The historical Jesus

[_harmony]

Maklelan has said that he feels the historical fact that Jesus lived has been established. Everything I've read has been to the contrary. Could we discuss that, and the ramifications?

1. First, I'd like to know what sources Mak is using that establish this? A sourced paper is online at http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm that gives a good argument as to why Jesus exists only in the minds of believers, based on a huge number of sources. I can see why a BYU scholar would have difficulty with this concept, but I'd like a critique of this paper and the sources, please. Show where he's wrong.

2. Second, if Jesus didn't actually exist, what does that say about Joseph's First Vision? Was the First Vision Joseph's first lie, in regards to his ministry?

[_Yoda]

Harmony, have you read Laurence Gardner's "Bloodline of the Holy Grail"?

It's really fascinating reading, focussing on the dynastic Jewish traditions. It has a lot of explanations for the "virgin birth" and other things.

He has some fairly strong documented evidence that there is a Jesus who existed through the Davidic bloodline.

I don't have the book with me at work to cite specifics.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan has said that he feels the historical fact that Jesus lived has been established. Everything I've read has been to the contrary. Could we discuss that, and the ramifications?

1. First, I'd like to know what sources Mak is using that establish this? A sourced paper is online at http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm that gives a good argument as to why Jesus exists only in the minds of believers, based on a huge number of sources. I can see why a BYU scholar would have difficulty with this concept, but I'd like a critique of this paper and the sources, please. Show where he's wrong.

2. Second, if Jesus didn't actually exist, what does that say about Joseph's First Vision? Was the First Vision Joseph's first lie, in regards to his ministry?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

1. Historical evidence works on an entirely different plane than the american legal system. To say one can dictate to the other is nothing more than a joke.

2. If we get rid of all of the historical hearsay in the world we are left with a world history book that is half an inch thick, and nothing comes before about the time of the Renaissance. If we have to deny the existence of a man because we have no artifacts produced by him then 99.99% of the entire world, ancient and modern, must be considered a myth. They cannot be proven to exist. This is not a good argument.

All of the sources used in this paper support a historical Jesus except for a small number that are of ill-repute, like "infidels.org," and Prometheus Books, which promotes new-age themes and standards, like Porn 101, The X-Rated Videotape Star Index I,II and III, and The Atheist Debater's Handbook.

[_rcrocket]

Maklelan has said that he feels the historical fact that Jesus lived has been established. Everything I've read has been to the contrary. Could we discuss that, and the ramifications?

1. First, I'd like to know what sources Mak is using that establish this? A sourced paper is online at http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm that gives a good argument as to why Jesus exists only in the minds of believers, based on a huge number of sources. I can see why a BYU scholar would have difficulty with this concept, but I'd like a critique of this paper and the sources, please. Show where he's wrong.

2. Second, if Jesus didn't actually exist, what does that say about Joseph's First Vision? Was the First Vision Joseph's first lie, in regards to his ministry?

Your cite is to absolute trash in terms of quality of writing and scholarship. This is a good example of why not to rely upon internet scholarship.

The presence or absence of evidence for a historical Jesus has been debated fiercely for about 100 years now. Despite the flaws in your source, he sets forth the basis rationale for the non-historical argument. That is, there is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus Christ. No source prior to about 70 A.D. mentions Him. Even the earliest ones, such as Tacitus and Josephus, are of highly questionable provenance. [The same argument could easily be hurled against Abraham, Moses, the Exodus and many events of the Old Testament.]

Anybody who claims there is contemporaneous evidence of Jesus is just ignorant.

Your second question is just ridiculous. Of course if Jesus never existed, it would imperil the First Vision along with all of Christendom.

P

[_Calculus Crusader]

Anybody who claims there is contemporaneous evidence of Jesus is just ignorant.

Contemporaneous evidence? No, but close enough.

[_Jason Bourne]

Maklelan has said that he feels the historical fact that Jesus lived has been established. Everything I've read has been to the contrary. Could we discuss that, and the ramifications?

1. First, I'd like to know what sources Mak is using that establish this? A sourced paper is online at http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm that gives a good argument as to why Jesus exists only in the minds of believers, based on a huge number of sources. I can see why a BYU scholar would have difficulty with this concept, but I'd like a critique of this paper and the sources, please. Show where he's wrong.

2. Second, if Jesus didn't actually exist, what does that say about Joseph's First Vision? Was the First Vision Joseph's first lie, in regards to his ministry?

I think the fact the a person named Jesus that meets the timeline and geography is pretty well established.

I suggest the book The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel:

Sorry for the long link. Still do not know how to shorten it.


http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journ ... 566&sr=8-1

[_Calculus Crusader]

I recommend The Historical Jesus by Theissen and Mertz and Jesus Outside the New Testament by Van Voorst to start.

Really, there is no excuse for literate people to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

[_JAK]

I recommend The Historical Jesus by Theissen and Mertz and Jesus Outside the New Testament by Van Voorst to start.

Really, there is no excuse for literate people to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

In addition, see

this discussion

And see This Link

JAK

[_CaliforniaKid]

The presence or absence of evidence for a historical Jesus has been debated fiercely for about 100 years now. Despite the flaws in your source, he sets forth the basis rationale for the non-historical argument. That is, there is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus Christ. No source prior to about 70 A.D. mentions Him. Even the earliest ones, such as Tacitus and Josephus, are of highly questionable provenance. [The same argument could easily be hurled against Abraham, Moses, the Exodus and many events of the Old Testament.]

Anybody who claims there is contemporaneous evidence of Jesus is just ignorant.

Would I be ignorant if I pointed out that several letters of Paul pre-date 70 A.D.?

The historicity of Jesus is on much sounder footing than, say, the historicity of Abraham or even of Moses. Unless Paul is a total liar, the Christian movement was of significant enough size in the late 30's A.D. that he persecuted them. That's pretty darn near-contemporaneous.

[_richardMdBorn]

The presence or absence of evidence for a historical Jesus has been debated fiercely for about 100 years now. Despite the flaws in your source, he sets forth the basis rationale for the non-historical argument. That is, there is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus Christ. No source prior to about 70 A.D. mentions Him. Even the earliest ones, such as Tacitus and Josephus, are of highly questionable provenance. [The same argument could easily be hurled against Abraham, Moses, the Exodus and many events of the Old Testament.]

Anybody who claims there is contemporaneous evidence of Jesus is just ignorant.

Would I be ignorant if I pointed out that several letters of Paul pre-date 70 A.D.?

The historicity of Jesus is on much sounder footing than, say, the historicity of Abraham or even of Moses. Unless Paul is a total liar, the Christian movement was of significant enough size in the late 30's A.D. that he persecuted them. That's pretty darn near-contemporaneous.

I agree with California Kid. The letters of Paul which are generally accepted as authentic predate 70 A.D.