The Existence of Jesus Christ

I'd just like to point out that excluding the New Testament, a priori, as historically unreliable or some such is not good scholarship, but mere bias. The simple fact is the writers of the New Testament probably all experienced Jesus ministry, or at a minimum, some like Paul, undoubtedly heard and spoke with others that had met and walked with Jesus, and incidentally, Paul had relatives that converted to "the way" while he was still persecuting the Church, and considering he studied in Jerusalem at the time, there is no doubt he would have been aware of Jesus' earthly ministry, even if absent during His arrest and crucifixion.If you are going to say there is not enough evidence for Jesus, why not go all the way and claim there is no evidence either for Paul or any of the apostles?At some point, one has to accept history. You can differ with the idea that Jesus is the Messiah and think that somehow the miracles and Resurrection did not happen, if you want, but to actually go as far to suggest there never even was a Jesus is just not good scholarship.As far as religious concerns, I think that realizing Jesus actually did rise from the dead and is the Messiah takes getting a personal revelation, to a degree, from God (the Father), and those that seek the truth and really want to know, will receive.But on the topic of good scholarship, claiming Jesus is a myth is tantamount to rejecting the entire New Testament as having any historical validity and ignoring the evidence of the growth in the early Church, the accounts we do have, etc,...In terms of why some writers may not mention Jesus, well, probably the same reason some want to deny he ever even lived. Some folks just really don't like even the idea of Jesus Christ, Christianity, etc,...By the way, one strong piece of evidence for the gospel accounts of Jesus' sayings being accurate and dated for the time he lived is the use in the gospels of the term "son of man." I once read a brilliant work on the subject of the term "the son of man" in the apocryphaphal literature and it's use up to the time of Jesus. I don't have the scholars name handy, a bright German scholar working with original sources who incidentally did not accept the Bible as inerrant but nevertheless commanded the respect of a fundamentalist scholar and seminary professor who recommended the book to me.Notably, the term "son of man", although a prominent term of Jesus to refer to Himself is not used that much in the rest in the rest of the New Testament, nor later in Church history, and that's because there was a time between Jesus' sayings and, for example, Paul's letters, that the use of that term faded, for the most part, within the emerging Christian community.If the gospels were fictional accounts created much later, they would not have had Jesus referring to Himself by the title "son of man", and I am not sure later if people even understand the term.The term became dated and was already poorly understood outside of certain Jewish religious sects, and since presumably a much later date for the gospels would be written by and to a largely Gentile/Jewish mixed group, or even just a predominantly Gentile group, it makes no sense to fabricate this term. I am not sure they would even know the larger implications of how this term was used at the time of Jesus, and frankly, most people even today do not have a clear concept of the term. They infer it means the Messiah, but they do not realize that it was a commonly understood term for a few years that meant Messiah, and there were other interesting aspects to the way it was used in literature at the time, which make Jesus' use of the term more Trinitarian, for lack of a better term, than most realize on the face of it.Why would they then insert such a dated term into a fictional account?In fact, you see very little discussion of this term "son of man" throughout Christian history, even today, and that's because it was a phrase with a specific historical and cultural meaning during the time of Jesus, and not so much later.Unfortunately, I will have to dig through some buried boxes and note-books to get the scholar's name, but I may do that since I am a little concerned I cannot remember his name any longer, and want to read his book again. It's the kind of thing a seminary professor of Church history might recommend, but pretty much no one else has heard of. There are a lot of superiour works of scholarship that are never read by the most, not even those studying a subject unless in-depth, but somehow what gets out to today's public or classes, even on a graduate level, is generally inferiour scholarship and work, or toned down for the masses.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 02:01 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 02:04 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 02:20 AM

Prove that most scholars think the writers of the New Testament never met Jesus, etc,...That's total horse-hockey.But to back up your assertion, please give us a list of whom most scholars are, and then tell us what they believe.The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you. I am not saying they all hold to the more traditional reading I hold to, but the ideas you espouse are just old wives' tale. Some "scholars" get a lot of press making wild claims, and then the public gets the idea that "most scholars" think Jesus never existed, or none of the writers ever met Jesus, etc,...and that's just baloney.By the way, I gave you some real textual evidence concerning the use in the gospels of the term "son of man."That term was not used at later dates, nor even well understood in all liklihood. The idea that Jesus' saying there was fabricated has not a shred of evidence for it, but the idea that Jesus really did use that saying is well attested to, textually and otherwise.Also, you claim."Peter and James probably or possibly existed, most of the rest are probably mythical."OK, so now you believe most scholars do not even think the apostle Paul existed, eh?Ridiculous. Sorry, but most scholars do accept they existed. There is some debate, quite vigorous, on the total reliability of their writings and some scholars reject certain books, but lately the whole pseudographia claims are beginning to unravel, but tell me something, how do you know what most scholars think?Do you ever talk with some of these scholars? Do you regularly read their works?This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 02:59 PM

What's wrong with codetrainers' point?"Imagine that, in 64 Anno Domini Nero blames the burning of Rome on a "cult" that's only 31 years old, powered totally on the resurrection of one "man" from the dead in the area of Jerusalem, and gospels based on facts that were at the time easily falsified but were not.Just a teacher, just a rabbi, blah blah, there were dozens of them in Israel/Palestine at the time, and only one fired up his followers enough to believe in his resurrection enough to go all the way to martyrdom for the belief."I am new and don't want to be banned, but this looks like solid evidence for me. 64 Ad is only 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion.The skeptics would have us believe that Christianity spread, based on a lie, a pure myth (maybe Jesus never even existed) and without any written documents (no letters of the New Testament), and one here even claiming Paul was a fabrication too, and yet the new "cult" was so strong and prevalent that Nero blamed them for the fire in Rome?Considering Christianity had provable spread to Rome within 30 years, and such that there was a significant presence there, why would anyone claim that members of the early Church had never even met Jesus, and why would people doubt that the gospels and New Testament were largely written during that time?The skeptic's position does not add up.Maybe as time goes on, what we are seeing is a revival of the old oral history myth, that ancient people were to primitive that they merely passed down oral stories, and since that unverified and now largely disproven claim worked for so long criticizing the old testament, it's being trotted out for early Church history?It would make far more sense for a rapidly expanding religious movement, with the leader gone, to have multiple writings (gospel) accounts all circulating within the first few years of his death and forward until the last remaining beleivers who walked with him had passed, pretty much just as the traditional perspective on the New Testament indicates.

How about your side goes first since I was responding to your side's unsubtantiated claim. I wrote:"Prove that most scholars think the writers of the New Testament never met Jesus, etc,...That's total horse-hockey.But to back up your assertion, please give us a list of whom most scholars are, and then tell us what they believe.The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you."I have offerred some textual evidence, and no one has responded to that evidence, and now you request, despite no response to that evidence, that I offer something new, when the unsubtantiated claim was made by someone from your perspective.Sorry, but you go first. Please list whom you consider to be most New Testament scholars that think Jesus never existed, or Paul never existed, or some of other wild, unfounded claims put forward.As far as my own reading, I have read, attended lectures, etc,..from a wide range of biblical scholars, attended seminary, etc,...and referred some evidence anyone can verify if they read the gospels and compare it with other literature at that time and the remaining New Testament. It is true that the well-respected German scholar who wrote the work some time ago, that educated me on the use of that term (his work not him directly), I have forgotten his name, but the evidence is verifiable nevertheless.Why would later writers fabricating the sayings of Jesus use the confusing term "the son of man" since it's usage had passed, and it has always been a term poorly understood outside of Jesus immediate time and culture?This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 03:36 PM

"But there is no evidence that a Jesus "fired up his followers" at all."Deut.32.8, but wasn't that his point, namely that Jesus or someone else did not fire up his followers to martyrdom, but that the truth of Jesus' life and resurrection did?Seems like you misread him here.On the subject of Paul, well we have one guy here claiming he probably didn't even exist, and seemed to suggest he thinks most new Testament scholars think that.It looks to me, over the course of many years of hearing skeptical scholarly arguments, that just about anything that bashes acceptance of more traditional views of the Bible will be put forth and accepted within the skeptic camp, so much so in fact there is often confusion about what accepted views are within that camp.One claims most think Jesus never existed, and then another might claim, Jesus was just a great Rabbi, etc,...and it all looks to me like grasping at straws and very, very poor scholarship.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 03:50 PM

"I had hoped, however, that you would have real content to offer."You don't consider my comments on the use of the term "the son of man" in the gospels as "real content"?

Now, you are just being dishonest.Why?I ask again, do you consider the textual evidence I provided as evidence or not?"And that clearly and, perhap, understandably upsets you."Not so much upsets, but it's clearly wrong. Show me one authoritative source that most historians think Jesus never existed? You cannot do it because it's a lie."Yet are you not doing exactly the same thing? You are essentially claiming that the majority of New Testament scholars agree with you based on compelling evidence, but you steadfastedly refuse to support any aspect of that claim."Tell me what evidence you would accept that would support that claim? Would you accept for example, a reference in the encyclopedia to what "most scholars" believe?Would you accept a comment from a prominent scholar?It's actually fairly common knowledge that most historians accept that a person named Jesus probably existed, and a minority perspective put forth by skeptics, often New Testament "scholars" and not even historians, without solid reasons imo, that claim he never existed.Personally, I have always questioned the view that someone that already disbelieves in Jesus is more objective than someone that believes in Jesus, as far as New Testament scholarship.If you are a believer, I can see the motivation for wanting to make the study of the scriptures your life's work.If you are an atheist, for example, I wonder what the motivation is?I am sure you can counter that, well, the believer is biased too, but his bias is more of a positive bias in one respect and more understandable. He has chosen Jesus to be his Lord, and thus it is understandable to want to learn more about the scriptures, but the man oppossed to religious belief in general, but decided to study religious texts, imo, suggests aleady a strong bias towards rejecting claims that support religious belief, and is more of a negative motivation (being against something), not for something.Not saying every individual follows this pattern, but it is interesting to think about,and worth consideration.

Deut., if you want to believe that, that's fine. I've really got no use for talking with someone who is not serious about truth.The fact is "son of man" is used some in the Old Testament, but what you do not appreciate, and I doubt any fact that subtantiates any part of the gospel story is something you would appreciate, is that term was used with a specific meaning at the time of Jesus and just prior.Take the modern use of the term "the man." It can be used in a lot of different ways. If someone were to say, he's "the man", they might just be praising him,or as someone to deal with in that, or you may see a reference to "the man" in some areas that refers to police.Certainly, the use of "the son of man" in the Old Testament is worth a lot of consideration, and Jesus' use of that term alludes most likely to some of those references.But here is the dilemna with your claim, "the son of man" does not exclusively refer to the Messiah in the Old Testament. In fact, it has been a problematic term for the Christian community in general, and this is due in part because most try to view the term in light of the Old Testament only, and do not recognize how it was used in literature and common expression at the time of Jesus.But Deat., none of it matters to you, does it?Tell you what though, google the wikapedia, and see if most historians accept whether Jesus existed, or come up with some other valid way of determing what most scholars believe.I doubt you will, but we'll see.

"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.

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 - WikipediaI 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.

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

See my other post as a general reply.Here is another leading scholar that agrees with me.Global Industry Market Sizing - NationMaster'This could get redundant, but the number of scholars that accept a historical Jesus that are widely respected, far outweighs those that reject a historical Jesus.I propose you put forward a means of determing whether your claim or mine is correct.

So are we all accepting the following statement in the rewrite, or do we have to see what other sources say?"A small minority of historians, (including, S. Acharya, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price) citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed."Jesus/Rewrite - WikipediaBy the way, one reason for the tone of some of my comments is I am a serious person interested in real discussion, and it is disheartening to have spend pages upon pages on something which should not even be debated.There's no real debate as to what most scholars believe on this. The vast majority accept that Jesus the man really did live.It's just a small minority that are arguing otherwise, and that's fine. It's OK to discuss those arguments, but not to continually make wild overstatements such as most scholars or historians reject the notion Jesus ever lived.This may sound insulting, but I say the honest truth, on boards like these with a lot of evolution proponents, the tendency to wildly overstate things has, in my experience, caused me to think there is a cult-like aspect to proponents of evolution, at least those dogmatic enough to argue about it.Dismiss me if you want, but maybe some of you might want to think that just maybe there is something to what I am saying, that maybe my observation is correct.And that does not mean you have to think creationism is right, or the Bible, or that evolution is wrong, or anything like that. My comment is not about what you believe or think, but the way some believe and think.Heck, I am a Christian, but I know of what some groups that I would call Christian cults or cultish at least. They may believe things I think are correct, but the way they approach truth and the way they believe is cultish, and not reflective of the spirit of truth and honesty.

Charles, you are confusing 2 different people.Tom Wright is the Bishop of Durham. Here is another article touching on this subject from him.http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htmEP Saunders is a Duke Divinity professor.This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 11:01 PM

Your use of the following here is totally misleading."No,
it is not a simple fact at all,
it is merely the story that you, and other Christians, believe.According to scholars,
NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who met any Jesus "You claim it is merely a story that I and other Christians believe, followed up with "according to scholars" which implies that although Christians believe this story, "scholars" do not.The clear implication on your part is to suggest that a preponderance of scholars disagree with the story in the points you listed.That's incorrect, and really deceptive language, imo, because you later claim you did not mean "most scholars", but just some.Well heck, some "scholars" believe aliens are abducting people right and left and all sorts of things.But to contrast Christians and myself with "scholars" as you did is to resort to sophmorism. Of course, there are some scholars that advocate all sorts of things, and small minority go as far as to deny Jesus even existed.So what?MOST SCHOLARS DO NOT. Most scholars accept Jesus did in fact live a life here on earth.If you want to discuss the evidence for and against, etc,...that's fine, but don't try to insinuate that somehow modern scholarship, overall, has rejected the historic Jesus because that's BS, and if you do not know that, you should.If you never meant to suggest that the preponderance of modern scholarship denied Jesus ever existed, I apologize for misreading you, but am glad to get the chance to clear up any confusion any one may have on this topic. To suggest that most modern scholarship denies the existence and life of Jesus is completely wrong!This message has been edited by randman, 05-28-2005 11:29 PM