This is a thread for people to discuss and present the evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure. Go.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
So where's the Jesus?
- Thread starter crjmurray
- Start date
- Status
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 40,068
- 29,844
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Are we accepting, at the very least, the three Synoptic Gospels as evidence for the existence of Jesus?
If yes, then that alone should suffice--this does not necessitate that every detail in the Gospels must be accepted as historical fact, only that the Gospels present evidence for Jesus' historical existence.
If no, then then can we accept the undisputed Pauline literature as evidence? The undisputed Pauline epistles being as follows: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
If yes, then I would explicitly point to what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, about what he had received and what he himself taught about Jesus; ergo that Paul's teaching was the accepted teaching of the earliest Christians and such involved, most certainly, an historical Jesus. And in case this should be skewed in such a fashion as to argue merely a "mystical Jesus" of a Docetic or quasi-Docetic variety we also ought to accept the statement in Galatians of Jesus having been born "born of a woman, born under the Law". Such that for Paul Jesus was indeed a real human person who was born, lived, taught, was crucified, buried, and was raised up bodily from the dead, and ascended to sit at the right hand of God. This Paul believed, and is the earliest example of what Christians believe with zero evidence of an alternative belief.
If none of this is sufficient as evidence for an historical Jesus, then I doubt any other evidence would suffice; such as the remarks by Tacitus, nor the highly contentious statements of Josephus.
I would also contend that if such is not sufficient to demonstrate an historical Jesus, then we begin to seriously put into doubt the entire discipline of historiography.
-CryptoLutheran
If yes, then that alone should suffice--this does not necessitate that every detail in the Gospels must be accepted as historical fact, only that the Gospels present evidence for Jesus' historical existence.
If no, then then can we accept the undisputed Pauline literature as evidence? The undisputed Pauline epistles being as follows: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.
If yes, then I would explicitly point to what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, about what he had received and what he himself taught about Jesus; ergo that Paul's teaching was the accepted teaching of the earliest Christians and such involved, most certainly, an historical Jesus. And in case this should be skewed in such a fashion as to argue merely a "mystical Jesus" of a Docetic or quasi-Docetic variety we also ought to accept the statement in Galatians of Jesus having been born "born of a woman, born under the Law". Such that for Paul Jesus was indeed a real human person who was born, lived, taught, was crucified, buried, and was raised up bodily from the dead, and ascended to sit at the right hand of God. This Paul believed, and is the earliest example of what Christians believe with zero evidence of an alternative belief.
If none of this is sufficient as evidence for an historical Jesus, then I doubt any other evidence would suffice; such as the remarks by Tacitus, nor the highly contentious statements of Josephus.
I would also contend that if such is not sufficient to demonstrate an historical Jesus, then we begin to seriously put into doubt the entire discipline of historiography.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
- Apr 5, 2007
- 144,404
- 27,063
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
JCFantasy23
In a Kingdom by the Sea.
- Jul 1, 2008
- 46,753
- 6,386
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
MOD HAT ON
This thread will remain closed because it does not match the intents of the SOP for this forum:
"As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."
MOD HAT OFF
This thread will remain closed because it does not match the intents of the SOP for this forum:
"As a general guide for posting topics, non-Christians who are challenging Christianity should offer arguments as to why Christian beliefs are incorrect or untrue."
MOD HAT OFF
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
