Evidence for Jesus

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

How much did Joseph Smith write between 1820 and 1832. A new story when the author has written a lot of material previously is a different situation from a person's first account.

[_richardMdBorn]

Why should Paul be trusted. He does not reference the historical Jesus.

He does.

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]

Richard The gospels have the appearance of historical documents.

GoodK Do you mean the new testament?

No I mean the gospels.

This is a flimsy argument and I really wished you would have elaborated on it a bit more.
What do you mean by the appearance of historical documents?
How do you differentiate between historical documents and what just has the appearance of historical documents?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

.

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?

Well, I'm not an expert, but Gilgamesh is believed to have ruled around 2600 BC. We don't know when it was written exactly, but why would that matter?

I assume you don't view the Koran as a historical document. What about Dianetics? Both books claim to be historical. You could even say they have the appearance of a historical document. How do the gospels appear compared to the Koran and Dianetics?
How did appearing historical become a criterion for historicity?

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

The part I bolded. I have asked this question on other boards. Considering the Paul claim that you identified. That would have taken place (so far as we can know) roughly 17-18 years after the Crucifixion. If the claim was false as many believe or at least challenge:

Where are the historical protests to the false claim?


Jersey Girl

[_GoodK]

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.

The part I bolded. I have asked this question on other boards. Considering the Paul claim that you identified. That would have taken place (so far as we can know) roughly 17-18 years after the Crucifixion. If the claim was false as many believe or at least challenge:

Where are the historical protests to the false claim?


Jersey Girl

Maybe I don't understand your question, but didn't Nero protest Paul's false claim?

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

I don't know why anyone thinks that I should be able to explain my own question! I think that Nero's "protest" was more a political move than challenging the historicity of Christ. I could be wrong in that.

What I'm thinking of is why aren't there any historical protests from the Jews?

[_rcrocket]

Where are the historical protests to the false claim?


Jersey Girl

There are too many to recall and mention. See CARM's own website at http://www.carm.org/evidence/fakedresurrection.htm. "The disciples stole Jesus' body and faked his resurrection. This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead."

See references to early Jewish critics especially seen in Justin Martyr's work, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis.

[_Jersey Girl]

Where are the historical protests to the false claim?


Jersey Girl

There are too many to recall and mention. See CARM's own website at http://www.carm.org/evidence/fakedresurrection.htm. "The disciples stole Jesus' body and faked his resurrection. This possibility has been raised by critics ever since Jesus rose from the dead."

See references to early Jewish critics especially seen in Justin Martyr's work, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis.

crock,

The first link doesn't work for me. Justin Martyr's dialogue is a second century work. I should have been more specific and narrowed my question to first century historical protests. My apologies for the non-carefully worded posts.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Just look above. You, or at least EVs, criticize JSs first vision accounts because they are many years after the event yet you rely on accounts about Jesus that came after him far longer and are quite comfortable with it. That is just for starters. The accounts vary. So do the accounts of Paul's visions. EVs are fine with that.

[_Jason Bourne]

Richard

You also said this:

here 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.

Well so what? LDS say the same thing. All these people knew Joseph Smith, were closely involved, he had witnesses and so on. But critics say well maybe they were just in on it. So just edit your comments above. You say the same thing LDS say when defending Joseph Smith. Interesting.