1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '06 10:40
    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?
  2. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    02 May '06 11:34
    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.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 May '06 12:161 edit
    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?
  4. Standard memberXanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    p^2.sin(phi)
    Joined
    06 Sep '04
    Moves
    25076
    02 May '06 12:40
    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.
    When were the primary gospels written?
  5. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    02 May '06 16:412 edits
    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.............
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    02 May '06 17:39
    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.

    http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/feature.html

    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.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    02 May '06 18:561 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is a link that talks about the gospel of Judas from National Geographic.

    http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/feature.html

    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.
  8. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    02 May '06 22:20
    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.
  9. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    02 May '06 22:38
    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.
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    02 May '06 23:42
    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.
  11. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    02 May '06 23:43
    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.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    03 May '06 01:121 edit
    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
  13. Standard memberthesonofsaul
    King of the Ashes
    Trying to rise ....
    Joined
    16 Jun '04
    Moves
    63851
    03 May '06 01:461 edit
    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.

    Edit: Typo correction.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    03 May '06 02:031 edit
    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?
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    03 May '06 02:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I never really thought of that. Are there actually any significant group of Christians who believe such a thing?
    Voodism perhaps?
Back to Top