Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

Nope I haven't read it. I'll poke around my used book store next time I go and see if its there. Although I just found this well written critique of Doherty's book:

Appeal Denied: How <i>Challenging the Verdict</i> Fails to Overturn <i>The Case for Christ</i>

I think we could probably go back and forth finding links critiquing both sides all day.

Uh, what is missing here? You read The Case for Christ, skip the critique of that book, and move on to the critique of the critique? Why do you read and promote only those works that support you? Have you no interest in reading what opponents actually have to say?

By the way, when you go looking for a particular specialized book, how does it work out for you when you "poke around my used book store"? I would think a library or an Internet bookstore might be a better source.

But I do find it odd that even ultra-liberal scholars such as the Jesus Seminar agree Jesus lived. Even most non-Christian Biblical scholars agree that Jesus existed.

If we go by a vote, the historical Jesus wins.

But questions of historical fact are not determined by vote. They are determined by studying the available data.

Also, I'm glad to see you ignored the rest of my post and instead found the one thing you could nitpick. Did you have a response to the rest of my post or are you going to be like a YEC and disappear when a good point refuting your argument is made?

Oh please. Do you see how many people have responded here? I could not possibly keep this interesting if I echo back every word ever posted here, especially when many assertions get repeated many times on threads like this.

For the record, here is the rest of your post:

I don't think Mark, the other Gospel writers or Paul simply "made up" Jesus as a complete fiction. I believe they were being truthful to their experiences. I do however believe that their understanding of Jesus and corresponding writings were slightly "mythologized", "exaggerated" and "cultural influenced" as most oral traditions tend to do before being written down explicitly.

The theory that Jesus is a fictional character is unscientific based on the evidence.

I fail to find the "good point refuting your argument" there that you are referring to. Exactly what good point were you referring to?

 

[AlexBP]

It would seem to me that "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" could easily be figurative terminology for a spirit being after the kingly tradition of David. This is far different from a book like Matthew which lists the birthplace, the characters involved, and details of the story.

If we're willing to believe that anything Paul said about Jesus can be interpreted figuratively, then we can conclude that he never literally referred to Jesus as a physical being. However, I see no evidence supporting that line of thinking. The Jews were, throughout their history, very concerned with geneology and knowing exactly who was descended from who. I know of no instance where any statement using those particular words was intended to be merely figurative rather than literal.

However, the bigger problem with the idea that Paul believed in a purely spiritual Jesus is that it would clash with everything we know about Paul. He was, both by his own admission and according to Acts, a Pharisee and a particularly zealous Jew prior to conversion. That means that he believed in one God only, knew and believed the scriptures, and was militant in upholding the Mosaic Law. Then came his conversion and immediate willingness to worship Jesus Christ and to abandon or change portions of the Law. What would prompt such a change in such a man? Surely he wouldn't just believe someone who came along with a story about another spiritual being who ruled alongside Yahweh. That would completely contradict everything Paul believed in, and he'd be particularly strict about not believing such things. The only reason why Paul would accept a new God and changes to the Mosaic Law is if he believed that the Messiah had arrived, and the Messiah could only be a flesh-and-blood person.

It is true that James is called the Lord's brother, but is that simple a title, like calling him "Brother James"?

I'm not aware of anyone in the very early Christian community using "Brother" as a title like that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

if you want to talk about historians not recording the life of Jesus, the first thing to ask is: how many historians wrote about events in Galileee and Jerusalem during the time of Jesus' ministry?

There were quite a few historians writing about Galilee and Jerusalem at that time. For instance one would have expected people like Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Quintilian to record something about Jesus. After all, they record many other things that happened in that area.

If Pentecost had indeed happened, you would think one of them would have noticed.

I am only aware of one such historian, Josephus, and he did mention Jesus.

Josephus isn't really a contemporary, having written 60 years after Jesus. And the two small mentions he makes of Jesus are most likely interpolations. If those two short paragraphs were by Josephus, why does he write pages about minor characters, and two small blurbs about Jesus?

 

[razeontherock]

Why would that have been a better title for this thread? It seems to me that "Christ" can be interpreted many ways, wheras it is clear to all what I mean when I use the name "Jesus".

I switched Names, sorry. You shouldn't be asking about His existence in the past tense, but in the present.

Why would one first choose a position, and then read books that take one to the pre-chosen postion? Shouldn't one first read from many sources, and then decide based on that which is the best position?

What did the Apostle Paul base his decision on? What did the other 12 base their decision on?

Not the words of some author, nor seeking the approval of men, I can assure you. A poor source can not provide a strong position. Look at Simon being sur-named Peter; THAT is what you want! Nothing less will do:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

 

[CryptoLutheran]

[/color]It is true that James is called the Lord's brother, but is that simple a title, like calling him "Brother James"?

Sure. But is there any compelling reason to?

It seems that the only way to have Paul presenting an unhistorical Christ is by contrived eisegesis. It just seems to me that this comes across more like the logic used by those on the fringe arguing for Ancient Astronaut theories regarding things such as the Sumerian accounts or the Pyramids of Giza or Stonehenge rather than credible scholarship.

At that point we can make Paul mean anything we want him to mean. Heck, maybe Jesus is a mushroom.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[drich0150]

Yes I agree that the believers had afflictions and hardships in the first century, especially the Jews that had lost to the Romans.I did not ask if they had hardships. I asked how you knew that anybody was a martyr in the 1st century for believing in an earthly Jesus.

So you do not believe being murdered for you faith can be considered a Hardship for those who survive? Paul believed it to be perhaps this is why He endeavors to prepare the believers in Corinth. It had already been established by the death of Stephen, that the religious establishment had no qualms with stoning those willing to spread the gospel. Paul's warnings in scripture, coupled with the later deaths of all the Apostles (except John, but including Paul for His beliefs) makes the case for first century martyrs.
(History of the Church Vol.1)

Before you start citing mysterious historical fact, know that you will need a list of reference material to back up your claims.

Josephus doesn't testify that anybody was killed because they believed in an earthly Jesus.

But does testify to the existence of Christ, which is what this thread is about is it not?

I am not hear to push my views.

Then why do you respond?

When one's head is full of thoughts, those thoughts seek to come out. I am here to share and to learn from anybody with interest in the subjects that fascinate me.

You speak as if we can not compare your body of works to how you have chosen to misrepersent your actions in this last statement. Students/disciples ask questions. They do not correct and rebuke because what was shared does not align itself to the belief you hold close to your heart.

Well, yes, but Christianity also can and has been used by governments to control people.

Religion does include Christianity. But on topic, the governments of the time did not know how to exploit Christianity as of yet and that made it a threat. One that History tells us meant death for the believers of Christianity.

Are you sure you want to turn to the history of Rome as your evidence for Christianity? You do know what happened to Rome after it adopted Christianity as its faith, don't you?

Do you not know what happened to Christians Before Rome adopted it as it's faith? It is to this recklessness with life that I am referencing.

I mentioned several facts there. Which assertion were you disputing?

I am requiring you to substantiate All the "historical" facts you have chosen to mis/represent.

 

[razeontherock]

If Pentecost had indeed happened, you would think one of them would have noticed.

You have yet to account for the impossibility of having an un-biased opinion on the matter in that time. Anyone reporting favorably would, by definition, be a Christian. This is why the requirement of secular sources is thrown out.

Josephus isn't really a contemporary, having written 60 years after Jesus.

I may have you confused with another thread and other posters, but this does account for why he didn't record the slaughter of infants shortly after Jesus' birth.

You also wrote "You do know what happened to Rome after it adopted Christianity as its faith, don't you?"

My real concern is what happened to Christianity after that ordeal. I think that is an area where some serious study may reveal useful info! (From say 60 AD - 324)

 

[doubtingmerle]

I switched Names, sorry. You shouldn't be asking about His existence in the past tense, but in the present.

That's an interesting question: Does Jesus exist in the present tense? Most Christians would say that he does currently exist, but not as a flesh-and-blood person. They would say he exists in a spritual realm with a spiritual body.

That is the Jesus Paul seems to describe. It is as though Paul always thought Jesus was in the spiritual realm, and wasn't even aware that he had recently been to earth.

What did the Apostle Paul base his decision on? What did the other 12 base their decision on?

Not the words of some author, nor seeking the approval of men, I can assure you. A poor source can not provide a strong position. Look at Simon being sur-named Peter; THAT is what you want! Nothing less will do:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17)

Yes, Paul is emphatic that his gospel was revealed to him by God, and that he did not receive it from men. So I wonder why Jesus even taught on earth for years. If Paul could get the communication straight from God, why not just use that method, and never bother to have Jesus preach on earth?

 

[razeontherock]

That's an interesting question: Does Jesus exist in the present tense? Most Christians would say that he does currently exist, but not as a flesh-and-blood person. They would say he exists in a spritual realm with a spiritual body.

He doesn't exist as a mortal, nor is His physical presence here on earth. that's all the similarity your statement here has to Christian teaching.

That is the Jesus Paul seems to describe. It is as though Paul always thought Jesus was in the spiritual realm, and wasn't even aware that he had recently been to earth.

No sir. You have been given ample Scripture to refute your erroneous claim. Not an exhaustive account by any means, but you have yet to deal with ANY of what's been presented.

Yes, Paul is emphatic that his gospel was revealed to him by God, and that he did not receive it from men.

Peter too! Doubting Thomas too! Just to keep things straight, they were in Jesus' physical presence.

So I wonder why Jesus even taught on earth for years. If Paul could get the communication straight from God, why not just use that method, and never bother to have Jesus preach on earth?

Now you reveal the source of your doubts. While you say you defended the Faith, you never had it. It's based on the Incarnation, which you demonstrate here that you don't understand. Please read John 1 and report your thoughts re: Incarnation. Thanks.

 

[ElijahW]

The myth theory is just unsupported antitheist propaganda. The more you look into it, the more obvious it's just wishful thinking by people who want to tear down the church but because of modern liberal Christianity, they can’t attack the resurrection or miracles anymore but have to actually attack the man’s existence if they want to disprove the whole religion.

Thinking we have texts from historians that should mention Jesus, that don’t, is the first indication that you are repeating misinformation without looking into it.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The myth theory is just unsupported antitheist propaganda. The more you look into it, the more obvious it's just wishful thinking by people who want to tear down the church but because of modern liberal Christianity, they can’t attack the resurrection or miracles anymore but have to actually attack the man’s existence if they want to disprove the whole religion.

Thinking we have texts from historians that should mention Jesus, that don’t, is the first indication that you are repeating misinformation without looking into it.

I wouldn't say it's an attack or propaganda really. I'm sure there are a number of ex-Christians who do subscribe to the "no historical Jesus" idea because it may appeal to them if they were particularly hurt by their former co-religionists or churches.

I agree that I don't think it's a credible position, or at least that sort of position renders much, if not most, historical inquiry moot. There's as much or as little historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as there are any number of historical figures. I mentioned Socrates by name specifically earlier, because our really only primary source about Socrates comes from the works of Plato who wrote the Socratic Dialogues. It's just as credible to deny the existence of Jesus as it is to deny the existence of Socrates.

I think it's fair to be skeptical regarding the entire Christian narrative about Jesus and all the theology packaged into that narrative; after all if one wasn't skeptical or didn't out right disbelieve it they would be Christians. Things like the resurrection, or that Jesus was the Messiah, or that He is Lord, Son of God and the uncreated Logos are all matters of faith, not objective historical inquiry.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[aiki]

Read Gary Habermas' book "The Historical Jesus." I don't think there is another person on the planet whose knowledge exceeds Habermas' in the area of the historicity of Christ.

Selah.

 

[AlexBP]

And the two small mentions he makes of Jesus are most likely interpolations. If those two short paragraphs were by Josephus, why does he write pages about minor characters, and two small blurbs about Jesus?

There are two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus. For the first, which mentions Him in passing while describing the execution of James, you'd have to search hard to find any scholars who think that it wasn't actually written by Josephus. The second is the well-known Testimonium Flavianum, which reads as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Today there is broad agreement that Josephus did not write this exact paragraph. Phrases such as "He was the Christ" and "as the divine prophets foretold" would not have been written by any Jewish man who wasn't convinced by Christian arguments himself. However, while a later Christian scribe certainly added these phrases, there is strong reason to believe that the bulk of the paragraph is authentic to Josephus. Outside of the Christain glosses, the vocabulary and syntax match up very well with the way that Josephus typically wrote. There's a good discussion of it here.

The argument that the passage about Jesus sticks out for being short doesn't add up. Josephus discusses several men who claimed to be the Messiah in 1st-century Palestine. We can look at theose passages:

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.

It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.

about this time, someone came out of Egypt to Jerusalem, claiming to be a prophet. He advised the crowd to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of a kilometer. He added that he would show them from hence how the walls of Jerusalem would fall down at his command, and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those collapsed walls. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. The Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more.

Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

As you can see, the passage that Josephus wrote about Jesus is actually quite similar in length to the passages that he wrote about some other characters from the same time period.

 

[ElijahW]

I wouldn't say it's an attack or propaganda really. I'm sure there are a number of ex-Christians who do subscribe to the "no historical Jesus" idea because it may appeal to them if they were particularly hurt by their former co-religionists or churches.

I think if you hear someone who believes Jesus did not exist you should check to see if they are trying to save the world by getting rid of religion before trying to argue Jesus’ existence. Just like reforming religion is common thinking within the church; eradicating religion is common thinking outside of the church. No Jesus is just a more advanced argument from "there is no god" argument within the religion-is-bad ideology.

I think it's fair to be skeptical regarding the entire Christian narrative about Jesus and all the theology packaged into that narrative; after all if one wasn't skeptical or didn't out right disbelieve it they would be Christians. Things like the resurrection, or that Jesus was the Messiah, or that He is Lord, Son of God and the uncreated Logos are all matters of faith, not objective historical inquiry.

-CryptoLutheran

I think being reasonable is better than being skeptical. Skeptical implies a bias in my mind. It shouldn’t be skepticism that makes you doubt particular beliefs within Christianity but reason (Logos). I don’t think it’s possible to use skepticism to get to any rational understanding of Christianity. It seems you usually end up with things like myth theories and literal/superstitious understandings of what is going on, instead of rational understandings.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Uh, what is missing here? You read The Case for Christ, skip the critique of that book, and move on to the critique of the critique? Why do you read and promote only those works that support you? Have you no interest in reading what opponents actually have to say?

By the way, when you go looking for a particular specialized book, how does it work out for you when you "poke around my used book store"? I would think a library or an Internet bookstore might be a better source.


If we go by a vote, the historical Jesus wins.

But questions of historical fact are not determined by vote. They are determined by studying the available data.

Oh please. Do you see how many people have responded here? I could not possibly keep this interesting if I echo back every word ever posted here, especially when many assertions get repeated many times on threads like this.

For the record, here is the rest of your post:



I fail to find the "good point refuting your argument" there that you are referring to. Exactly what good point were you referring to?

I often go to a used book store near my house. Lots of good books in there. I'm on this forum more for a hobby and I don't go buy every book that every person suggests to me.

I also don't just read books that support my theories. "The God Delusion" being a good example of a book which contradicts my theories or "Evolution of God" by Robert Wright, or "Mere Christianity" (I'm not a Christian). I haven't read every book ever written (unfortunately ) and I appreciated the suggestion from you for another book to read. I'll keep it in the back of my mind on my ever-growing "to read" list.

You also didn't quote the rest of my post so you ignored the idea of other historical figures having the same or less historical data on them. Alexander the Great is a very good example that nearly everyone agrees existed but yet most writings about him were not for several centuries. Socrates is another good example.

Why did you get so angry or am I just misreading the tone of your message?

 

[AlexBP]

There were quite a few historians writing about Galilee and Jerusalem at that time. For instance one would have expected people like Philo, Justus of Tiberias, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Quintilian to record something about Jesus. After all, they record many other things that happened in that area.

Let's take a look at those five.

Justus of Tiberias. We know almost nothing about this person except that Josephus didn't like him very much. We don't know when or where he lived or what he wrote about. None of his writing has ever been found. Hence we can say nothing about the places and times his writing covered, nor whether or not he mentioned Jesus Christ.

Quintilian. He came from Spain. He was not a historian; his only surviving work is about rhetorical technique. Nothing he wrote has anything to do with the Jews or Palestine.

Philo of Alexandria. He was Jewish and wrote about Jewish life, philosophy, theology, and history. The exact dates of his life and writing are not known. While they certainly overlapped the start of Jesus' life, there's no reason to believe that any of his work was written after the main events recorded in the Gospels.

Pliny the Elder. A Roman who wrote chiefly about animals and plants, though he did record some history. His only history book concerns the Roman battles against the Germans, in which he participated. He did not write about Palestine or the Jews. Should not be confused with Pliny the Younger, who did mention Jesus.

Plutarch. A Greek writer who wrote a tremendous amount. He did occasionally mention the Jews, but never followed their history closely enough that we'd expect him to mention Jesus.

So your claim that there "were quite a few historians writing about Galilee and Jerusalem at that time" is simply untrue. The plain fact is that when we study the history of the Jews and Palestine in the middle of the 1st century, we have exactly two firsthand sources. Those are Josephus and New Testament; the New Testament, of course, includes testimony from many different authors. Nowhere else is there a document that we'd expect to mention Jesus but which fails to do so. Further, there are a great many individuals who are only mentioned by Josephus, or only by Josephus and the Gospels or Acts, starting with the four I mentioned in my previous post.

 

[Johnnz]

There were other Jewish writings, dated aroiund 2 BC onwards, which contain a mixture of material such as, historical, religious, prophetic utterances and wisdom material. The NT writings fit in well with such material as well as their having unique content.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is true that James is called the Lord's brother, but is that simple a title, like calling him "Brother James"?

Sure. But is there any compelling reason to?

It seems that the only way to have Paul presenting an unhistorical Christ is by contrived eisegesis. It just seems to me that this comes across more like the logic used by those on the fringe arguing for Ancient Astronaut theories regarding things such as the Sumerian accounts or the Pyramids of Giza or Stonehenge rather than credible scholarship.

At that point we can make Paul mean anything we want him to mean.

Saying that James's name may simply have been a title is not a contrived eisegesis. It may well have been.

Imagine that the Gospels and Acts did not exist, and all we had were the epistles and other early writings. Would we find the life of Christ there? Would we be arguing that James had the title "James the Lord's Brother", so therefore God must have brothers, so therefore God--or a member of the Godhead--must have once been human? Can you see how using "James the Lord's Brother" to conclude that one of the members of the triune God walked on earth is a contrived eisegesis?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have been given ample Scripture to refute your erroneous claim. Not an exhaustive account by any means, but you have yet to deal with ANY of what's been presented.

Interesting. So I am met with dozens of responses, I respond to what I have time for, so therefore you win? Interesting conclusion.

It was the turtle, not the hare, that won the race.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Interesting. So I am met with dozens of responses, I respond to what I have time for, so therefore you win? Interesting conclusion.

It was the turtle, not the hare, that won the race.

No, its the fact that you do respond, but you have been responding to the "easy" bits and not the "hard" bits that are difficult. There have been a lot of really great points made in this thread (by the likes of Crypto Lutheran and Alex BP among others). These points made have not been addressed by you.

If you want to make a compelling argument then go back to posts 13 and 16 and reply with a rationally-constructed, evidence-supported counter-argument to the points presented in those posts. I would be really intrigued to get this thread going again if you responded to those two posts.

Imagine that the Gospels and Acts did not exist, and all we had were the epistles and other early writings.

But we do have the Gospels and Acts. They are part of the literature and part of the evidence.