Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so

Jobrny ^ | August 30, 2014 | Valerie Tarico

[CommerceComet]

What you are saying is tantamount to claiming that "the Bible is true because it says so right in the Bible."

All I was suggesting to the two proponents of the 'no reasonable man' argument is that it is made more compelling when it includes the element of first-hand knowledge. I believe that it is a necessary element for that argument to have persuasion. Personally, I find it pretty compelling in the case of the disciples. Apparently, you don't.

[boatbums]

So. All those martyrs died, not just for a fraud, but for a fake fraud, to preserve a fake, fraudulent fiction? In a million years, that’s not gonna happen. People tend to say, at the point of death, “OK, ya got me. What tipped ya off?”

Excellent point! Though some people will die for a lie (i.e., Islamist homicide bombers), NO ONE will die for what he knows is a lie.

[crusty old prospector]

Didn’t someone tell you the Good News? Good thing they didn’t keep it to themselves.

[HarleyD]

Like Paul no one shared the gospel with me. Nevertheless the scales fell from my eyes.

[Varda]

The question on the table is did Jesus Christ of the Bible exist. You then take a single characteristic (miracle worker) that people do claim exists (with published evidence) and compare it to a set of characteristics that has no evidence and nobody claims exists for George Washington. This is known as a fallacious argument.

Let's get back to reality. The Christ in the Bible is a Rabbi with disciples living in the time of the Roman occupation of Israel. He lives in an era with certain political, cultural and religious characteristics. Among his listed historical actions are miracles, teaching in the temple, being in various towns and places in Israel, and keeping company with large numbers of people some of whom are called disciples. He was crucified by the Romans and rose from the dead. The only evidence is written.

Obviously there are many people who use those descriptions that can be worked with scientifically (i.e. physical evidence) in their work. One recent example was when archaeologists used the Gospel of John to help them identify the exact location of the Pool of Siloam in 2004. The ability to use a text to find a physical location is considered evidence in favor of the veracity of that text.

Obviously the Gospels speak of things that can be physically proven. They also speak of things that cannot be physically proven or disproven. Those are taken on faith one way or the other.

[jesusreturnsoon]

Proof of Jesus’s existence aside from the OBVIOUS historical record...”judge not, lest ye be judged”...and other principles from Jesus actually work to bring true happiness and peace of mind to the angry and bitter. That is simple fact.

[Varda]

I agree. It’s the true meaning of freedom.

[xp38]

If Jesus was indeed the son of God and equivalent to God in the doctrine of the Trinity then his miracles were of a humble nature in general. They were not meant to prove his divinity but to point and teach us aspects of his divinity. Healing others, feeding others and having power over his creation including death show us what God is like. I don’t believe in Jesus because he turned water in wine although that is part of the whole package that is presented to us in the gospels. I believe because what Jesus says is the most accurate and truthful description of this world we live in. Beyond that his words have a power beyond our comprehension and again point to his divinity. Heaven and earth will fade away but his words will last forever.

[Diamond]

It takes a fantastic will to unbelief to suppose that Jesus never really ‘happened’, and more to suppose that [H]e did not say the things recorded of [H]im – so incapable of being ‘invented’ by anyone in the world at that time: such as ‘before Abraham came to be I am’ (John viii). ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father’ (John ix); or the promulgation of the Blessed Sacrament in John v: ‘He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life’. We must therefore either believe in Him and in what [H]e said and take the consequences; or reject [H]im and take the consequences.
— Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, pg. 338

[jesusreturnsoon]

yes..and when realized personally by being still in the mind...disproves all of the doubts!

[mlo]

"Then we are back to the fact that there are a large number of historical documents attesting to those people and what they did..."

Like what?

[Diamond]

I am not even saying that intentional fraud had to be involved - the "amelioration" and "simplification" of existent stories with the telling and re-telling is a well-known phenomenon in the realm of oral traditions.

We're not talking about oral traditions. We're talking about what was written. The relatively early dates of the writings both by and within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, coupled with the existence of the church itself, other known and established historical events such as Nero's persecution, and a host of other internal and external evidences mitigate against the notion that the accounts are late and but the "amelioration" and "simplification" of existent stories with telling and re-telling. Not enough time.

Greg Koukl (one out of probably thousands that could be adduced on the subject) addresses the issue in a succinct (4:19) video here: Are the Gospels Reliable Witnesses?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Obviously the Gospels speak of things that can be physically proven

A few more examples:

The Accuracy of the Book of Acts
[snip]...In more recent times, Henry J. Cadbury, the liberal scholar of Harvard University, authored a volume titled, The Book of Acts In History, in which he introduced many examples of the amazing accuracy of Luke’s second letter to Theophilus.

Luke records an abundance of details, and this allows the careful student to check the ancient historian for credibility.

For instance, the physician/historian mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. In addition, he alludes to ninety-five different people, sixty-two of which are not mentioned by any other New Testament writer. Twenty-seven of these are unbelievers, chiefly civil or military officials (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament – Its Background, Growth, and Content, pp. 171-172). The book of Acts will definitely stand the test of historical examination.

• Did ancient readers generally read aloud (8:30)? Yes.
• Why would it take two days to sail from Troas to Neapolis, yet five days to accomplish the return trip (16:11; 20:6)? Because of prevailing winds.
• Was Sergius Paulus a “proconsul” (13:7)? Yes, though 68 years earlier the same position would have been occupied by a “propraetor.”
• Did “tanners” customarily live by the seaside (10:6)? They did, because tanners used seawater in tanning hides, and the sea breezes diffused the stench of their trade...

Cordially,

[good1]

The most important feature of Christianity is: It is true.

[Migraine]

Your heaven’s gate cultist allusion is not weighty at all, due to the fact that their fatuous fantasy does not tap into Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, etc, in any way. If you dismiss those, you dismiss Israel, the Jews, and everything about them, because Jesus is/was of that milieu, in it, from it, and meshed with it.
And you throw Herff freakin Applewhite in alongside that, as if it were even remotely analogous???
The apostles’/disciples’ lives and deaths are matters of at least as solid record as anything else from that era. The fact that you choose to dispute them is hardly my problem.