Evidence for Jesus

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _Jason Bourne »

richardMdBorn wrote:
GoodK wrote:
1. The Gospels as evidence that Jesus lived? Is The Sorcerer's Stone, or The Goblet of Fire evidence Harry Potter lives?
Does Jenn Kamp Rowling think that she was writing non-fiction? Of course the gospels are evidence for the historicity of Jesus. They are 1st century documents written with extensive knowledge of Jewish customs and of pre 70AD Jerusalem. They are written in Greek but reflect some Aramaic background

If you agree with dating Acts circa 62, Luke circa 60 and Mark circa 55, how do you arrive at an invention of Jesus 25 years after his imaginary death. The gospels have the appearance of historical documents. A lot of real people and events are mentioned. They don’t start with “in a far country long ago…Homer was reciting tales about events hundreds of years ago. And where does Paul fit in to the story. An imaginary Jesus causes far more problems than it solves.



James Michner's historical novels have real people and events as well. If Jesus died in 33 AD and 55 AD is the first writing about him that is 22 years later. Critics of JSs FV in 1832 make much noise about it being 12 years later. Are you one of those? The gospels and Acts gives varying accounts of the same events. We do not know who wrote the gospels. Paul claims to have a vision. The accounts of his vision vary. Why should Paul be trusted. He does not reference the historical Jesus. Jesus for Him was already God. Really the evidence for a historical Jesus is scant at best at least outside the Bible.
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _richardMdBorn »

Jason Bourne wrote:James Michner's historical novels have real people and events as well. If Jesus died in 33 AD and 55 AD is the first writing about him that is 22 years later. Critics of JSs FV in 1832 make much noise about it being 12 years later. Are you one of those? The gospels and Acts gives varying accounts of the same events. We do not know who wrote the gospels. Paul claims to have a vision. The accounts of his vision vary. Why should Paul be trusted. He does not reference the historical Jesus. Jesus for Him was already God. Really the evidence for a historical Jesus is scant at best at least outside the Bible.
I am familiar with historical novels (most accounts of the origins of GPS fall into that category :)). However, the question is whether the gospels are of this genre. I would argue that they are not whereas in reading Mitchener there is no doubt about twhat he is writing. And I fail to see the relevance of a book written 1900 years later in a different culture to this topic. We do know who wrote Luke; it's the same chap who traveled with Paul.

The point about Paul is that he also claimed in the 50s that there was a historical Jesus. There must have been a lot of folks who were in on the secret if they made Jesus up. What was their motivation for this? I'm not discussing Joseph Smith here.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _Jason Bourne »

I'm not discussing Joseph Smith here.


Course not. I just could not resist a chance to point out your glaring inconsistencies.
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

Continuing with evolving’s quote from Dan Barker
All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
His comment about everyone is incorrect. And the phrases “tribe” and “did not get off the ground” are vague. How many 1st Century Christians would there need to be to refute these assertions.
Tacitus, another second-century Roman writer who alleged that Christ had been executed by sentence of Pontius Pilate, is likewise cited by Righi. Written some time after 117 C.E., Tacitus' claim is more of the same late, second-hand "history." There is no mention of "Jesus," only "the sect known as Christians" living in Rome being persecuted, and "their founder, one Christus." Tacitus claims no first-hand knowledge of Christianity. No historical evidence exists that Nero persecuted Christians
Doesn’t this passage qualify as evidence.—
Nero did persecute Jews, so perhaps Tacitus was confused. There was certainly not a "great crowd" of Christians in Rome around 60 C.E., as Tacitus put it, and, most damning, the term "Christian" was not even in use in the first century.
False – see Acts 11:26

The Gospels are not history; they are religious propaganda, contradictory, exaggerated, and mythical. The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, are silent about the man Jesus:
This is also incorrect. Paul refers to James the brother of Jesus. Gal 1:19 along with many other details:
Here is a lengthy citation from F.F. Bruce (in blue text):

Here, however, we are chiefly concerned with the information we can
derive from his Epistles. These were not written to record the facts
of the life and ministry of Jesus; they were addressed to Christians,
who already knew the Gospel story. Yet in them we can find sufficient
material to construct an outline of the early apostolic preaching
about Jesus. While Paul insists on the divine pre-existence of Jesus
(E.G., Col..1:15 ff.), yet he knows that He was none the less a real
human being (Gal. 4:4), a descendent of Abraham ( Rom 9:5) and David
(Rom. 1:3); who lived under the Jewish law (Gal 4:4); who was
betrayed, and on the night of his betrayal instituted a memorial meal
of bread and wine (1 Cor. 11:23 ff.); who endured the Roman penalty
of crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; 1 Cor 1:23), although the responsibility
for His death is laid at the door of the representatives of the
Jewish nation (Gal 3:12; 6:14 etc); who was buried, rose the third
day, and was thereafter seen alive by many eyewitnesses on various
occasions, including one occasion on which He was so seen by over
five hundred at once, of whom the majority were alive nearly twenty-
five years alter (1 Cor 15:4 ff.). In this summary of the evidence
for the reality of Christ's resurrection, Paul shows a sound instinct
for the necessity of marshalling personal testimony in support of
what might well appear an incredible assertion.
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/paulandjesus.html
_GoodK

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _GoodK »

Of course the gospels are evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Please... How? Even if you could tell me who wrote the "gospels", and even if the gospels seemed authentic enough to trust, the authors couldn't even help but contradict each other.
So, before I accept your assertion, you'll need to do better to than just say the gospels are evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

They are 1st century documents written with extensive knowledge of Jewish customs and of pre 70AD Jerusalem.


Where are these documents? What document? Are you trying to say the Bible we have today is a translation of this 1st century document?

The gospels have the appearance of historical documents.


Do you mean the new testament?

A lot of real people and events are mentioned. They don’t start with “in a far country long ago…Homer was reciting tales about events hundreds of years ago.


I take it you have never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Should we believe in Humbaba because real people and events are mentioned here?

And where does Paul fit in to the story.


I'm not sure, a protagonist?

An imaginary Jesus causes far more problems than it solves.

How so?
_marg

Post by _marg »

I enjoy your posts Grosskreutz.
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

Coming from you, that is a HUGE compliment.

Thank you.
_rcrocket

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _rcrocket »

richardMdBorn wrote:
1) The Gospels – it is generally thought that Mark was written first, and Luke is dependent on Mark. Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts. Acts ends with Paul in prison (circa 60-62) Acts does not include Paul’s death and thus was probably written shortly after the last event (note that Luke was a companion of Paul in some of his journeys in Acts). Thus, Acts was written 62-64, Luke around 60 and Mark some time in the 50s, less than 30 years after Jesus’ death. Paul, a contemporary of eyewitnesses, wrote ten letters between 50 and 60.


This is your best argument.

However, nowhere does Paul quote any saying of Jesus contained in the Gospels. If there was an oral tradition of witnesses to Jesus Christ, one of two things occurred. Paul didn't think they were important enough to quote. Paul didn't know they existed.

When Paul does quote Jesus, the quotes are nowhere found in the Gospels, thus further compelling the conclusion that Paul didn't have the witnesses. If he didn't have the witnesses, one wonders whether they were contemperaneous as you claim.

2) Josephus (37-100) mentions many New Testament figures.


This is the go-to argument. However, the critical analysis certainly strongly suggests that each reference to Jesus was an amendation long after Josephus's death. Indeed, as it is, Josephus was either born after Christ's crucifixion or was a baby. His testimony is hardly evidence.

Code: Select all

3) Tacitus (55?-117?) mention Jesus/


Far too late to be considered contemporary.

4) Suetonius (c 120) mentions Jesus


Far too late to be considered contemporary.

5) Pliny the Younger (c 112) mention Jesus


Far too late to be considered contemporary. Using this analytical framework -- Pliny who wrote 80 years after Christ's crucifixion, we should accept as completely authoritative David O McKay's (an apostle around 1910) descriptions of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith (which I do, by the way).
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Re: Evidence for Jesus

Post by _richardMdBorn »

Jason Bourne wrote:
I'm not discussing Joseph Smith here.


Course not. I just could not resist a chance to point out your glaring inconsistencies.
Please cite a quote from me that is inconsistent.
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

My new comments are in clear text.
Richard They are 1st century documents written with extensive knowledge of Jewish customs and of pre 70AD Jerusalem.

GoodK Where are these documents? What document? Are you trying to say the Bible we have today is a translation of this 1st century document?

No. I think it was clear that I was referring to the Gospels.

Richard The gospels have the appearance of historical documents.

GoodK Do you mean the new testament?

No I mean the gospels.
A lot of real people and events are mentioned. They don’t start with “in a far country long ago…Homer was reciting tales about events hundreds of years ago
.
GoodKI take it you have never heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Should we believe in Humbaba because real people and events are mentioned here?

And when was the epic written in relation to the real people and events mentioned. Let’s cut to the chase. I assume that you would accept that the same person wrote Luke and Acts. If, not please tell me why not. How does Luke in the book of Acts appear to historians. Was he accurate? If so, would one expect him to also be accurate in Luke?
Post Reply