Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 31 of 378 (212162)
05-28-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by randman
05-28-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Advisory
If you'd like to discuss moderating practices and the Forum Guidelines, please do so at General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:25 PM randman has not replied

Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 378 (212168)
05-28-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Kapyong
05-28-2005 6:48 AM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
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.

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 55 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 11:43 PM Deut. 32.8 has replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 33 of 378 (212170)
05-28-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Kapyong
05-28-2005 8:19 AM


Re: Caesar
What can I say!? It was quarter past six in the morning - I should have been in bed

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 8:19 AM Kapyong has not replied

rock4jc
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 378 (212178)
05-28-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
05-27-2005 5:17 PM


I am repeatedly reminded that Jesus exists. If He doesn't, then who is answering my prayers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-27-2005 5:17 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ramoss, posted 05-28-2005 7:08 PM rock4jc has not replied
 Message 37 by cmanteuf, posted 05-28-2005 9:27 PM rock4jc has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 35 of 378 (212180)
05-28-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by rock4jc
05-28-2005 6:59 PM


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'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by rock4jc, posted 05-28-2005 6:59 PM rock4jc has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 36 of 378 (212192)
05-28-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
05-28-2005 2:54 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
Greetings randman,
Thanks for your replies.
quote:
Prove that most scholars think the writers of the New Testament never met Jesus, etc,...
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:
The truth is the vast majority of New Testament scholars disagree with you.
So you claim.
But yet you still provide no evidence to back up your claims.
quote:
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.
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:
OK, so now you believe most scholars do not even think the apostle Paul existed, eh?
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:
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?
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.
But
where is YOUR evidence?
How come you can't cite a SINGLE SCHOLAR who agrees with you?
Iasion

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 38 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 9:37 PM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 46 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 10:29 PM Kapyong has replied

cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6766 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 37 of 378 (212197)
05-28-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by rock4jc
05-28-2005 6:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by rock4jc, posted 05-28-2005 6:59 PM rock4jc has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 378 (212201)
05-28-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Kapyong
05-28-2005 9:09 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:09 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 9:40 PM randman has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 39 of 378 (212203)
05-28-2005 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
05-28-2005 9:37 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 9:37 PM randman has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 40 of 378 (212205)
05-28-2005 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
05-28-2005 3:34 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
Greetings,
quote:
The skeptics would have us believe that Christianity spread, based on a lie,
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:
a pure myth (maybe Jesus never even existed)
Just like Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Osiris, Isis, Hercules, Odysseus, LaoTzu, Krishna...
quote:
and without any written documents (no letters of the New Testament),
Pardon?
What exactly are you saying?
I don't think you even grasp my point.
quote:
and one here even claiming Paul was a fabrication too,
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:
and yet the new "cult" was so strong and prevalent that Nero blamed them for the fire in Rome?
Well,
present your EVIDENCE for this event, let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.
quote:
Considering Christianity had provable spread to Rome within 30 years, and such that there was a significant presence there,
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:
why would anyone claim that members of the early Church had never even met Jesus,
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:
and why would people doubt that the gospels and New Testament were largely written during that time?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
As far as my own reading, I have read, attended lectures, etc,..from a wide range of biblical scholars, attended seminary, etc,
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 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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:34 PM randman has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 41 of 378 (212206)
05-28-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
05-28-2005 3:52 PM


Re: NT is religious literature, not history
Greetings,
quote:
You don't consider my comments on the use of the term "the son of man" in the gospels as "real content"?
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 3:52 PM randman has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 42 of 378 (212208)
05-28-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
05-28-2005 4:15 PM


Preaching, not evidence
Greetings,
quote:
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.
No-one here ever claimed "most historians think Jesus never existed"
You seem unable to even comprehend what people write.
quote:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 4:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 10:13 PM Kapyong has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 43 of 378 (212211)
05-28-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kapyong
05-28-2005 9:59 PM


Re: Preaching, not evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kapyong, posted 05-28-2005 9:59 PM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 10:18 PM randman has not replied
 Message 47 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 10:32 PM randman has replied
 Message 56 by Kapyong, posted 05-29-2005 12:14 AM randman has replied
 Message 229 by d_yankee, posted 06-30-2005 10:43 PM randman has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 44 of 378 (212212)
05-28-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by randman
05-28-2005 10:13 PM


Out on your ass
Here is a tip from an old lag - comments such as:
quote:
you guys run from it and make up total BS
and
quote:
Sort of feel like a 3rd grader here talking with very childish and ignorant people, but just for you...
are the quickest way to end up out on your arse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by randman, posted 05-28-2005 10:13 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 45 of 378 (212213)
05-28-2005 10:22 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by CK, posted 05-28-2005 10:35 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024