The historical Jesus

[Okiefreak]

We call ourselves Christians and followers of Jesus. FedUp American keeps telling us that there's some doubt about His existence, that he was an idiot, loser, etc. Who do we think he was, and why?

[Okiefreak]

[QUOTE=wayfaring stranger]We call ourselves Christians and followers of Jesus. QUOTE]
Did Jesus even exist? I'll go out on a limb and say Yes. It's true there are only a few non-Christian sources from the first century that mention him (Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.), and they're of course relying on second-hand info. The Gospels came decades after his death. But there were people who knew him and their existence is corroborated by other observers: e.g., James, his "brother" and Peter, his top Apostle. Whether or not James was literally his brother has been debated but he was certainly a relative. Paul visited him, and debated both of them over the issue of relaxing Jewish law for gentiles. These men were leaders of the Christian community in the Holy Land. It seems really unlikely to me that they made Jesus up and sold him to a gullible community that surely did include eyewitnesses. Whether or not he did and said all of the things attributed to him is more debatable, but I think it's reasonable to believe he existed and unreasonable to believe he didn't.

[Brother Joseph]

I'll take exception with your last statement...I'll guess that a true expert in this historical area could most probably construct reasonable arguments both against and for the factual existence of Jesus Christ.


Personally, I've never had any trouble believing that he existed, but then I also believe that Krishna and Buddha existed.

[dollydagger]

Personally, I've never had any trouble believing that he existed, but then I also believe that Krishna and Buddha existed.
and Abraham, and Zoroaster......yup, ditto:agree:

[peacechicka1]

There are historical records of Buddah, Jesus, and Mohammad existing...so I have to go along with that, and say yes they existed.

[Hryhorii]

Yes Jesus of Nazareth existed, but finding his "true teachings" from pouring over canonical and non-canonical gospels and writings of early christian formations is a sueless task that for some reason or another has gained a huge following, especially in america, that even has their own scholary journals...

[Distant Lover]

The existence of Jesus as a first century Jewish holy man who was crucified during the rule of Pontius Pilate is attested to in the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Pliny. The Jewish Uprising of 66 to 70 AD probably destroyed additional written accounts of the ministry of Jesus, and it certainly resulted in the deaths of eye witnesses who could have had their accounts recorded in writing.

[xexon]

Jesus was a jew who became a yogi in the eastern tradition. Some well meaning people started a religion after his death to honor his teachings. But without his guidence, the teachings fell apart as interpretation crept into their meaning.

Is this so hard to believe?



x

[GuruLite]

and Abraham, and Zoroaster......yup, ditto:agree:I'll even throw Bob Marley in the mix. I think he existed too. :)

But yeah. Jesus the Nazarene existed and stories are still told about the dude. Even if he was just a guy, he's immortalized by trillians of people who believe he had something important to say.

[Hryhorii]

Even if he was just a guy, he's immortalized by trillians of people who believe he had something important to say....and believe he was God.

And i know this is a little bit superficial considering the world doesn't even have "trillions" of people, but according to religioustolerance.org Christians number about 2,039 million and decreasing

[Distant Lover]

On any controversial issue I believe that the consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong. On Biblical issues I heed the consensus of non-fundamentalist scholars. There are fundamentalist scholars. That is to say people with advanced degrees in biblical subjects from accredited universities who can read the ancient languages, and so on, and who also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story and Noah’s flood. Nevertheless, they have their minds made up, and look for facts to confirm what they already believe. To an extent, we all do this, but the non-fundamentalist Bible scholars make an effort not to, and to consider evidence that might discredit what they already believe.

At any rate, the consensus of the non-fundamentalist scholars is that the great majority of the epistles attributed to Saint Paul were actually written by him. Paul claims to have conferred with eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus. Having read the New Testament in its entirety in six English translations, I see no reason to doubt him. Unfortunately, Paul presents little biographical data about Jesus, and probably never saw him when he was alive, although there is some dispute about this latter point.

[GuruLite]

On any controversial issue I believe that the consensus of the experts is more likely to be right than wrong. On Biblical issues I heed the consensus of non-fundamentalist scholars. There are fundamentalist scholars. That is to say people with advanced degrees in biblical subjects from accredited universities who can read the ancient languages, and so on, and who also believe in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story and Noah’s flood. Nevertheless, they have their minds made up, and look for facts to confirm what they already believe. To an extent, we all do this, but the non-fundamentalist Bible scholars make an effort not to, and to consider evidence that might discredit what they already believe.I think you can still believe the Bible literally and not be a fundamentalist, but then again, I'm not a big fan of the whole "academia=atheism" double think we force students into.

[Hryhorii]

I think you can still believe the Bible literally and not be a fundamentalist, but then again, I'm not a big fan of the whole "academia=atheism" double think we force students into.
I defenitly agree on both points. I agree that the bible can be taken literally and not be a fundamentalist. One of the tricks to this wording is what you mean by literal? Do you mean Biblical inerrancy meaning that in the bible's "original" form nothing contradicts and all matters of faith, history and science are true, or it could mean Biblical infallibility where the bible is literal on all matters of faith, but not science or history etc?