Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[JoStories]

5 years debating him. He refuses facts presented before him.[/QUOTE

I see. Well, being new here I don't know people all that well yet. But I do thank you. I find those who will not debate rationally or at least politely to annoy me. There is absolutely no reason people cannot disagree without a modicum of civility. You have shown as well as a few others. So thank you.

 

[JoStories]

While it's true that both Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus of Nazareth, neither is a contemporary source; they're repeating what they've heard from an existing tradition, which is not really different from what we do today, just earlier. In other words, from a historical perspective they don't count as evidence of Jesus's existence or any particulars about his life. What they do count as evidence of is the tradition.

The Gospels are similarly not historical texts. They're literary biographies written in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries by people who only know Jesus from the tradition, and who are constructing his life based on a combination of historical knowledge of the period, oral tradition, antecedents from Hebrew scripture, and contemporary theology. In fact, if you read them as simple historical accounts they really don't hold up, and you'll miss all of the sophistication in their composition.

In short, there is no direct historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth. For all intents and purposes he's a mythic figure, in the sense that our only sources are third-hand at best and mythic in terms of genre. On the other hand, there is good reason to believe that the character of Jesus that we have access to is based on a real guy. For example, there are aspects of his life and especially his death that his followers in later generations were at pains to explain, which indicates that it's not how they would have chosen for the story to go if they were coming up with it whole-cloth. So there almost certainly was a Jesus, but we have to be careful about accepting any particular detail about his life uncritically. Basically, our tradition surrounding Jesus of Nazareth isn't a direct view of the guy, but rather the product of his followers' and their successors' attempts to come to an understanding about him over the decades after his death.

Very well spoken. Kudos.
Bright blessings. Jo

 

[outhouse]

being new here I don't know people all that well yet

My ignore list is huge. He is right at the border, but peaceful enough to easily refute.

 

[outhouse]

Very well spoken

Yes he is.

Will be fun having education and manners and reason added to the board.

Wish my English skills were that good.

 

[JoStories]

My ignore list is huge. He is right at the border, but peaceful enough to easily refute.

I did not even know we had an ignore feature, that is how naive to this place I am! Thanks for that information outhouse. I appreciate it.

 

[JoStories]

Yes he is.

Will be fun having education and manners and reason added to the board.

Wish my English skills were that good.

Lol....spelling and grammar are my most challenging thing as a professional writer of nursing articles and scholarly work. I do find several of the people here to be very intriguing and civil posters it is fun to discuss with.

 

[outhouse]

Lol....spelling and grammar are my most challenging thing as a professional writer of nursing articles and scholarly work. I do find several of the people here to be very intriguing and civil posters it is fun to discuss with.

There is quite a bit of collective talent here. Many refuse to engage the apologist. In time they will poke their heads out and you will get to meet them..

My intellectual growth here, as well as biblical knowledge, as well as overall knowledge has grown dramatically in my time here.

Im glad your here too

 

[rusra02]

What do you think of the overt comparisons because Christianity and those faiths and ,UTIs that preceded it? Can you really not see the parallels between Osiris and her son with that of Mary and Christ? The obvious parallels are clear to most who view this with an open mind. This is not to say that 'God' did not,guide this obvious progression. But to deny the symbols and parallels is really not viewing this as open mindedly as this site seems to encourage of the participants.

While it's true that both Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus of Nazareth, neither is a contemporary source; they're repeating what they've heard from an existing tradition, which is not really different from what we do today, just earlier. In other words, from a historical perspective they don't count as evidence of Jesus's existence or any particulars about his life. What they do count as evidence of is the tradition.

The Gospels are similarly not historical texts. They're literary biographies written in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries by people who only know Jesus from the tradition, and who are constructing his life based on a combination of historical knowledge of the period, oral tradition, antecedents from Hebrew scripture, and contemporary theology. In fact, if you read them as simple historical accounts they really don't hold up, and you'll miss all of the sophistication in their composition.

In short, there is no direct historical evidence of Jesus of Nazareth. For all intents and purposes he's a mythic figure, in the sense that our only sources are third-hand at best and mythic in terms of genre. On the other hand, there is good reason to believe that the character of Jesus that we have access to is based on a real guy. For example, there are aspects of his life and especially his death that his followers in later generations were at pains to explain, which indicates that it's not how they would have chosen for the story to go if they were coming up with it whole-cloth. So there almost certainly was a Jesus, but we have to be careful about accepting any particular detail about his life uncritically. Basically, our tradition surrounding Jesus of Nazareth isn't a direct view of the guy, but rather the product of his followers' and their successors' attempts to come to an understanding about him over the decades after his death.

I think you are holding the historicity of Jesus Christ to an impossible standard, one not required of many pagans who are widely accepted as historical figures. You further make claims, not substantiated, as to when the Gospels were written and by whom. For example, the book of John was recorded by one who knew Jesus intimately, and Luke's Gospel was carefully constructed from those who were eyewitnesses, meaning the writer spoke to those with personal first-hand knowledge of the events, not "third-hand", as you claim. (John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3)

 

[Vishvavajra]

I think you are holding the historicity of Jesus Christ to an impossible standard, one not required of many pagans who are widely accepted as historical figures. You further make claims, not substantiated, as to when the Gospels were written and by whom. For example, the book of John was recorded by one who knew Jesus intimately, and Luke's Gospel was carefully constructed from those who were eyewitnesses, meaning the writer spoke to those with personal first-hand knowledge of the events, not "third-hand", as you claim. (John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3)

I don't know what "pagans" have to do with anything. Are you thinking of someone in particular? In any case, I'd be very careful about uncritically accepting biographical details about many ancient writers whose own works we have, and Jesus did not leave us any written works of his own. Recall that I accept his existence but draw a distinction between Jesus the man who lived back then and Jesus the character that is depicted in the Gospels.

I don't have the time or space or inclination to get into the evidence for the chronology of the Gospels, but really I shouldn't have to: nothing I said is remotely controversial in the academic realm. The belief that the Gospels were written by people with first-hand knowledge of Jesus, such as the disciples whose names they bear, has been thoroughly discredited and is not supported by any actual scholars at this point.

In fact, John is generally agreed to be the latest of the four canonical Gospels (the tail end of the 1st century), at least in the form that we have, though it shows signs of at least one redaction and is thought to have been composed in stages, probably by at least three different authors over a number of years. Is there a significantly earlier strand within John? Maybe. But it's a long way from acknowledging that to finding evidence of any sort of first- or even second-hand historical knowledge.

Luke may well have been written by Luke the disciple of Paul, and he's the one that emulates the Greek biographical genre most diligently, hence the apologetic preface. But if you're familiar with other examples of the genre (e.g. Plutarch, Suetonius) you'll know what that actually means, and it's not anything like modern historical standards of evidence. Did Luke have access to people who knew Jesus personally? It's not impossible--Paul claims to have met Peter and Jesus's brother James, although he apparently didn't get along with them--but that still doesn't mean a lot of Luke the Gospel isn't a literary construct intended to further a particular theological program. As it is, Luke's main sources seem to have been Mark and Matthew, which isn't the same as going around and interviewing eyewitnesses.

And that's not to mention how the Gospels were clearly written by people with minimal knowledge of Jesus's life, but who are trying to construct one that they can hang what they do know on. They have no idea when he was born, for example: the range of dates the canonical Gospels give (by saying what else was going on at the time) cover an entire decade. That's something you'd think his own brothers would have known, at least, if not his other immediate disciples. A lot of the scenes are clearly constructed in order to give context to sayings of his that were probably passed down as teachings rather than as the sort of narrative vignettes we get in the Gospels, which explains why they differ in details, as well as the sequence in which they occur. Even Jesus's trial, death, and resurrection are depicted in ways that are not mutually compatible, and which are in some cases patently ludicrous from the perspective of anyone who knows how Roman law worked.

And the original audience would have known that. They would have known that Caesar's census didn't require people to return to their birthplaces. They would have known that there was no massacre of infants under the reign of Herod. They would have known that people who were crucified were thrown into mass graves. But none of that was the point, since the point of the Gospels was never to recount facts. The point of the Gospels, like all ancient biographies, was to construct a meaningful characterization of their subject, using whatever details were convenient to support their program. Nobody who read works like those would have been unaware of or bothered by any of that. It's only modern people who insist on historical fact and literalism and on missing the forest for the trees.

 

[JoStories]

I think you are holding the historicity of Jesus Christ to an impossible standard, one not required of many pagans who are widely accepted as historical figures. You further make claims, not substantiated, as to when the Gospels were written and by whom. For example, the book of John was recorded by one who knew Jesus intimately, and Luke's Gospel was carefully constructed from those who were eyewitnesses, meaning the writer spoke to those with personal first-hand knowledge of the events, not "third-hand", as you claim. (John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3)

I assume you have irrefutable evidence that these gospels were written as you infer, by 'eye witnesses who shared their stories'. And I am curious as to what 'pagans' you claim are accepted as factual. Care to provide names of these people? How can you claim that the book of John was written by someone who knew Christ intimately? Do you have any idea how impossible that sounds? How would you prove it?

 

[JoStories]

There is quite a bit of collective talent here. Many refuse to engage the apologist. In time they will poke their heads out and you will get to meet them..

My intellectual growth here, as well as biblical knowledge, as well as overall knowledge has grown dramatically in my time here.

Im glad your here too

Thank you good sir. That was incredibly nice. I have found, over the years, that my knowledge and understanding, as well as my ability to be more open minded, as grown beyond my belief. I tend to be gregarious....bet you already could have guessed that, and love to challenge people so that in turn, will challenge me. It is only through intellectual discourse that we truly are able to see beyond ourselves and grow. Brigh blessing outhouse....(no offense good sir!). Jo

 

[Kenny]

I agree that it is within the realm of possibility that it could, could mind, that some had known someone who actually had first hand knowledge of the message or historicity of this however, I am reminded of the old game of whispering something to one person and then that person repeats it to the next and so on. At the end, the message is so different as to be completely irrelevant to the first. However, I do agree it COULD be possible.

The difference is that it isn't the "whispering something to one person" but rather letters from the horses mouth.

OK but for me, that is belief corroborating belief. You say "if we are to accept". That presumes that we accept the original statement. One can do same, or not. That does not mean your view is wrong or that mine is right. It simply means we view it from two differing perspectives KenS.

That is correct

So glad we have reached agreement! Its one of the things, this idea that Christ never married, that really has always been a bone of contention for me. If we accept that Jesus was Jewish, then he would have had to follow Jewish law, and that means he would have had to marry. Why is it so hard for most to think that Christ would have married. It seems to infer, at least to me, that marriage is something to be ashamed of. Why is that? Does Christ being married somenhow diminish him or his message? IMO, it makes him more human and would impress me further with his message.

I am not aware of a marriage law, could you help me with that one?

It isn't that it diminishes the message at all and certainly makes no declaration in reference to marriage. As far as I am concerned, it just isn't recorded. There was a mission that had to be accomplished and, in the short time that he knew Mary as well, it just doesn't seem possible or logical IMV. Missions have a way of tailoring ones lifestyle. His mission was the world, restoring man to full fellowship with God, eradicating sin consequences and imputing the righteousness of God to all who believe.

As I understand it, the Gnostic overtones and the lateness of its presentation adds to the doubt of its veracity.

Always look forward to this each day Ken. Briight Blessings. Jo

Equally enjoyable.

 

[Domenic]

Egypt has shown no history of Moses...nor a history of Israelites slaves. They have found nothing in Egypt that supports the story. It is also true, Egypt did remove history of things they did not like? Things have been found in the wilderness area, and the red sea. For a mass of people to have lived in the wilderness for 40 years, one would think more would have been found.

 

[Doug Shaver]

You can argue that some ancient Jewish scribes made it all up, which is possible, but some educated guesswork can be made, since it's also possible for it to have a historical core beneath the legends and myths.

Yes, it is possible. But possibility does not imply probability. There is no evidence for a historical core to the Moses story. If there were any, we should have found it by now. It's not as though nobody has been looking for it.

 

[JoStories]

The difference is that it isn't the "whispering something to one person" but rather letters from the horses mouth.

That is true Ken, however, as we both know, letters can be made to say something not necessarily true, to make it sound more to the liking of the writer. And also, we know that those letters were written well beyond the life span of all those involved.

I am not aware of a marriage law, could you help me with that one?

I wish I could. That statement came from long and intriquing conversations I have had with several of my Jewish friends, one being Hassidic. In fact, I attended her daugther's Bat Mitzvah. According to her, Jewish woman are required to marry and procreate to continue the line. However, I could not find accepted Talmudic law to confirm that.

It isn't that it diminishes the message at all and certainly makes no declaration in reference to marriage. As far as I am concerned, it just isn't recorded. There was a mission that had to be accomplished and, in the short time that he knew Mary as well, it just doesn't seem possible or logical IMV. Missions have a way of tailoring ones lifestyle. His mission was the world, restoring man to full fellowship with God, eradicating sin consequences and imputing the righteousness of God to all who believe.

As I understand it, the Gnostic overtones and the lateness of its presentation adds to the doubt of its veracity.

I agree that there is no statement of his being married one way or another. And I understand your POV that it would diminish his mission but I would say that many missionaries are or have been married in the pursuit of their missions. How would Christ's have been diminshed by his having been married? The closeness of Christ's relationship with Mary Magdalene intimates, at least to me, that they had some kind of intimate relationship beyond that of friend. But again, I can see your side of this and concur you have a valid point. There is an interesting blog by Rev Dr. Mark Roberts who mentions that both Philo and Josephus agrue that Christ being single was by choice and furthermore, that "women had a negative impact on men". Here is the link to that blog:

Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence
I don't agree with his suppositions but it makes interesting reading.

Bright Blessings Ken. I look forward to this exchange each time I see it. Jo

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you are holding the historicity of Jesus Christ to an impossible standard, one not required of many pagans who are widely accepted as historical figures. You further make claims, not substantiated, as to when the Gospels were written and by whom. For example, the book of John was recorded by one who knew Jesus intimately, and Luke's Gospel was carefully constructed from those who were eyewitnesses, meaning the writer spoke to those with personal first-hand knowledge of the events, not "third-hand", as you claim. (John 21:24, Luke 1:1-3)

An impossible standard is what Christianity requires. If Jesus was nothing more than an itinerant preacher who didn't perform miracles, wasn't a living god-man, or didn't ascend to Heaven, then the core beliefs of Christianity are based on fiction.

The standard of evidence we need depends on what question we're trying to answer:

- if all we're trying to do is figure out where Christianity came from, then we can recognize that Christianity had *some sort* of cause (since it exists), look at the evidence, and decide that it makes more sense that Christianity arose from the followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher than it was made up out of whole cloth. Fair enough.

- if we're trying to figure out whether Christianity is actually true, then we need much, much more. If all the historical evidence tells us is that Jesus was a real person whose followers made hearsay miracle claims about him... well, religions and cults built around real people whose followers made miracle claims about them are a dime a dozen.

If Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity's origins are unremarkable. If Jesus existed but was just a man, then Christianity is unremarkable. If you're going to claim that Jesus was more than a man, then you'll need better evidence.

 

[Doug Shaver]

Luke's Gospel was carefully constructed from those who were eyewitnesses, meaning the writer spoke to those with personal first-hand knowledge of the events

The author doesn't say that.

 

[rusra02]

The author doesn't say that.

" Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent The·ophʹi·lus, so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally." (Luke 1:1-4)

 

[rusra02]

An impossible standard is what Christianity requires. If Jesus was nothing more than an itinerant preacher who didn't perform miracles, wasn't a living god-man, or didn't ascend to Heaven, then the core beliefs of Christianity are based on fiction.

The standard of evidence we need depends on what question we're trying to answer:

- if all we're trying to do is figure out where Christianity came from, then we can recognize that Christianity had *some sort* of cause (since it exists), look at the evidence, and decide that it makes more sense that Christianity arose from the followers of an itinerant Jewish preacher than it was made up out of whole cloth. Fair enough.

- if we're trying to figure out whether Christianity is actually true, then we need much, much more. If all the historical evidence tells us is that Jesus was a real person whose followers made hearsay miracle claims about him... well, religions and cults built around real people whose followers made miracle claims about them are a dime a dozen.

If Jesus didn't exist, then Christianity's origins are unremarkable. If Jesus existed but was just a man, then Christianity is unremarkable. If you're going to claim that Jesus was more than a man, then you'll need better evidence.

I think anyone who examines the evidence fairly must be convinced that Jesus is who he said he was, the Son of God. The eyewitness testimony to Jesus miracles and his resurrection from the dead are overwhelming. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) To argue that a group of people concocted a false story about a man whose teachings have affected more people than any other, and then were willing to die for the fable they told, is ludicrous, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think anyone who examines the evidence fairly must be convinced that Jesus is who he said he was, the Son of God. The eyewitness testimony to Jesus miracles and his resurrection from the dead are overwhelming. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

One book that purports to contain eyewitness testimony is hardly "overwhelming". Religions with miracle claims - and "eyewitness" accounts of miracles - are a dime a dozen.

To argue that a group of people concocted a false story about a man whose teachings have affected more people than any other, and then were willing to die for the fable they told, is ludicrous, IMO.

Yes, the story of Guru Nanak is compelling, and many of his followers have been martyred. So that's why you're a Sikh, then?

Oh, wait: you said that this man's teachings affected more people than any other. You must mean Siddhartha Gautama. I didn't realize you were Buddhist.

Do you think that every religious idea that someone has died for MUST be true?