The idea or the person

Originally posted by DeepThought
I looked into this a little while ago. There is virtually no evidence for an historical Christ. The only sources are the Bible, Josephus and Tacitus. The Tacitus mention is at best ambiguous, he mentions a Chrestus who was causing unrest amongst the Jews in Rome. There are two relevant sections in Josephus, the major one is clearly a later red ...[text shortened]... nuine.

However, if you want to present a list of other sources I'd be interested to see them.

On the contrary-the evidence is overwhelming.

Let's just be clear here-let's have a amiable discussion. I've perused a little through this forum and things get rather messy at times. When you throw mud, all you do is lose ground. Giving and receiving criticism graciously is a mark of academic honesty.

I'm also very much aware that it is a favorite tactic to discredit sources originating from Christian scholars. Some of my cited sources will be Christian Scholars (Craig Blomberg as an example). I find this tactic a gross mark of academic dishonesty. Lets have intellectual integrity. I'm not saying you weren't or won't, but I'm just going to lay out what I like and appreciate playing by.

Okay, now onto what you said.

The sources you list are not exhaustive or even touching it.

I'll start off here-realize for space that brevity is being used. I'm not attempting to be exhaustive here in any of my explanations, and neither are my citations. I'm giving tan individual who says this with some basic credentials. If you want some sources, I can give them at a later time.

1) The four Gospels themselves.
- Who the Synoptic Authors were is not called into dispute. The only author who is disputed is the Author of John-is it John the Apostle or John the Elder? The earliest extant partial copy of one of the gospels possessed is dated as early as A.D. 98 to 138. Total surviving ancient manuscripts surviving number 24,000 approximately. (i)

The next best ancient document is Homer's Iliad. There are some 650 Greek manuscripts of it today coming from the second and third century A.D. The Iliad was composed about 800 B.C. That is 1,000 years after the fact. Compare this to the New Testament-24,000 extant copies with the earliest dating between A.D. 98-138. That is 60 to 100 years after the fact. As far as ancient texts go-this is phenomenal. Sir Frederick Kenyon, a one time director of the British Museum has said, "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament." (ii)

In textual criticism-which happens to be a huge component of my MAET and later (hopefully) my PH.D-the evidence for the New Testament is almost embarrassing when compared to other ancient texts. This is not an opinion but a fact. Do the research-you'll find these numbers agreed and attested to by Christian, non-Christian, and secular scholars alike.

I am going to stop here on the Gospels. But suffice it to say this, due to the sheer quantity of extant manuscripts textual critics are confident that we have a 99.5% accurate text. (iii)

(2) Josephus
The Antiquities were written c. 93 A.D. "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called a the Christ..." Edwin Yamauchi, Ph.D. comments on this passage, "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage. L.H. Feldman noted that if this had been a later Christian addition to the text, it would have likely been more laudatory of James." (iv)

the other passage in Josephus's Testimonium Favianum are widely considered by Jewish and Christian scholars as authentic although there have been some interpolations. This phrase, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man." This phrase is viewed as authentic. This phrase, "If indeed one ought to call him a man' is viewed as interpolated. Josephus likely would not have written such.

Josephus is widely regarded as a reliable historian. His account of the Jewish War has proved to be very accurate through archaeological excavations and other historians like Tacitus.

(3) Tacitus
Annals written 115. Tacitus states, "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate." This reference is widely regarded as the most significant and most important extra-Biblical reference to Christ. (v)

(4) Pliny the Younger
The Letters was composed in A.D. 111. It is a discussion between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan. In this, Pliny writes, "I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it....They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god." The point here is this-a Roman official is having to deal with the spread of Christianity. Secular and non-Christian historians have to grapple with this fact. If Christ is not a historical figure why and how did a small sect that was so unlikely to succeed spread the globe and become the official religion of the empire under Constantine?

(5) The Talmud (a collection of Jewish writings)
Written around 500 A.D. also incorporates the Mishnah which was compiled around A.D. 200. "Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must be in any case used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them) and that at least in the earlier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a 'heretic' or a 'deceiver'."(vi)
Judaism believes he existed but as a gross heretic.

(6) Apostolic Fathers
You have literally hundreds of references here dating from 100 A.D. to 300 A.D. and hundreds of authors. One important one could be Ignatius, another Polycarp, and so on and so on. Ignatius dates around A.D. 117. Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle who was in turn a disciple of Jesus. Of interest, Polycarp's martydom is attested to in The Martyrdom of Polycarp written by Eusbius in the 4th century. Polycarp's ties to Jesus was through John the Apostle who was the closest disciple to Christ. When dealing with historical evidence, while this isn't as strong an argument, critics will be forced to deal with other evidence such as Polycarp and other Apostolic Fathers.

A closing comment-"The fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion." (vii)

(7) Archaeological Evidence
I not going to say much here, but the general consensus among scholars is this-the Bible is very accurate historically. If you want to delve into this more I'd enjoy it. But this is getting long and I think I'm going to call it quits here for now.

(i) Craig L. Blomberg, The Case for Christ
(ii) Frederick Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
(iii) Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible
(iv) Edwin Yamauchi, The Case for Christ
(v) Ibid.
(vi) M. Wilcox, Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
(vii) Edwin Yamauchi

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here I am, see if you can force me.
What do you mean by 'the person of Christ'? In what way did it 'stand out in history as a giant'?
I certainly think that some ideas attributed to Jesus have resulted in several major world religions, but I am not convinced any person called Jesus or Christ actually existed - certainly I am pretty sure much of the accounts in the gospels are fabricated.

The fact that Christianity is sweeping across Africa and Asia and the Middle East even today. The fact that Christianity has played a dominant role politically, geographically, culturally, socially, religiously for the past 2000 years.

If you deny this, well....

Examine what I said, I didn't say you had to accept what he said as true, merely recognize that what he said has had a huge impact.

[edit] Also, from the tonality of your post, I don't sense you are an honest seeker. Maybe cantankerous. If I'm wrong. I'm sorry. But to I've found it's often a matter of intellectual dishonesty not by Christians but by non-Christians. I'm not sure if that is where you are, but I sensed it initially. Sorry again if I'm wrong.

btw, I'm not saying if you don't believe in Jesus or Christianity you are therefore intellectually dishonest. Not at all. What I'm saying is those who just want to fight and throw mud. The abrasive sort. I'm here for open, gracious conversations. I'm not here for a slugging competition.

Originally posted by AppleChess
The fact that Christianity is sweeping across Africa and Asia and the Middle East even today. The fact that Christianity has played a dominant role politically, geographically, culturally, socially, religiously for the past 2000 years.

If you deny this, well....

Examine what I said, I didn't say you had to accept what he said as true, merely recognize that what he said has had a huge impact.

The huge impact is that of Christianity and not of Jesus.
Every religion of the State has played a dominant role politically, culturally
and socially there is nothing special about Christianity in that regard.

As to the statement that Christianity is sweeping across Africa, Asia and
the Middle East ... I doubt it but could be persuaded by some evidence.

In the meantime take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You should reconsider your position. While Jesus walked the earth, He spoke of many ideas - many of which are quite deep and profound.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized the importance of His words:
That one must understand His words.
That one must not only understand His words - one must believe His words.
That one must not only believe His words - one m ...[text shortened]... poken to you are spirit and are life." 64 "But there are some of you who do not believe.”...[/b]

Thank you for your post. You are equating words with ideas I guess?

Certainly we are called to heed Christ's words. Yet, Christ's words were to bear witness of the truth (John 18:37) and Christ is the truth (John 14:6).

I mean this kindly, but I think you misunderstand the application and proper order of faith. Faith is not so much in what Christ did but what Christ did! The righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17-let's not get into discussion on N.T. Wright and the New Perspectives on Paul, fyi I think they are rubbish).

It is the person of Christ that stands first and foremost-his words be meaningless without his person. Believe in him (John 11:25 etc etc). One must believe his words, yes. But this has become a matter of misunderstanding my post. The idea of Christ is nothing without the person. The person is what allows the idea to bear any significance.

Jesus came to bear witness of himself-his words attest of himself. It is the person.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Giving and receiving criticism graciously is a mark of academic honesty.

And yet when I pointed out to you ~ the rather uncontroversial and honest academic fact ~ that Josephus is a secondary source in so far as his writing pertains to Jesus' actual existence, you said "I feel you are deviating from academic prose to something else." This seems somewhat lacking in graciousness.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
The huge impact is that of Christianity and [b]not of Jesus.
Every religion of the State has played a dominant role politically, culturally
and socially there is nothing special about Christianity in that regard.

As to the statement that Christianity is sweeping across Africa, Asia and
the Middle East ... I doubt it but could be persuaded by s ...[text shortened]... Europe sadly.

In the meantime take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion[/b]

If it is true Christianity then it is Jesus. Simple as that. When I came to the small town that I minister in-a town riddled with drugs, prostitution, etc. I didn't bring Christianity but I brought Jesus. After 2 years here-the Church has tripled in size mainly with ex druggies. My existential experience is this-the gospel is the best rehab.

Now, per your statement about Christianity not spreading...well, open your eyes. Have you been to Africa?

Have you read Matthew Parris? I'll post again for your convenience.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3502-matthew-parris-as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god.

Another statistic I can refer to is that the Church has nearly 400,000 missionaries working in every corner of the world. I will have to find a source for this if you wish, but Dr. Robert Yarbrough of Covenant Theological Seminary made this statement May 5th, 2015. He himself pointed that Christianity is spreading in the 3rd world like wildfire. Now, I'm not saying Christians are the dominant majority, but it is growing. I'm really quite excited-the West is dying religiously and is accepting secularism and embracing Islam. In the void that Christianity leaves Islam will step in. That is why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West.

"For instance, in 1900, there were approximately 10 million Christians in Africa. By 2000, there were 360 million. By 2025, conservative estimates see that number rising to 633 million. Those same estimates put the number of Christians in Latin America in 2025 at 640 million and in Asia at 460 million." (i)

This is from a Christian source-I will go ahead and state this-there are very, very, very few secular and non-Christian sources covering this. Why? I don't know. I have friends who are missionaries in Africa-whole villages are becoming Christian. I think you are from New Zealand, I am from the U.S. Yes, Christianity is languishing where we live, but the explosive growth of Christianity is happening just not in your and my neighbourhoods.

By 2050 60% of the world will be either Muslim or Christian. Islam is growing fast in Europe. Secularism does not have stats even close to these.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/pew-study-religion/

(i) http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/colson020722.aspx

P.S. I'm going to just assume you are secular/atheist/humanist of sorts. Feel free to tell me how you call yourself (btw, on a side note-I enjoyed our one game on here). I'm going to refer to stuff that isn't Christian or non-Christian (as in Muslim) as secular for simplicity. But, secularism simply cannot grow and thrive except in limited environments. The fact is, secularism is a small minority. What the so called academic elite try to do in the universities is not happening in the fields of South America or Africa. Secularists don't send out thousands of missionaries. Christians do. I myself am very much a missionary, and I am just one of tens of thousands. South Korea sends out thousands of Christians. The Christian Church is sending out thousands of young individuals and young couples every year. I suspect this comes as a surprise to you. My point: Christianity is not dead globally-it is actually more alive now than it has ever been before. I see this in my own little town of 450. I came here, 20 people came to Church-two years later, we have 83 in Church today. I have baptized 42 people since I've been here, I've started a prison ministry and preach to 4 groups or 100 men each-in the prison I've baptized 17. I'm just one story-I personally have dozens of friends with similar ministries. Christianity is growing and doing quite will. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
And yet when I pointed out to you ~ the rather uncontroversial and honest academic fact ~ that Josephus is a secondary source in so far as his writing pertains to Jesus' actual existence, you said "I feel you are deviating from academic prose to something else." This seems somewhat lacking in graciousness.

If it is, I am sorry. I simply meant, I feel you were trying to box me into 'making Josephus my central argument'. It simply isn't. That's all I meant.

Originally posted by AppleChess
The fact that Christianity is sweeping across Africa and Asia and the Middle East even today.

I am not sure what you mean by 'sweeping across'. If you are claiming that Christianity is growing at a significant rate, that is not true in the parts of Africa I have lived in.

If you deny this, well....
I am not denying it, as it is not relevant.

Examine what I said, I didn't say you had to accept what he said as true, merely recognize that what he said has had a huge impact.
Well maybe you need to clarify what you meant. I did ask you to. In my own opinion, the ideas of Paul and Christianity had a huge impact, not the person of Jesus. As I have already stated, I am not convinced he even existed.

Also, from the tonality of your post, I don't sense you are an honest seeker.
I am honest. I am probably not a 'seeker' in the sense I guess you mean it. I have not claimed otherwise.

But to I've found it's often a matter of intellectual dishonesty not by Christians but by non-Christians.
We could spend all day accusing each other of intellectual dishonesty. But I suggest you back it up with evidence rather than merely saying I am not an 'honest seeker'.

Originally posted by AppleChess
If it is, I am sorry. I simply meant, I feel you were trying to box me into 'making Josephus my central argument'. It simply isn't. That's all I meant.

FMF claims to be a former Christian that has learned better. His main goal here on the RHP Spiritually Forum seems to be to challenge the faith of believing Christians by pestering them with constant questions and abuse. Anything that he sees that might be an inaccuracy on your part will be pointed out over and over until you admit you were in error or get fed up with responding to him. Just thought I would warn you. 😏

There are sometimes some others that will join in to help, like a bunch of vultures or pack of dogs.

Originally posted by AppleChess
I am going to stop here on the Gospels. But suffice it to say this, due to the sheer quantity of extant manuscripts textual critics are confident that we have a 99.5% accurate text.

By that statement are you saying they are confident it is a 99.5% accurate copy of what was written by the first writer, or that it is a 99.5% accurate account of actual events?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what you mean by 'sweeping across'. If you are claiming that Christianity is growing at a significant rate, that is not true in the parts of Africa I have lived in.

[b]If you deny this, well....
I am not denying it, as it is not relevant.

Examine what I said, I didn't say you had to accept what he said as true, merely recognize ...[text shortened]... ut I suggest you back it up with evidence rather than merely saying I am not an 'honest seeker'.

Of whom did Paul write. If you claim Paul had an impact but not Christ then you simply don't understand Pauline literature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
By that statement are you saying they are confident it is a 99.5% accurate copy of what was written by the first writer, or that it is a 99.5% accurate account of actual events?

First writer.

but for the record, I am 100% confident that it is accurate for events.

Originally posted by AppleChess
If it is, I am sorry. I simply meant, I feel you were trying to box me into 'making Josephus my central argument'. It simply isn't. That's all I meant.

I've done nothing of the sort. It is you who brought Josephus up, not me. When someone said "I don't even think that Jesus even actually existed as a historical figure," your retort was "Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence."

It is therefore, of course, you who has apparently not "studied much history" seeing as you stumbled in such a self-inflicted way over the nature of a source you yourself immediately cited when faced by someone questioning the historicalness of Jesus.

Josephus does not confirm Jesus' existence; to a limited extent, he merely confirms what the beliefs of Jesus' followers were the better part of a century after Jesus is said to have died.

Originally posted by FMF
I've done nothing of the sort. It is you who brought Josephus up, not me. When someone said "I don't even think that Jesus even actually existed as a historical figure," your retort was "Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence."

It is therefore, of course, you who has apparently not "studied much history" s ...[text shortened]... beliefs of Jesus' followers were the better part of a century after Jesus is said to have died.

Yes, but you keep going back to Josephus. I would like to keep him on one of many burners.

I feel you you have tried, and are still trying to box me in. Well, I refuse to be boxed in. I don't pretend I'm a lawyer. So I'm not trying to be semantically precise. If you want to have a congenial discussion please keep it at that. I'll say this again-I referenced Josephus because he is generally well known. Not as a proof. If I made an error in any statement I'll retract it. I am afterall writing this stuff fast. I doubt you are always precise in your language either.

I still hold that secular sources confirm his existence. There is a difference between prove an confirm, there are few things that can be counted as indubitable knowledge. I'm sure you can agree with this. The question is, the matter of certainly. I believe, and many other scholars do too, that Christ's historical existence is a very high level of certainty. Simple as that. Josephus is but one reference.

[edit] If this is what you believe, then you haven't read Josephus carefully. But that's fine. I provided a more in depth discussion of him up above in that longgggg post.

Going to bed now, night.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Now, per your statement about Christianity not spreading...well, open your eyes. Have you been to Africa?

I am Zambian and live in South Africa. Zambia is largely Christian and has been for the past 100 years or so. There has been no major changes that I am aware of in my life time. It has a rather small population though, so might not count in the larger scheme of things.
I currently live in South Africa. Here in Cape Town, there are as many mosques as churches and many people are irreligious as far as I can tell. I have certainly not notices and significant signs of growth of Christianity.
I see from Wikipedia that most growth in Christianity in Africa has taken place in Nigeria one of the most populous nations of Africa. But it is still only one country, so a growth in Nigeria is hardly 'sweeping through Africa'.
In much of Africa, the population is growing and thus the adherents of religions probably is too as many people take on the religion of their parents. But there are religions other than Christianity in Africa.