Was Jesus Christ a real historic figure ?

Originally posted by Darfius
I believe the heretic because he only confirms what was [b]tradition in the early Christian church.

The gospel of Thomas was written in Greek in Syria around 140 AD, so it clearly wasn't written by Thomas.

Also, the gospel sa ...[text shortened]... uncil merely confirmed what was popular Christian consensus.

[/b]

This is not much later than the Gospel of John (about 40 years)
or the Pastoral Epsitles (110 CE) and it is contemporaneous with
II Peter (about 130 CE). Would you throw out any of those texts?

You keep changing your criteria for authority. Before, you were saying
it had to depict Jesus saying that he was Divine. When I quoted two
passages that say just that, you change your criteria to dating. What
will be your next criteria, knowing that the Gospel of Thomas has some
Scriptural company?

How is 'split wood, I am there' contradictory to the canonical Gospels?
How is 'every woman who makes herself male' contradictory to St Paul's
'there is neither male nor female' bit?

It was most certainly not a consensus, by the way. Consensus means
universal agreement; gnostic sects were hunted down and exterminated
for their 'heresy' which was voted on by a council (who, I might add, voted
to include the seven other books of the Old Testament which most
Protestants consider as 'not Scripture'😉.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
And thus you eloquently avoid my question as to why Luke would lie. Well done.

Why would Luke lie? Why would he say he investigated something
that he didn't?

Easy: to give himself authority. People lie all the time to make
themselves appear more important.

I'm not saying he did, but it's a plausible scenario.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I'll tell you a secret, No1: Most serious scholars don't doubt the historicity, the real existence, of an actual human being called Jesus Christ, who was born, lived and died in the first half of the first century.

I think #1 has been pretty clear that he isn't doubting the existence,
but is weighing the evidence.

A lot of the 'serious' scholars have taken for granted that Jesus existed
without really looking at the evidence that is there. The fact is, there
isn't an awful lot of independent evidence out there; the overwhelming
majority is Christian literature, a corpus which makes extraordinary claims
like 'Jesus rose from the dead' or 'Jesus was born of a Virgin.'

If you aren't a person of faith, then such claims make those sources
dubious. It's a fair position to take -- if you feel you can't trust major
details like Resurrections and Virgin Births, then why would you trust that
the person existed at all? Given the paucity of corroborating evidence, I
can fathom skepticism.

There has never been a satisfying, non-religious examination of Jesus's
existence. Most 'serious' scholars acknowledge that 99% of what they
know about Jesus comes from Christian texts.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I think #1 has been pretty clear that he isn't doubting the existence,
but is weighing the evidence.

A lot of the 'serious' scholars have taken for granted that Jesus existed
without really looking at the evidence that is there. ...[text shortened]... what they
know about Jesus comes from Christian texts.

Nemesio

Nemesio: "There has never been a satisfying, non-religious examination of Jesus's existence."

Are you being serious ? The debate has been raging in the scientific world for years and years and it will be raging for many many years to come.

Nemesio: " ... but is weighing the evidence. "

You can keep on weighing till you weigh an ounce, as a famous Dutch saying goes. At a certain moment however you have to make a decision to accept or dismiss the historicity of Jesus Chist. Otherwise you keep on doubting and weighing. That's why I advised No1. to accept is as fact, because it is very plausable and acceptable if you look at the biblical ànd the non-biblical evidence and go from there.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "There has never been a satisfying, non-religious examination of Jesus's existence."

Are you being serious ? The debate has been raging in the scientific world for years and years and it will be raging for many many years to come.

Nemesio: " ... but is weighing the evidence. "

You can keep on weighing till you weigh an ounce, as a fam ...[text shortened]... le and acceptable if you look at the biblical ànd the non-biblical evidence and go from there.

I was not clear.

There has never been a satisfying, non-relgious examination of
Jesus's existence that yielded a definitively affirmative result.

#1 takes an agnostic stance (by his own admission). He isn't
doubting, but reserving judgment. Having looked at the evidence,
I think that Jesus the man likely existed. Whether he was
the Son of God is a matter of faith. I wouldn't describe it as
the obvious of two solutions, because the extra-Biblical evidence
is pretty scanty.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I was not clear.

There has never been a satisfying, non-relgious examination of
Jesus's existence that yielded a definitively affirmative result.

Nemesio

There never will be. Who do you want to decide that ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
There never will be. Who do you want to decide that ?

Well, I don't know about 'never.' I mean, we could
find another stash of manuscripts in a cave from the
first century talking about Jesus, or something like that.

That would cinch it, I think. Right now those sources are
not extant, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, I don't know about 'never.' I mean, we could
find another stash of manuscripts in a cave from the
first century talking about Jesus, or something like that.

That would cinch it, I think. Right now those sources are
not extant, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Nemesio

Quit stating your opinion as fact.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, I don't know about 'never.' I mean, we could
find another stash of manuscripts in a cave from the
first century talking about Jesus, or something like that.

That would cinch it, I think. Right now those sources are
not extant, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Nemesio

Don't you think that this would be the start of just another controversy ?

I can already hear them ....... If one doesn't want to accept the historicity of the person Jesus Christ one will always find "evidence" for that stance, because of the simple fact it is long gone history and the passing of time always has the tendency of blurring things.

Originally posted by Darfius
Quit stating your opinion as fact.

You mean like when you state 'Jesus is the Son of God.'

My opinion is a matter of scholarship and evidence. It is
what you call an 'informed opinion.'

Yours is a matter of faith. You so desparately want Jesus
to exist that scanty evidence will appear as nigh unto Scripture.

Not all opinions are created equal.

Nemesio

P.S., Please understand that I believe the historical Jesus existed.
My reasons certainly do not rest on the horrible source of Tacitus,
or the spurious claims of the Talmud. I think that Josephus makes
a casual reference to Jesus (not the Messianic interpolation), and
then there are the Gospel accounts.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You mean like when you state 'Jesus is the Son of God.'

My opinion is a matter of scholarship and evidence. It is
what you call an 'informed opinion.'

Yours is a matter of faith. You so desparately want Jesus
to exist that scanty evidence will appear as nigh unto Scripture.

Not all opinions are created equal.

Nemesio

P.S., Please und ...[text shortened]... reference to Jesus (not the Messianic interpolation), and
then there are the Gospel accounts.

Why are you playing Devil's advocate? If you're supposedly a Christian...why do you fight the case of the atheist?

There are scholars who believe in Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts, as well as Pliny the Younger, Elder, and many others.

It is opinion. You just assume there was a mass conspiracy to make up a Jesus.

Originally posted by Darfius
Why are you playing Devil's advocate? If you're supposedly a Christian...why do you fight the case of the atheist?

There are scholars who believe in Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts, as well as Pliny the Younger, Elder, and many othe ...[text shortened]... . You just assume there was a mass conspiracy to make up a Jesus.

I am not playing Devil's Advocate. Admitting that there is
scant extra-Biblical evidence is stating a truth. You want me
to lie? You want me to say that there is an abudance of
evidence for Jesus outside of the Gospels? Look, if you want
that, then I will tell you that I have a video tape of the Resurrection
in a safety deposit box in New York. Ok? Are you happy?

The extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus's existence is almost non-existent.
The Tacitus source sucks, and the claims about the Talmud are downright
poor. Josephus is ok (but not rock solid).

Pliny the Elder? He doesn't mention Jesus at all! Pliny the younger only
has letters which state that he observes Christians singing hymns before
being martyred (2nd-century source). This only proves that people believed
Jesus was the Christ -- something we all knew!

I never claimed or denied anything about my faith tradition, by the way.

If you want to lie to yourself about all of these wonderful sources which
prove that Jesus existed, that is a-ok with me. The fact is that
the extra-Biblical sources are pretty puny. I refuse to lie to myself.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Is this the thread you mentioned No1. You want me to save you ?

I can see why you asked me. You got yourself in a lot of trouble here.

I'll tell you a secret, No1: Most serious scholars don't doubt the historicity, the real exi ...[text shortened]... .. just a lifetime ... so, let's get on with it, shall we ?

I thought you would present a better argument, Ivanhoe, but you've dropped back to the same "serious scholars believe" nonsense that Darfius argues. If you thought there was no possibility of disagreement, why did you start this thread? I've tried to look at the evidence, but you and the Darfius' of the world refuse to submit any. I'll quite frankly admit that the total lack of evidence believers can put forward has caused me to doubt whether there was a historical Jesus, something I took for granted a few days ago. So I thank you for your refusal to provide any evidence as it as made me realize that you and your fanatical brethen don't have any worthy of consideration (and certainly not enough proof of the Resurrection to easily stand up in a court of law as Darfius promised).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought you would present a better argument, Ivanhoe, but you've dropped back to the same "serious scholars believe" nonsense that Darfius argues. If you thought there was no possibility of disagreement, why did you start this thread? I've tried to look at the evidence, but you and the Darfius' of the world refuse to submit any. I'll quit ...[text shortened]... sideration (and certainly not enough to easily stand up in a court of law as Darfius promised).

I know in your heart, no1, this is not the case. In fact, I know you struggle with your belief that there is no God. I know you often think to yourself that if only He would reveal Himself to you, you would believe. He will reveal Himself to all, no1. But by that time, it will be too late. However, there will be a time, in the last days, when He will show the world sign after sign, because He does not wish that any should perish. But you might not make it until then, or even next week, no1.

I urge you to say this simple prayer. It isn't admitting anything, it's just asking for a bit of help:

"God, I don't know what to believe. Your Son and you sound so good, so loving, but my mind won't let me believe in you. Please, God, if you're there, please hear this prayer and help me to come to you. I come humbly and in a genuine quest for answers. Thank you. Amen."

Originally posted by Darfius
I know in your heart, no1, this is not the case. In fact, I know you struggle with your belief that there is no God. I know you often think to yourself that if only He would reveal Himself to you, you would believe. He will reveal Himself to all, no1. But by that time, it will be too late. However, there will be a time, in the last days, when He will sh ...[text shortened]... help me to come to you. I come humbly and in a genuine quest for answers. Thank you. Amen."

I've told you repeatedly that preaching is not what I'm interested in; I deal with facts and logic. Go find a soapbox and an audience; I'm not interested in the type of BS you're giving. Submit some evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure or start yet another preaching thread which now dominate which was supposed to be a debate forum.