Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3441 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 16 of 378 (212081)
05-28-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by MangyTiger
05-28-2005 12:19 AM


Caesar
Poor guy,
one of the most famous persons in history,
yet so often mis-spelled, even with 2 mistakes in 6 short letters.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MangyTiger, posted 05-28-2005 12:19 AM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by MangyTiger, posted 05-28-2005 5:50 PM Kapyong has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 378 (212139)
05-28-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kapyong
05-28-2005 6:48 AM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 6:48 AM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:24 PM randman has replied
 Message 36 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:09 PM randman has replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 378 (212142)
05-28-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
05-28-2005 2:54 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
quote:
The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.
Would you take a few moments to substantiate this truth and then suggest what arguments held by these scholars should be considered compelling?
quote:
The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.
Again, randman, could you substantiate this truth and share the argument you find compelling?
quote:
Do you ever talk with some of these scholars? Do you regularly read their works?
Instead of rhetorical put-downs, wouldn't it be more effected to divulge the scholars with whom you have conversed, and what evidence you have read about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 2:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:34 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 378 (212143)
05-28-2005 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
05-28-2005 7:42 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 05-28-2005 7:42 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:41 PM randman has replied
 Message 31 by Admin, posted 05-28-2005 5:13 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 378 (212144)
05-28-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Deut. 32.8
05-28-2005 3:24 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:24 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:46 PM randman has replied
 Message 40 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:43 PM randman has not replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 378 (212145)
05-28-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
05-28-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
quote:
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."
But there is no evidence that a Jesus "fired up his followers" at all. There is, however, some evidence of an increasingly Gentile/Hellenist mission accepting a Pauline resurrection story, along with some evidence that the Jerusalem cult rejected Paul's apostasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:25 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:49 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 378 (212148)
05-28-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
05-28-2005 3:34 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
quote:
How about your side goes first since I was responding to your side's unsubtantiated claim. I wrote: ...
I understand what you wrote. I referrenced what you wrote. I also asked you to substantiate what you wrote. If you choose to make claims that you're unable and unwilling to substantiate, that is entirely up to you. I had hoped, however, that you would have real content to offer. I'm sorry if my request seemed out of line.
This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:47 PM
This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 03:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:52 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 23 of 378 (212149)
05-28-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Deut. 32.8
05-28-2005 3:41 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:41 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 4:05 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 378 (212151)
05-28-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Deut. 32.8
05-28-2005 3:46 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
"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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 3:46 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 4:22 PM randman has replied
 Message 41 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:51 PM randman has not replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 378 (212153)
05-28-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by randman
05-28-2005 3:49 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
quote:
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?
Martyrdom is not unique to Christianity. People die for all kinds of things, including imagined Gods.
quote:
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.
And that clearly and, perhap, understandably upsets you. 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.
quote:
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.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the only substantive scholarship provided was provided by the person using the name "Iasion". I would not say that she or he has convinced me, but you must understand, and deal with, the fact that it is you who are demonstrating an apparent poverty of scholarship and argumentation.
So, again, who is this scholarly majority, what are their arguments, and how might we confirm that information.
This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 05-28-2005 04:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 4:15 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 378 (212155)
05-28-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Deut. 32.8
05-28-2005 4:05 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 4:05 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 4:24 PM randman has not replied
 Message 42 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:59 PM randman has replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 378 (212156)
05-28-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
05-28-2005 3:52 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
quote:
You don't consider my comments on the use of the term "the son of man" in the gospels as "real content"?
To be honest, not at all ...
You wrote:
quote:
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.
I would really suggest that you and your brilliant unamed German take a few moments to read Daniel 7. So, for example, bible.org notes ...
quote:
This text is probably the main OT background for Jesus’ use of the term son of man. In both Jewish and Christian circles the reference in the Book of Daniel has traditionally been understood to refer to an individual, usually in a messianic sense. Many modern scholars, however, understand the reference to have a corporate identity. In this view, the son of man is to be equated with the holy ones (vv. 18, 21, 22, 25) or the people of the holy ones (v. 27) and understood as a reference to the Jewish people. Others understand Daniel’s reference to be to the angel Michael.
Referrence to "the son of man" can easily be explained as a thinly veiled attempt to reverse engineer prophesy, much as referrences to Isaiah 7:14. Your German "scholar" seems to me grossly incompetent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 4:33 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 378 (212157)
05-28-2005 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
05-28-2005 4:15 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
quote:
Now, you are just being dishonest.
I am neither impressed nor interested in pathetic personal attacks. If you can substantiate your claims, please do so. If not, that fact will speak for itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 4:15 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 378 (212158)
05-28-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Deut. 32.8
05-28-2005 4:22 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 4:22 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Deut. 32.8, posted 05-28-2005 5:11 PM randman has not replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 378 (212161)
05-28-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
05-28-2005 4:33 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
quote:
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.
Your childish ad hominems are getting tiresome ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 4:33 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024