Why were people offended when Christ came?

[Sectio Aurea]

Would you like to debate the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth with me?

I would be delighted to demonstrate why you are wrong.

Elio, I believe the Jesus of Nazereth probably existed, however I would be delighted if you could demonstrate why I am wrong.

 

[ebia]

Most historians acknowledge Jesus was a real person.

Where the problems arise are with; virgin birth, miracles, whether he claimed to be God and rising from the dead. On these issues, credible evidence is lacking.

What evidence would the knowledgable historian expect that is lacking?

 

[ebia]

There was not much mention of Jesus in other writings during his time, in fact, the Apostle Paul (very revered figure), barely mentions Jesus in his writings.
.

Um, a quick search of the Pauline epistles for the word 'Jesus' comes up with 198 instances, and Christ 347. Hardly "barely mentions".

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Um, a quick search of the Pauline epistles for the word 'Jesus' comes up with 198 instances, and Christ 347. Hardly "barely mentions".

Ok, so let us assume this miracle worker Jesus is mentioned by Paul hundreds of times.

Why didn't Paul mention a single miracle performed by Jesus?

 

[ebia]

Yet not a single mention of any miracle.

A bit odd for a miracle worker is it not?

A wrong. The resurrection is mentioned several times.
B

Paul isn't telling the story in the letters - his audience are established churches that all know the story in which particular issue have arisen that Paul is addressing. And so the only miracle that needs referencing in any of them is the one that is relevant to certain of those issues - the resurrection. That is mentioned several times. You are taking texts that have very focused purposes and whinging because they don't talk about something quite different. You won't find a lot of mentions of Jesus miracles in the Canons of the Anglican Church of Australia (a considerably longer text than Paul's combined epistles); that doesn't mean it doesn't affirm them, its because the canons have a different purpose and aren't rambling texts mentioning everything some random person might go looking for.

 

[raykevic]

Paul isn't telling the story in the letters

Paul doesn't write letters?

Are we to dismiss Pauls letters according to that post? God forbid.

 

[raykevic]

Ok, so let us assume this miracle worker Jesus is mentioned by Paul hundreds of times.

Why didn't Paul mention a single miracle performed by Jesus?

Read the part about Paul being blinded. You'll totally look over your post.

 

[ebia]

Paul doesn't write letters?

Are we to dismiss Pauls letters according to that post? God forbid.

What and what?

 

[raykevic]

All of Gods own are led by the Spirit of God.

 

[bhsmte]

What evidence would the knowledgable historian expect that is lacking?

It's not evidence that they would expect, because they are supposed to investigate (what likely happened in the past) by following a historical method, not what they expect or not expect to find. That is a legitimate historian is supposed to be completely objective and not let bias impact their work.

Historians have criteria to judge reliability of evidence; are there any reliable eye witnesses? how many? Do they agree? Have they corroborated with one another? Are they biased? Are there writings about the claim? Who wrote them? Do they agree? Are they independent? Etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[bhsmte]

Um, a quick search of the Pauline epistles for the word 'Jesus' comes up with 198 instances, and Christ 347. Hardly "barely mentions".

Dig a little further and you will understand what I mean about Paul, compared to say the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Which by the way, were not authored by; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[bhsmte]

What evidence would the knowledgable historian expect that is lacking?

Also, independent of how historians do their work, ask yourself the following question:

If another faith was making claims in their holy book about miracles, rising from the dead etc. etc., what sort of evidence would you require before you acknowledged them as likely true?

 

[Freodin]

Why were some people offended at the teachings of Christ when He came preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God had come to men?

Quite simple.

You are doing it wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

Elio, I believe the Jesus of Nazereth probably existed....

+1

 

[Ken-1122]

Why were some people offended at the teachings of Christ when He came preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God had come to men?

If some cult leader got a following and went around claiming to be equal to the God that you serve, wouldn't you be offended? Well why wouldn't you expect anything less from those in Jesus days?

Ken

 

[ThouArtThat]

If some cult leader got a following and went around claiming to be equal to the God that you serve, wouldn't you be offended? Well why wouldn't you expect anything less from those in Jesus days?

Ken

Exactly. Jesus committed the ultimate taboo and claimed to be God, and when asked for a miracle as proof he refused to give one.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why were some people offended at the teachings of Christ when He came preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God had come to men?

I'm not so sure they were. Setting the bible aside as your source of information, there is no other sources to support that one guy named Jesus lived and was crucified during that time in Palestine (no contemporary Jewish or Roman records).

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly. Jesus committed the ultimate taboo and claimed to be God, and when asked for a miracle as proof he refused to give one.

There is legit debate amongst scholars/historians as to whether Jesus ever claimed to be God, but thats a whole other issue.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is legit debate amongst scholars/historians as to whether Jesus ever claimed to be God, but thats a whole other issue.

Also being discussed by those same scholars, is paucity of evidence for Jesus, suggesting he may even not have existed at all.

 

[bhsmte]

Also being discussed by those same scholars, is paucity of evidence for Jesus, suggesting he may even not have existed at all.

Very few claim Jesus did not exist. Even Robert Price grants that Jesus may have existed, but he leans towards no.

The biggest debate is about; what did Jesus say? Did he perform miracles? and was he risen from the dead?

The last two have no credible evidence to establish they happened, no matter what conservative scholars claim. Regarding what Jesus said, conservative historians will state he said most of what was in the bible and liberal historians will state he said very little. Bottom line, the bible does not meet the historical standard, no matter how loud the conservative historians scream that it does.