Tradition (capital “T”) and some actual scholarship leads the Church to believe that it was indeed John, the “beloved Apostle” that wrote both the Gospel of John and Revelation.

However, if I recall, you are a Quaker so I presume you do not give Sacred Tradition and credence. That is fine, but you may want to give Biblical scholars some.

However, the authorship of the Gospels is not the topic of this thread.

Yes. Jesus really lived. And He exists today. You can see Him in Person at any Mass or Adoration chapel.
 
A mere thirty plus years after Jesus walked the earth, his followers were dying in the Colisseum by order of Nero, who was also burning them as human torches to light up his parties. No one then suggested that they were dying for someone who didn’t exist, since many people knew of Jesus and were alive when he died on Calvary. Otherwise, they would have been known as the people who followed a fictional man.

No, Christians were by definition followers of Jesus the Christ, the jewish man who died under Pontius Pilate and whose followers claimed had risen from the dead.
 
mozier said:
A mere thirty plus years after Jesus walked the earth, his followers were dying in the Colisseum by order of Nero, who was also burning them as human torches to light up his parties. No one then suggested that they were dying for someone who didn’t exist, since many people knew of Jesus and were alive when he died on Calvary. Otherwise, they would have been known as the people who followed a fictional man.

No, Christians were by definition followers of Jesus the Christ, the jewish man who died under Pontius Pilate and whose followers claimed had risen from the dead.
Click to expand...
:clapping:

Yes, people do not surrender their lives for a lie.

Christ truly lived and really did rise from the dead! 👍
 
Sepharad said:
I figured I’d post this very informative link to get started:

religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
Click to expand...
Contemporary Jewish writers recorded the existence of Jesus, as did Roman figure Pliny the Younger. The Jewish canon changed in response to Christianity. Jesus of History, Christ of Faith examines both sides in some detail.

As to Mr. Russell, he willfully disbelieved in the very existence of that in which he had no faith. His statement of non-belief seems to indicate that he utilized a psychological defense mechanism to assuage any fear, guilt, or other concern regarding his denials. We can only hope and pray that Mr. Russell experienced a change of heart in his last moments.

Jesus’ existence is not under serious debate. His status as the Christ is, and will remain so.

Peace be to you.
 
There is less information about Caesar, Brutus, and Cassius than Jesus of Nazerath. Yet nobody questions the historicity of Shakespeare’s play.

I once asked this question and found the truth. Atheists like to throw out the existance of Jesus because His message is uncomfortable.

thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html

this is a great site for Christian and Jewish records about Christ and answering commons questions.
 
Probably starting another thread:rolleyes: Don’t they remind you of the Islam? Their orthodox way with the scripture only interpreted by them etc. Except they don’t even think Jesus existed. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top