Why do skeptics question whether the Biblical Jesus Christ ever existed?

[pearl]

There is more missing than that. False tales cannot be counted as being part of his life. Both Nativity myths fall flat on their faces when one analyzes them. The one in Luke is the worse of the two, but the one in Matthew makes some huge mistakes as well.

These are not false tales in our modern sense. They reflect the theology and christology of the authors, they were theologians. One poster suggested it was like the Gospels were written backwards, and that is exactly true as they began with the D/R, in post Resurrection faith, and back through ministry and birth and to preexistence. They added narrative to the hypothetical 'Q' sayings of Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are not false tales in our modern sense. They reflect the theology and christology of the authors, they were theologians. One poster suggested it was like the Gospels were written backwards, and that is exactly true as they began with the D/R, in post Resurrection faith, and back through ministry and birth and to preexistence. They added narrative to the hypothetical 'Q' sayings of Jesus.

They are false in the sense that they never happened. They are both lame attempts to be able to claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If one has to make up tales to support a belief it is quite often wrong. He was probably Jesus of Nazareth, meaning that he was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem. That does not refute the Jesus story, but it makes one wonder as to why early authors had to pad his story.

 

[blü 2]

I think these are statements clearly would not have been made of an imaginary Jesus.

But as I said, none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus, and clearly the author of Mark used the Tanakh to have his Jesus do things that it seemed to our author a real Jesus ought to have done. The author of Matthew makes particularly blatant use of this practice.

There is also the charge made by early Judaism that Jesus was of illegitimate birth, answer by both evangelists by the explanation of a virgin birth.

Of course, Paul, and the authors of Mark and John, have never heard of that particular myth (or, I trust, those fake and incompatible genealogies that purport to show Joseph descended from David, when Joseph is most specifically NOT Jesus' father.) That the historical Jesus was born out of wedlock would perhaps answer a few such questions; and in Mark, the prototype biography, not only are his parents unnamed, but his father is never mentioned (and Mark's Jesus is specifically not descended from David).

 

[shunyadragon]

The New Testament does.


What Jewish source aside from Messianic Jews states Jesus existed, much less taught at a Jewish temple?

I di put a ? behind the Rabbi, because it is not established, .

If Jesus existed. and contemporary historians for the most part believe so, Jesus would need some position in the society to warrant being a leader, and subject to trail and execution by crucifixion. It is accepted that the quotes of Jesus are accepted as his from early oral or possible written sources such as Q.

Pretty much all the known leaders of Messianic rebellions are this were not illiterate common folk.

 

[pearl]

But as I said, none of the NT authors ever met an historical Jesus, and clearly the author of Mark used the Tanakh to have his Jesus do things that it seemed to our author a real Jesus ought to have done. The author of Matthew makes particularly blatant use of this practice.

Exactly, they used Hebrew Scripture in answering the question of who and why Jesus. Where else would they look? The Gospels represent the last stage in the compilation of Christian Scripture.

Of course, Paul, and the authors of Mark and John, have never heard of that particular myth (or, I trust, those fake and incompatible genealogies that purport to show Joseph descended from David, when Joseph is most specifically NOT Jesus' father.) That the historical Jesus was born out of wedlock would perhaps answer a few such questions; and in Mark, the prototype biography, not only are his parents unnamed, but his father is never mentioned (and Mark's Jesus is specifically not descended from David).

Mark has Jesus the son of 'Mary', never mentions Joseph. For Paul Jesus is simply 'born of a woman'.
Both genealogies are a theological construction for their own purposes. In Mark Jesus is recognized as the 'Son of God' at his baptism, for Mt and Lk the recognition is pushed back to His birth, and in John, back to preexistence. The authors of the Gospels were theologians, not historians.

 

[blü 2]

The Gospels represent the last stage in the compilation of Christian Scripture.

No they represent the first stage, arguably the only stage in the compilation of Christian scripture. The Tanakh remains firmly Jewish scripture, notwithstanding the bible authors mined it.

Mark has Jesus the son of 'Mary', never mentions Joseph. For Paul Jesus is simply 'born of a woman'.

You're right, my error.

Both genealogies are a theological construction for their own purposes.

Whichever way you look at them, at the very least one is a fake, and very likely they're both fakes. Even if they weren't, they'd be irrelevant, since Jesus isn't a descendant of Joseph.

 

[pearl]

No they represent the first stage, arguably the only stage in the compilation of Christian scripture. The Tanakh remains firmly Jewish scripture, notwithstanding the bible authors mined it.

Each Gospel text there may be present material from three different periods in early church history.
Stage 1: The Ministry of Jesus
Traditions that date from Jesus' words and deeds during his ministry in the late 20s and early 30s of the first century.
Stage 2: The Post-Resurrectional Preaching of the Apostles
Ideas about Jesus that arose after the Resurrection, especially consideration about his divine identity, expressed through the exalted use of earlier terms such as "Lord" and "Son of God".

Stage 3: The Writing of the Gospels by the Evangelists
The narratives about Jesus that are shaped by the situations, concerns and insights of the Gospel writers themselves.

The four canonical Gospels incorporate traditions dating from Jesus' ministry, which are understood through the experience of the Crucified One as Raised to transcendent life, and that are narrated according to the specific concerns, needs, interests, and insights of their respective authors.
The Gospels achieved their final form only decades after the life and death of Jesus, resulting in four distinctive accounts.
The evangelists did not write the Gospels to give us "histories," as we understand the term. They
experienced Jesus as Raised; that was all they needed.
To ask historical questions of the Gospels is to ask something they were not really meant to provide. Asking, "what is the meaning of Jesus?" or "why is Jesus important?" are appropriate questions. However, since modern readers have a consciousness that history shapes our perceptions and expressions, and since Westerners in particular tend to collapse truth to what is empirically verifiable, we will inevitably ask historical questions of the Gospels. However, we should bear in mind that the biblical authors do not share our mental categories and horizons.

Of course, it is your choice to understand the Gospels as a fundamentalist or literalist. But even for those who would simply throw them out, at least do so for the right reason.

 

[blü 2]

The Gospels achieved their final form only decades after the life and death of Jesus, resulting in four distinctive accounts.

We have no evidence of any gospel earlier than Mark, which was written around 75 CE, 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, and constructed on the author's readings of various parts of the Tanakh.

The evangelists did not write the Gospels to give us "histories," as we understand the term. They experienced Jesus as Raised; that was all they needed.

If you mean the gospels are not works of history, I agree.

Westerners in particular tend to collapse truth to what is empirically verifiable

What definition of "truth" would you rather use?

 

[pearl]

We have no evidence of any gospel earlier than Mark, which was written around 75 CE,

That is what I stated, decades.

If you mean the gospels are not works of history, I agree.

Because it was not the purpose of the Gospels to give a chronological history.

What definition of "truth" would you rather use?

Religion and Truth | Issue 47 | Philosophy Now

 

[Augustus]

We have no evidence of any gospel earlier than Mark, which was written around 75 CE, 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, and constructed on the author's readings of various parts of the Tanakh.

The fact that Paul's letters do not narrate the story of Jesus are some degree of evidence he assumes knowledge of Jesus' narrative on behalf of those he is writing to.

We may not know what the narrative is, but it is evidence of an earlier Gospel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact that Paul's letters do not narrate the story of Jesus are some degree of evidence he assumes knowledge of Jesus' narrative on behalf of those he is writing to.

We may not know what the narrative is, but it is evidence of an earlier Gospel.

Or at least of an oral tradition if not a written Gospel One thing that can be slightly misleading about the Bible is that the Gospels are at the start of the New Testament, but all of them were written after Paul did his works.

 

[blü 2]

Because it was not the purpose of the Gospels to give a chronological history.

Christianity is taught as though the gospels provide an historical biography of Jesus. That's how it was when I was frogmarched off to Sunday school, and that's how it still appears to be. This is accompanied by various necessary attempts at rationalizing, such as that the age of miracles was back then, and has long since ceased; and so on.

Religion and Truth | Issue 47 | Philosophy Now

Thanks for the link. I read it with interest. On the one hand I have no argument with folktale and myth (the Greek myths are much more shaped than eg the Norse ones). On the other, I see no reason to give them more credit than appears on their face. If they're ambiguous, then they're ambiguous ─ they have such meaning, or meanings, or none, as the reader pleases. In that sense they're a game ─ I'd say merely a game.

 

[blü 2]

The fact that Paul's letters do not narrate the story of Jesus are some degree of evidence he assumes knowledge of Jesus' narrative on behalf of those he is writing to.

I don't think Paul cares. He had this "vision" after which he thinks he knows what Jesus wants (and says so in Galatians 1:11-12). And given he's speaking truthfully when he says he spent time with the Jerusalem Christians, it's remarkable that he knows no more about the earthly Jesus after that time than he did before.

We may not know what the narrative is, but it is evidence of an earlier Gospel.

I suspect it's more likely that proto-Christianity had a fund of sayings rather than a bio of Jesus. Matthew and Luke very plainly, but also John, are all direct descendants of Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think Paul cares. He had this "vision" after which he thinks he knows what Jesus wants (and says so in Galatians 1:11-12). And given he's speaking truthfully when he says he spent time with the Jerusalem Christians, it's remarkable that he knows no more about the earthly Jesus after that time than he did before.
I suspect it's more likely that proto-Christianity had a fund of sayings rather than a bio of Jesus. Matthew and Luke very plainly, but also John, are all direct descendants of Mark.

I would think that there had to be a seed. One thing about Paul, after his vision he seemed to think that he knew more than the other disciples. In II Galatians he went so far as to correct Peter. "My hallucination trumps your actually knowing the man"

 

[blü 2]

I would think that there had to be a seed. One thing about Paul, after his vision he seemed to think that he knew more than the other disciples. In II Galatians he went so far as to correct Peter. "My hallucination trumps your actually knowing the man"

I've seen the hypothesis that the motive for writing Mark was the sack of Jerusalem 70 CE September which was the end result of the Jewish uprising in 66 CE. (Mark not before 75 CE since it draws on Josephus' Wars not available till then.)

 

[pearl]

Christianity is taught as though the gospels provide an historical biography of Jesus.

Only in certain groups of Christianity. All teaching must begin with the literal, followed by discerning the author's intent in the narrative offered. First there is the confession of faith, then the narrative into which that faith is expanded for the deeper meaning.

 

[blü 2]

Only in certain groups of Christianity. All teaching must begin with the literal, followed by discerning the author's intent in the narrative offered. First there is the confession of faith, then the narrative into which that faith is expanded for the deeper meaning.

Well, if you say so.

To me the search for the facts of history is far more interesting.

 

[lukethethird]

I would think that there had to be a seed. One thing about Paul, after his vision he seemed to think that he knew more than the other disciples. In II Galatians he went so far as to correct Peter. "My hallucination trumps your actually knowing the man"

Peter never claimed to "know the man," in fact Paul claims that Peter was chosen by God to be an apostle, just as Paul claimed himself to be appointed by God, no Jesus in all of this. Jesus and his disciples came later via Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peter never claimed to "know the man," in fact Paul claims that Peter was chosen by God to be an apostle, just as Paul claimed himself to be appointed by God, no Jesus in all of this. Jesus and his disciples came later via Mark.

In Christian tradition I do believe that Peter is supposed to have been one of the 12 disciples. Are you now denying this?

 

[Tinker Grey]

In Christian tradition I do believe that Peter is supposed to have been one of the 12 disciples. Are you now denying this?

I believe @lukethethird is saying that we have no writings of Peter. The books of Peter are not written by him. Statements of his in the gospels and Acts are just alleged. We do however have Paul's statement that Jesus appeared to Peter (if Paul's statements on Peter are in the undisputed writings of Paul.)