|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If you'd like to discuss moderating practices and the Forum Guidelines, please do so at General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deut. 32.8 Inactive Member |
Iasion, I'd be curious to hear your views of the Jerusalem church. Specifically, if you view it as fictive, what was the purpose of the elaborative fiction. Conversely, if you view it as historical, would you suggest why the default inference would not be that it evolved around some charismatic cult leader - or, if you accept this as a reasonable inference, why we should not accept Yeshu'a as that leaders name. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6382 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
What can I say!? It was quarter past six in the morning - I should have been in bed
Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rock4jc Inactive Member |
I am repeatedly reminded that Jesus exists. If He doesn't, then who is answering my prayers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Who says anybody is actually answering your prayers? What objective evidence do you have that shows your prayers are answered, and if they are answered, that they are answered by 'Jesus Christ'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings randman,
Thanks for your replies.
quote: Prove?Nothing is proved in history - thats for mathematics. I claimed that "according to scholars", no NT writer met any Jesus.I meant modern experts such as - Brown, Fitzmyer, Nineham, Helms ... I never said "most scholars", it's not about numbers, but quality of argument. There are many arguments AGAINST the NT writings being by eye-witnesses, here are some - G.Mark Raymond Brown, the foremost NT scholar of the day argues, G.Mark was not written by anyone who knew Jesus (haven't got a copy here right now.)Randal Helms points out G.Mark shows poor knowledge of local geography, Nineham also, arguing the author had never been to Palestine. Nineham argues that G.Mark was written in Rome because it was intended for a gentile audience who expected persecution. D.J.Harrington argues that G.Mark was written in Rome and not by Mark. It is a consensus of most contemporary scholars that G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who had never been in Palestine. G.Matthew Peter Kirby : "It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus." Herman N. Ridderbos writes : "This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship." Francis Write Beare notes : "But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus." Nearly all scholars accept that G.Matthew is dependent on G.Mark and thus not by any eye-witness. James Kmmel presents 5 arguments why this letter is NOT thought to be written by James, but someone unknown who never met Jesus (see Peter Kirby's for the details) one being that the letter was only accepted late. Schnelle argues that James is not authentic - "Nonetheless, there are weighty arguments against James the Lord's brother as author of the Letter of James. Central themes of strict Jewish Christian theology such as circumcision, Sabbath, Israel, purity laws and temply play no role in this letter." 1 Peter W. G. Kmmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way."Paul J. Achtemeier argues that the lack of personal details show this letter was not written by anyone who knew Jesus. Schnelle argues it was not by an apostle. I will not continue at length for every book. The facts are clear -many scholars argue the NT writings were NOT written by eye-witnesses to Jesus. If you wish to argue they WERE - then YOU produce some evidence and argument that one of these works WAS written by an eye-witness.
quote: So you claim.But yet you still provide no evidence to back up your claims. quote: Pardon?You made some vague claims that some scholar whose name you can't remember, made some claims about the term "son of man" proving Jesus was real - what exactly is your argument here? quote: Dear me.Did you not even READ what I wrote? I said nothing like that - in fact I said the opposite. Please take the time to actually read and consider what I actually write. quote: You seem to have a real issue with "most scholars" - a term I never even used. I have read some of the current scholarship, and I quoted several scholars to support my claims. Butwhere is YOUR evidence? How come you can't cite a SINGLE SCHOLAR who agrees with you? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cmanteuf Member (Idle past 6795 days) Posts: 92 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
rock4jc writes:
I am repeatedly reminded that Jesus exists. If He doesn't, then who is answering my prayers? Allah the Merciful and Munificent? Vishnu the Preserver? Ik Onkar? Omnipotent Zeus? The One? Brigit? Ishtar? People have prayed to all of them and thought that their prayers were being answered. Would the faith of a Zorastrian that his prayers were answered convince you of Lord Ahura Mazda's[1] existence? Chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
"It is a consensus of most contemporary scholars.."
This is typical of the type of overstatement found on evolution debates. Why am I not surprised it is found here? The fact is the statement is completely false, and if you had any knowledge of the academic community in this area you would know that, but I am going to throw you a bone here in the interest of civil and honest discussion. "Most scholars" must include "all scholars" including all of the seminary and Bible college professors from all of the various religious institutions, and frankly, just run the numbers and you will see that scholars stem from many seminaries that hold the exact opposite beliefs of the scholars you quote, and consider them, whom you call "foremost" are considered by these groups often to be totally worthless, and not objective at all. I've got to go view a house for the next 30 minutes, but if you'd like I can quickly list a number of "modern scholars" who totally disagree with your's, and they are just as respected, and maybe even more so, if one counts actual numbers of people that respect them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
In academic circles - respect is measured by how cited the work is (well as a blunt measure at least).
When you get back, I would be interested to see this list of names.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: False.No-one called it a lie. Please pay attention. Is Shakespear a lie?Is Gone WIth The Wind a lie? Is the Iliad a lie? No. Does that mean they are TRUE history?No. quote:Just like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Osiris, Isis, Hercules, Odysseus, LaoTzu, Krishna... quote: Pardon?What exactly are you saying? I don't think you even grasp my point. quote: No I didn't.You can't even read properly - sad. I said : "Well, someone wrote the letters of Paul, we call that person "Paul"." The exact opposite of what you claim I said. quote: Well,present your EVIDENCE for this event, let's see if it stands up to scrutiny. quote: Provably?Pardon? One claim in one document, that is not supportined by any external evidence and which contradicts what evidence we do have - not proof at all. quote: Because the documents show no signs of being written by an eye-witness, but show much evidence of being religious literature based on the OT and expanded by later legends.
quote: Because the evidence shows that the writing of the NT works continued as late as perhaps 150CE.Because the evidence shows no Christian knew the Gospel stories until early 2nd century. quote: You made a claim that carries no weight as far as I can see.Please explain why YOU think the use of the term "son of man" is evidence that Jesus existed? I just cannot figure out your point there. quote: If YOU claim Jesus existed - produce your evidence.If YOU claim most scholars believe Jesus existed - produce your evidence. So far, all you have done is preach your beliefs.
quote: In other words, you are a faithful believer, who follows eveything other faithful believers tell you. But somehow, you can't produce any actual evidnce to back up your claims?
quote: Why would the writer of Gone With the Wind use old terms and slang unless it was all TRUE? Why would the movie Gladiator use accurate titles for the day unless it was all TRUE? Seriously, randman, why on earth do you think the use of a certain term makes the book true history? According to your argument, thats makes most historical fiction and myths true. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: Nope.You presented no content. You claimed that some scholar you can't name,made an argument you can't quite remember, that somehow argued the term "son-of-man" proves Jesus existed. Where is the content?What is the argument exactly? As I pointed out - the mere use of a contemporary term in a document means nothing. Iasion (I won't bother to keep pointing out randman's error about what I said about Paul, but I hope he tries to read for comprehension in future.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3471 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: No-one here ever claimed "most historians think Jesus never existed"You seem unable to even comprehend what people write. quote: In other words, after all these posts,you are UNABLE to produce any evidence for your claims, you are UNABLE to cite a single scholar who agrees with you (even though you claim the majority agree.) You entire argument seems to be :" most scholars agree with ME ! " I am sure readers will understand why I am losing interest here,perhaps if randman produces some evidence I will continue. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
OK, I am going to google an encyclopedia, but probably drop discussing things with you guys since it is quire obvious you have absolutely no interest in truth. For example, I explained the issue with the "son of man" in it's usage, and yet rather than try to answer that issue, you guys run from it and make up total BS.
Here is the google/wikapedia quote. Sort of feel like a 3rd grader here talking with very childish and ignorant people, but just for you... "While most historians and scholars have either assumed or concluded that Jesus probably lived..." "Others, however, predominantly E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredricksen, John Dominic Crossan and John Meier, maintain that the source documents (see two-source hypothesis, Q document, and Gospel of Mark), on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. They therefore consider that the accounts of the life of Jesus in those Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic facts of his life and death (E.P. Sanders, for example, has argued that the documentary evidence for Jesus' existence is as strong or stronger than the documentary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great)." Jesus - Wikipedia I have now shown a source that states that most scholars think Jesus actually lived. Can you guys now back up your claims that most scholars claim Jesus never in fact existed? Or can you suggest some means of verifying this claim? Or are you just going to resort to sophomoric attempts to divert the conversation and dodge the point? Somehow I suspect it will be the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4156 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Here is a tip from an old lag - comments such as:
quote: and
quote: are the quickest way to end up out on your arse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The following is an article from a Duke Divinity school professor, a scholar of some repute and respect. Note that in his entire article concerning the religious nature of the culture Jesus lived in, whether it was more biblical Judaism or Hellenized, more rural or urban, etc,...which he says is of considerable research and debate in the academic community, he says nothing about the suppossed dominant view, according to some here, that Jesus may not have even existed. In fact, his entire tone is one of basic assumption that the academic community as a whole considers the fact Jesus did really live in Palestine as a given.
As far as this thread, I am not sure how many respected scholars need to have their articles quoted, but somehow I think it does not matter to those here that want to believe somehow that Jesus never existed, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Theology Overview | Princeton Theological Seminary
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024