The Existence of Jesus Christ

It's nice to see that attitude. I am interested in this for the intellectual challenge myself. It nice to see someone who is not intimidated or contemptual of us 'non-believers'.I suspect you will come away from these talks with some insights.
If nothing else, you will at least understand the "non-believers" a bit more.

I think the reason for that is that for the most part, the non-christians are doing this as an intellectual exercise and doesn't have the emotional involvement with it. I think you will find that many of the non-traditional theists, the agnostics and the atheists are ex-christians, and know the religion from the inside out. I learned a lot about early Christianity when looking at my Jewish roots, and found out how misreprentitive of the Jewish scriptures many of the evangalistic groups were. Consequently, when I discuss the scriptures, particularly the tanakh, you will see me using the Jewish interpretation and attitudes towards the various passages. I find that many of the non-jewish ex-christians or non-traditional hristians do the same thing.You will find certain basic cultural assumptions about God, about what prophecy is, and what Satan/angels are make a big difference in the interpretation of the stories. For example, in the Jewish tradition, angels do not have free will. They can ONLY do what God wills them to, and can not 'fall' or revolt against god. Think of how that effects the relationship between God/Satan and man. Think of how that effects the interpetation of the story about Adam and Eve.. . and the story of Job.Judaism also doesn't have a hell. 'Ghenna', which is the closest that comes to hell, is more like that concept of purgatory, where a soul will be 'purified' for up to 1 year, and then either goes to 'the world to come', or faces extinction. Also, the afterlife is not really
considered much in the Jewish religion, but it is more concerned about living the good life here (which is it's own reward). Think of how those attitudes distinguish it from either Christainity or Islam.Those cultural differences are some of the reasons that make me skeptical about the Jesus that is described in the gospels. There are just too many non-Jewish concepts being introduced to make me take them as historical.

Well, if you want to look at the fact that made the vast majority of Biblical scholars deciede that, we most certainly can look at the FACTS.For example, Luke specificlaly says that he is taking previous sources.If you want to take the books one a time, we can. As far as I can see, the ones that CLAIM the books are written by eyewittneses are using bad history, and theology.

Your claim that the claims about authorship go back as far as the text themselves is incorrect. They assocation about the name came in the second century for , example. For example, the authorship of Mark being attributed from Mark comes through Papias, decades after Mark is alleged to have been written.

Do you have a source about that from other than the very bad appologist, J.P. Holding (aka, Robert Turkel)? The only claims to that either are from Holding, or people who refer to him.In other words, show me a source from an actual scholar, not a librarian who makes LOTS of outragious claims.

While there are some , usually evangelical scholars that claim that, others claim differently. For example

quote:

---

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

​

The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

---

and

quote:

---

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

---

The much more comprehensive writing can be found on Peter Kirby's
site, in specific Gospel of John

Now, I would be interested if you found a secular source analysing this.

Because, frankly, a lot of the very religious sites are very biased.Things I have found out about that.1) It was in an entirely jewish section.. no evidence of Christianity.
2) The translations that point to Jesus are controversional.
It would be more accurate to say : it is the OPINION of a faithful Christian that it "has been dated in the first half of the first century A.D. (cir. A.D. 42/43),"
According to my reference (C.K. Barret, The New Testament Background, SPCK 1987), this tomb is dated 50BCE - 50CE, which is quite different. The meanings of the words "Iesous iou" and "Iesous aloth" is disputed.
Father Sukenik is a Christian believer - other scholars read these ossuaries as simply names - Jesus being a very common name in those times.

Only from a logical point of view. Just because something makes a claim doesn't mean that claim is true. Just because of work refers to a real place or event doesn't mean that the other parts of that work are phyisically true.

One piece of evidence that is continually being brought up is the commments of tacitus in ANNALS.One critizim I heard that I can not confirm is that hte first time this passage was mentioned was in the 14th Century. That would indicate it was a later interpolition.Is that true, or was this mentioned by some Christian appologist before, and someone is making an invalid claim (which I see all too often, on all sides of the arguement)

That is one interpretation of the phrase 'The kingdom of God is within you'.

Did he? Do you have any evidence of this beyond his claims? Paul also admitted that he stretched the truth, and made some claims about being a student of Rabbi Gamiel, which is odd , since all his theology is in direct conflict with what Gameil would have taught.

The writer of Luke/Acts, writing in the very late part of the first century, or the very early part in the second century , put words into Paul's mouth. How is this evidence of a historical Jesus?

And how do you know any of the passages in the New Testament actually tell the truth, rather than feed into an emotional response and need for comfort... how do you know you aren't fooling yourself.