Existence of the "historical Jesus" increasingly questioned by scholars

[Texashiker]

I like how you think your own ignorance of something is somehow evidence in favor of your opinion though.

The same level of proof exist for Jesus as most other historical figures.

Hate has hardened your heart to the truth.

 

[Retro Rob]

Pathetic straw man.

Not really. He has a point there. Modern scholars hold that if there is not an independent account of everything written in the Bible, the event cannot be trusted.

This is a ridiculous and unrealistic standard they simply do not apply to purely secular writings.

The information I posted earlier testifies to that. All those Kings and other biblical figures were absolutely rejected, because of the source.

 

[fskimospy]

The same level of proof exist for Jesus as most other historical figures.

Hate has hardened your heart to the truth.

False.

 

[alkemyst]

People would like to think the 10 commandments still count, but they do not.

We have a new testament and a new covenant.

If the old testament still counts, then jews are still the only chosen people.

Muslims follow their same book more or less.

The problem most don't realize is the new testament was written 100-300+ years after Jesus had already died. It wasn't written by those that knew him.

Most of this had to be done in secret and was relayed purely verbally.

Throughout time much of our written knowledge was destroyed as most rulers would first destroy all books and kill anyone educated when they took over a place.

Stupid people are easy to control and people forget quickly when things are not written down.

The long and short of it is faith is going to be faith and there will always be atheists.

No one knows for sure and even if the 'stories' are proven wrong, that doesn't disprove God or God(s).

Also even if historically man has gotten it wrong every time, it still doesn't mean there isn't a higher power that we cannot understand nor does it mean there will never be one.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Use the same standard.

What first hand accounts dating from the exact time of Caesar still exist? Not very many.

Most of what we have are copies of copies dating to several hundred years after the fact.

If that is enough to disprove the existence of Christ, it should be enough to disprove the existence of Julius Caesar.

You can't be serious. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of accounts of Caesar from contemporary sources both from allies and enemies.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Don't really care to get into it, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

Just wanted to make it perfectly clear that death is an eventuality for everyone, and knowing that its no different that a deep, undisturbed "sleep", that's in itself an answer I've found in my studies.

I guess I'm confused why you needed the Bible to come to these conclusions though.

 

[soulcougher73]

I understand that with jesus humanity got a new deal with god. But jesus himself says he did not come to abolish the law, regarding the old testament.

http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/what-did-jesus-teach-about-old-testament

http://www.gci.org/law/otl10


So as I said in another thread, at best it is a matter of opinion. But seeing as how jesus plainly says he's not here to abolish the laws and cites the old testament, I'm of the belief that those rules are still in effect. Of course it raises the question, how can a god who supposedly built the universe in just six days and claims to have known each of us since before we were born, not communicate clearly. Almost seems like it's all man made...

Ding Ding Ding..We have a winner. You sir win the internets for one whole day

 

[fskimospy]

Not really. He has a point there. Modern scholars hold that if there is not an independent account of everything written in the Bible, the event cannot be trusted.

This is true for literally everything throughout history. If your sole documentation for an event occurring is a self-interested party, the accuracy and existence of that event is in doubt.

This is a ridiculous and unrealistic standard they simply do not apply to purely secular writings.

It's absolutely applied to all secular writings.

The information I posted earlier testifies to that. All those Kings and other biblical were absolutely rejected, because of the source.

This is not accurate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope.

Just as with Julius Caesar we have second hand accounts of his life.

That doesn't really answer it though. Look at some of these:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/42035
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/jesus08.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Each of those is a different and older deity that has some striking resemblances to jesus christ. Why is jesus sort of an average of these (and other) deities?

Use the same standard.

What first hand accounts dating from the exact time of Caesar still exist? Not very many.

Most of what we have are copies of copies dating to several hundred years after the fact.

If that is enough to disprove the existence of Christ, it should be enough to disprove the existence of Julius Caesar.

The difference is that it doesn't take a leap of imagination to believe Julius Caesar existed. There are many accounts. It is easy to believe because we know Rome has a long history and had a lot of leaders. Now if you claimed Julius Caesar was executed and rose from the dead, I'll need a little more to go on.

 

[Texashiker]

The problem most don't realize is the new testament was written 100-300+ years after Jesus had already died. It wasn't written by those that knew him.

And? It was common practice to make copies.

We have very little original text from 2,000 years ago.

You can't be serious. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of accounts of Caesar from contemporary sources both from allies and enemies.

And we have thousands of accounts of Jupiter, Thor, Odin,,,,,.

It's absolutely applied to all secular writings.

Really?

Then why is Josephus rejected on Christ, but his other accounts are accepted?

Then there is the account of Jesus in the Quran.

 

[thraashman]

Let's all argue a religious topic on the internet because we're totally going to change each others' minds!


Also, like usual, Texashiker's arguments are the most illogical in this thread.

 

[IronWing]

Then there is the account of Jesus in the Quran.

Tell us about that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And we have thousands of accounts of Jupiter, Thor, Odin,,,,,.

And we reject those as not true, but mythology, right? What makes your god different when the evidence is not any different than it is for those you and I reject?

 

[Texashiker]

Also, like usual, Texashiker's arguments are the most illogical in this thread.

The existence of Jesus is held to a different standard than other historical figures.

All I ask is that he be held to the same standard.

We have second hand accounts of his existence. In any other case that would be enough.

Tell us about that.

Wikipedia is your friend.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is true for literally everything throughout history. If your sole documentation for an event occurring is a self-interested party, the accuracy and existence of that event is in doubt.

No, not really because there simply isn't independent accounts for everything...you're just stuck either believing it or not

It's absolutely applied to all secular writings.

OK, fair.

This is not accurate.

Which part?

 

[fskimospy]

And we have thousands of accounts of Jupiter, Thor, Odin,,,,,.

No we don't, especially not from independent sources.

Would you care to point out a bunch of sources from the enemies of the nordic cultures that worshiped Thor where they talked about him smiting them with thunderbolts for their disbelief?

Really?

Then why is Josephus rejected on Christ, but his other accounts are accepted?

Then there is the account of Jesus in the Quran.

If you understand how to use a calendar you'll understand why Jesus being mentioned in the Koran is irrelevant.

 

[Texashiker]

And we reject those as not true, but mythology, right?

What makes your god different when the evidence is not any different than it is for those you and I reject?

Because we have proof of his existence in the historical record.

We have second hand accounts of his existence. Josephus wrote about Jesus, and the Quran talks about Jesus.

This is the same standard of proof used to prove other figures existed.

 

[soulcougher73]

Cesaer: no magical claims
Jesus: performed miracles and magic

If course the burden of proof is higher. Use some common sense already!

Just because you believe in god does not mean you have to be retarded.

LOL Almost sig worthy

 

[Texashiker]

If you understand how to use a calendar you'll understand why Jesus being mentioned in the Koran is irrelevant.

Your heart is hardened to reject any and all evidence.

Where did the writers of the Quran get their information on Jesus? Someone had to tell them about Jesus.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Actually a note on that. I was raised Catholic (haven't practiced since high school) and attended Catholic school all the way through high school. One of the most interesting religion classes I had, which was taught by a priest (with a degree in science), spent most of the time explaining how "miracles" and such contained in the Bible could be explained by natural phenomenon. It was quite interesting, especially considering the setting.

That would be interesting. However miracles such as raising the dead are highly suspect. He alone fed 4000 people?

Its just a story. One that has been retold for millennia before Jesus as well.

 

[fskimospy]

No, not really because there simply isn't independent accounts for everything...you're just stuck either believing it or not

For pretty much everything in history you have to make a judgment call. Even events with widespread independent accounting could be distorted. Hell, there are frequently disagreements on what exactly happened in events that are occurring RIGHT NOW, and obviously our standards of account are infinitely better than those of the Roman Empire.

The more independent accounts of something the more likely it is to be accurate, but of course it's no guarantee. I don't think that means that all things mentioned in the past are equally likely, however.

OK, fair.

Which part?

First, the presence of historical figures in the bible doesn't really mean a lot as to whether or not the central fantastical claims it makes happened. More importantly though, if you reject something in the past but then as more evidence comes to light change your mind that's not an indictment of your process, that's a point in its favor.

 

[fskimospy]

Your heart is hardened to reject any and all evidence.

Where did the writers of the Quran get their information on Jesus? Someone had to tell them about Jesus.

/facepalm

 

[Retro Rob]

I guess I'm confused why you needed the Bible to come to these conclusions though.

Because mainstream Christianity says there is a Hell people suffer in, and I had to look into the Bible to see what words they were translating, and "Sheol" and "Hades" doesn't mean a place of fire and torment.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Rob and Texas appear to have been raised by wolves. How in the world can you two be so stupid?

 

[IronWing]

The confusion over the historical nature of Jesus speaks to a bigger issue in history, that the historical details of many well known events is without a lot of support. Try reading about famous medieval battles sometime. We learn that brave Sir Hurtsalot leading 5000 knights beat the crap out of noble Lord Plushbottom and his 20,000 archers at the battle of Swampgassy in 803AD leading to the new Bronchial dynasty. The account of battle will include blow by blow action until Sir Hurtsalot severs the neck of his opponent. Then we read that, well, historians don't know whether the battle was fought in England or northern France, that the armies might have numbered 200 or 2,000 and that Sir Hurtolot might have been the king we know as Ælfrǣd the Odd but it might really have been a peasant uprising and it clearly couldn't have happened prior to 850 as the hula bow hadn't been invented yet. Authentic contempory paintings of the battle date from the 1700s and show Italian castles as a backdrop to the suspiciously Hussian looking combatants.