If the Bible is looked at from a non-Christian perspective, is there any reason to believe that a person called Jesus actually existed and that at least some of the events mentioned in the new testament are factual (non-miracles)?
The only reason I have seen put forward in the past is that the Gospels provide evidence and that they should be taken as reasonably accurate (for various reasons). However when most Christians deny the factuallity of many other documents (The Gospel of Judas for example) written at about the same time and in a similar manner, then what is it about the books in the Bible that makes them more authentic?
Is the existence of Jesus entirely a matter of faith or reasonable historical fact?
Originally posted by twhitehead However when most Christians deny the factuallity of many other documents (The Gospel of Judas for example) written at about the same time and in a similar manner, then what is it about the books in the Bible that makes them more authentic?
Just to point out - the Gospel of Judas wasn't written at about the same time - it came at least half a century after the last of the canonical Gospels and nearly a century after the first.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Just to point out - the Gospel of Judas wasn't written at about the same time - it came at least half a century after the last of the canonical Gospels and nearly a century after the first.
Do you know how it is dated? Is the date included in it?
Notice that you have stated that the last of the Gospels came about half a centuary after the first.
How long after the actual events portrayed is the first?
To what extent does half a centuary affects the accuracy of such documents?
Many other Gospels / documents exist that are of similar age but contract the Biblical ones.
What reasons would we have to consider The Gospel of Judas to be inaccurate? Why do these reasons not apply to the accepted Gospels?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Just to point out - the Gospel of Judas wasn't written at about the same time - it came at least half a century after the last of the canonical Gospels and nearly a century after the first.
Originally posted by twhitehead If the Bible is looked at from a non-Christian perspective, is there any reason to believe that a person called Jesus actually existed and that at least some of the events mentioned in the new testament are factual (non-miracles)?
The only reason I have seen put forward in the past is that the Gospels provide evidence and that they should be taken as rea ...[text shortened]... uthentic?
Is the existence of Jesus entirely a matter of faith or reasonable historical fact?
No one historically denies the existance of Jesus of Nazereth, but there is a debate on 'who' or 'what' he was.............
Originally posted by twhitehead If the Bible is looked at from a non-Christian perspective, is there any reason to believe that a person called Jesus actually existed and that at least some of the events mentioned in the new testament are factual (non-miracles)?
The only reason I have seen put forward in the past is that the Gospels provide evidence and that they should be taken as rea ...[text shortened]... uthentic?
Is the existence of Jesus entirely a matter of faith or reasonable historical fact?
Here is a link that talks about the gospel of Judas from National Geographic.
In the article it says that the gospel was not written by Judas and in fact the text was dated around 220 to 340 AD. It was written by a group of mysitic Christians called the Gnostics who were located in Egypt. They wrote many other gospels themselves which the original followers of Christianity latter claimed as heretical. In the article scholars all agree the gospel is not an accurate historical document but rather an insightful glimpse into the minds of early Christians. The four gospels, on the other hand, were agreed to have been written much sooner than the Gnostic gospels. The four gospels seemed to have been written down from oral tradition from assumingly the origianal disciples teachings and preachings. The gospel of Judas does not even match the teachings of the Old Testament. One such example is that the Gnostics believed we live in a flawed world and therefore were created by an inferior creator rather than an ultimate God. Not only is the gospel of Judas heretical in relation to the other four gospels, it is heretical to the original Mosaic writtings.
In the article it says that the gospel was not written by Judas and in fact the text was dated around 220 to 340 AD. It was written by a group of mysitic Christians called the Gnostics who were located in Egypt. They ...[text shortened]... retical in relation to the other four gospels, it is heretical to the original Mosaic writtings.
The Gospel of Judas has been dated to 130 to 170 AD based on standard methods of dating ancient writings. It is mentioned in writings of Iraneus from 180 AD. The actual copy itself is dated from 220 - 340 AD but that is like dating my 1980 edition of Tom Paine's Rights of Man to 1980 instead of the 1790's.
Christianity itself is "heretical" to the original Mosaic writings; ask your Jewish friends. The weight of scholarly opinion is that the Gospels were not written by any of the Apostles and date from perhaps 60 AD to maybe 110 AD. There is evidence of a pre-existing document ("Q"😉 that some of the Gospel accounts were probably copied from but no copy of such a document has ever been found and it's existence is still debated. Actual copies of texts from any of the Gospels pre-300 AD are exceedingly rare.
Originally posted by twhitehead If the Bible is looked at from a non-Christian perspective, is there any reason to believe that a person called Jesus actually existed and that at least some of the events mentioned in the new testament are factual (non-miracles)?
The only reason I have seen put forward in the past is that the Gospels provide evidence and that they should be taken as rea ...[text shortened]... uthentic?
Is the existence of Jesus entirely a matter of faith or reasonable historical fact?
As well as the Gospels there are other writings, including non-Christian ones, that mention Jesus. One of them is a Jewish historian named Josephus.
However, I'm aware that some people on these boards would argue that the accuracy of those other references is also open to debate.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 No one historically denies the existance of Jesus of Nazereth, but there is a debate on 'who' or 'what' he was.............
Actually that's not strictly true. There are some who reject the existence of Jesus altogether - although I'm not one of them.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Just to point out - the Gospel of Judas wasn't written at about the same time - it came at least half a century after the last of the canonical Gospels and nearly a century after the first.
and the gospels themselves weren't written until at least 30 years after Jesus' supposed death.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Gospel of Judas has been dated to 130 to 170 AD based on standard methods of dating ancient writings. It is mentioned in writings of Iraneus from 180 AD. The actual copy itself is dated from 220 - 340 AD but that is like dating my 1980 edition of Tom Paine's Rights of Man to 1980 instead of the 1790's.
Christianity itself is "heretical" to ...[text shortened]... debated. Actual copies of texts from any of the Gospels pre-300 AD are exceedingly rare.
I was waiting for someone to say this. Yes, some would say that the teachings of the four gospels are heretical. The fact that Christ ushered in a new covenant would in itself be heretical in the sense that it was a deviation from the old covenant by offering a better one. Christ continuously refered to Old Teatament teachings and encorporated them into his teachings. Christ said that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill the law. For example, Christ did not come to do away with blood sacrifice and the high preist. He became our blood sacrifice and our high preist. I would also argue that Christ fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophesies regarding the coming of the Messiah except one. The only prophesy that was not fulfilled is the one regarding issuing in the Millenial reign. I would further argue that this fulfillment is yet to come. It was not fulfilled on the first coming but will be on the second coming.
Originally posted by whodey I was waiting for someone to say this. Yes, some would say that the teachings of the four gospels are heretical. The fact that Christ ushered in a new covenant would in itself be heretical in the sense that it was a deviation from the old covenant by offering a better one. Christ continuously refered to Old Teatament teachings and encorporated them into hi ...[text shortened]... ment is yet to come. It was not fulfilled on the first coming but will be on the second coming.
Jews don't feel Jesus fulfills any of the Messianic criteria. I can get you a Jewish website with detailed arguments if you want one.
EDIT: Here's a short version: http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp
Originally posted by whodey I was waiting for someone to say this. Yes, some would say that the teachings of the four gospels are heretical. The fact that Christ ushered in a new covenant would in itself be heretical in the sense that it was a deviation from the old covenant by offering a better one. Christ continuously refered to Old Teatament teachings and encorporated them into hi ...[text shortened]... ment is yet to come. It was not fulfilled on the first coming but will be on the second coming.
This brings up an interesting point. "Christ did not come to do away with blood sacrifice and the high preist. He became our blood sacrifice and our high preist." This reminds us that before Jesus the poor Jews had to shunt their sins onto animals and then kill the animals to be rid of their sins. In order for someone to believe that Jesus' "sacrifice" had any meaning, that someone would have to believe that this transfer of sins to an animal actually was the right thing to do, and actually worked. I don't know about anyone else, but this scheme does not fit the God I know in my heart to be true, and I don't think it fits the conception of God in a good many so-called Christians, either. But really, if you are going to believe in the one, you need to believe in the other or it all has no meaning.
Originally posted by thesonofsaul This brings up an interesting point. [b]"Christ did not come to do away with blood sacrifice and the high preist. He became our blood sacrifice and our high preist." This reminds us that before Jesus the poor Jews had to shunt their sins onto animals and then kill the animals to be rid of their sins. [i/]In order for someone to believe that Jesus' " one, you need to believe in the other or it all has no meaning.
Edit: Typo correction.[/b]
I never really thought of that. Are there actually any significant group of Christians who believe such a thing?
The existence of Jesus
02 May '06 10:40
Back to Top