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

[Ehav4Ever]

Twitter is the most unreliable source imaginable. There is no such thing as 'cancel culture' in history except for those grasping in mid air for invisible straws.

Don't be so sure. Behold and witness the modern cancel culture that was brought up earlier about Donald Trump. You literally can't find anything about Trump anywhere now.

 

[lukethethird]

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

Paul's writings predate the gospel narrative wherein Jesus had disciples. Jesus having disciples is a later development; disciples, Galilee, Pilote, Mary, Joseph, are not known to Paul.

 

[Rival]

Paul's writings predate the gospel narrative wherein Jesus had disciples. Jesus having disciples is a later development; disciples, Galilee, Pilote, Mary, Joseph, are not known to Paul.

Erm, have you ever read Paul? He mentions Peter and the Church at Jerusalem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Paul's writings predate the gospel narrative wherein Jesus had disciples. Jesus having disciples is a later development; disciples, Galilee, Pilote, Mary, Joseph, are not known to Paul.

Or at the least he never mentions them. But, yes I know that Paul's are the first Christian writings.

 

[lukethethird]

Erm, have you ever read Paul? He mentions Peter and the Church at Jerusalem.

Yes, but he does not, nor do any of the early epistles mention the word, 'disciple.' We first here of disciples and Galilee when reading Mark. The problem is to read Paul and the early epistles through a gosple lens. Paul knows nothing of the gospel narrative, it was written after he died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but he does not, nor do any of the early epistles mention the word, 'disciple.' We first here of disciples and Galilee when reading Mark. The problem is to read Paul and the early epistles through a gosple lens. Paul knows nothing of the gospel narrative, it was written after he died.

I have known for some time that Paul's writings were first. Something that any student of the Bible should know. What bothers me is how I might have gotten something backwards. The order the books are in the Bible cause many of us to think that Paul was later and it appears at times as a result that Paul is trying to change Christianity, instead it looks as if the Gospels are trying to change Paul's version of Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

The order the books are in the Bible cause many of us to think that Paul was later and it appears at times as a result that Paul is trying to change Christianity, instead it looks as if the Gospels are trying to change Paul's version of Christianity.

Or they represent 2 different contemporary traditions, one focused on a more Jewish context and the other aiming for a more universal approach that were in some degree of conflict.

 

[lukethethird]

I have known for some time that Paul's writings were first. Something that any student of the Bible should know. What bothers me is how I might have gotten something backwards. The order the books are in the Bible cause many of us to think that Paul was later and it appears at times as a result that Paul is trying to change Christianity, instead it looks as if the Gospels are trying to change Paul's version of Christianity.

Exactly, Paul provides his sources for Christ, his sources are visions and reading everything Christ into his ancient scriptures, what we now refer to as the OT. Everyone since refers to gMrk, a narrative that brings Christ down to earth.

Paul describes the Jerusalem groups experiences as being similar to his own, visions of a risen Christ. None of those of the Jerusalem group claim to have known a Jesus of Nazareth when disagreeing with Paul. Doherty's theory considers that Christianity may have begun with a heavenly Christ and that Nazareth and disciples was a later Christian development.

Ehrman claims hypothetical sources for the gospel narrative, unevidenced claims of an oral tradition that not even Paul was aware of.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't be so sure. Behold and witness the modern cancel culture that was brought up earlier about Donald Trump. You literally can't find anything about Trump anywhere now.

View attachment 62453

Your response reinforces my view. Worthy of note: I am referring to the nebulous use of 'cancel culture' in apologetic efforts to create a high fog index to justify the reason for the lack of outside sources of the life of Jesus Christ and Christianity before 50 AD.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly, Paul provides his sources for Christ, his sources are visions and reading everything Christ into his ancient scriptures, what we now refer to as the OT. Everyone since refers to gMrk, a narrative that brings Christ down to earth.

Paul describes the Jerusalem groups experiences as being similar to his own, visions of a risen Christ. None of those of the Jerusalem group claim to have known a Jesus of Nazareth when disagreeing with Paul. Doherty's theory considers that Christianity may have begun with a heavenly Christ and that Nazareth and disciples was a later Christian development.

The above represents unevidenced claims from a source of unknown sources from Paul, who had no first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus.

Ehrman claims hypothetical sources for the gospel narrative, unevidenced claims of an oral tradition that not even Paul was aware of.

Need specific references by Ehrman before I can respond..

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Your response reinforces my view. Worthy of note: I am referring to the nebulous use of 'cancel culture' in apologetic efforts to create a high fog index to justify the reason for the lack of outside sources of the life of Jesus Christ and Christianity before 50 AD.

I agree with you. I was making a joke.

 

[lukethethird]

The above represents unevidenced claims from a source of unknown sources from Paul, who had no first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus.

Read Gallatians, and Corinthians.

Need specific references by Ehrman before I can respond..

Read first three chapters of Does Jesus Exists? for Erhman's sources.

 

[shunyadragon]

Read Gallatians, and Corinthians.

I have read the whole Bible and the books you mentioned. These books of the Bible do not effect the basis for this thread. Paul's beliefs after the fact of the life of Jesus represent only
Paul's belies second hand and do not determine the historical accuracy and provenance of the gospels themselves.

Try again/

Read first three chapters of Does Jesus Exists? for Erhman's sources.

Read the first post and later posts. I never doubted the historical Jesus existed. The problem is whether the Biblical Divine Miracle working back from the dead Jesus existed..

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins Paperback – October 8, 2019
by Zondervan (Author), Darrell L. Bock (Editor), J. Ed Komoszewski & 1 more

In recent years, a number of New Testament scholars engaged in academic historical Jesus studies have concluded that such scholarship cannot yield secure and illuminating conclusions about its subject, arguing that the search for a historically "authentic" Jesus has run aground.

Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History brings together a stellar lineup of New Testament scholars who contend that historical Jesus scholarship is far from dead.

These scholars all find value in using the tools of contemporary historical methods in the study of Jesus and Christian origins. While the skeptical use of criteria to fashion a Jesus contrary to the one portrayed in the Gospels is methodologically unsound and theologically unacceptable, these criteria, properly formulated and applied, yield positive results that support the Gospel accounts and the historical narrative in Acts. This book presents a nuanced and vitally needed alternative to the skeptical extremes of revisionist Jesus scholarship that, on the one hand, uses historical methods to call into question the Jesus of the Gospels and, on the other, denies the possibility of using historical methods to learn about Jesus.

What historian believes Jesus is an historical figure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What historian believes Jesus is an historical figure?

It depends upon what one means by Jesus being a historical figure. If one means that there was a man named Jesus that gained a following and was crucified, I am betting that a pretty high percentage would say that happened. If by a "historical figure" you mean a magical Jesus that number would drop by a huge margin.

 

[shunyadragon]

What historian believes Jesus is an historical figure?

Most historians accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus.[1][2][3] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.[8][9][10][11] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[12][13] and only two key events are subject to "almost universal assent", namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][9][14]

. . . but yes some historians are skeptical.

 

[lukethethird]

Most historians accept that Jesus was a historical figure.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus.[1][2][3] Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure,[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] although interpretations of a number of the events mentioned in the gospels (most notably his miracles and resurrection) vary and are a subject of debate.[8][9][10][11] Standard historical criteria have aided in evaluating the historicity of the gospel narratives,[12][13] and only two key events are subject to "almost universal assent", namely that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][9][14]

. . . but yes some historians are skeptical.

How can an historian read about the baptism of Jesus and walk away saying that that really happened? I mean, that alone could tell us who is and is not insane.

 

[shunyadragon]

How can an historian read about the baptism of Jesus and walk away saying that that really happened? I mean, that alone could tell us who is and is not insane.

This does not make sense. Miraculous and religious experience are not documentable aspects of historical figures, though very common in ALL the religions of the world. The article I cited goes in the reasoning how historians consider historical figures, This has absolutely nothing to do with the Baptism of Jesus, nor any of the miraculous nor religious events in the life of Jesus. Other religious figures are considered historical figures, but the Miraculous or religious events of their life have nothing to with whether they are real or not, such as Buddha. To consider the miraculous events in the lives of the religious figures of the world would bias history without documented facts of their lives, For example: Second sources outside the Bible and followers is necessary for affirming the fact of their lives,

If you wish to read further there are references for academic standards and methods for historians.

 

[lukethethird]

This does not make sense. Miraculous and religious experience are not documentable aspects of historical figures, though very common in ALL the religions of the world. The article I cited goes in the reasoning how historians consider historical figures, This has absolutely nothing to do with the Baptism of Jesus, nor any of the miraculous nor religious events in the life of Jesus. Other religious figures are considered historical figures, but the Miraculous or religious events of their life have nothing to with whether they are real or not, such as Buddha. To consider the miraculous events in the lives of the religious figures of the world would bias history without documented facts of their lives, For example: Second sources outside the Bible and followers is necessary for affirming the fact of their lives,

If you wish to read further there are references for academic standards and methods for historians.

That article describes an echo chamber of believers, there is not a single reason given as to how Jesus could possibly be an historical figure. Take away the miracles and there is nothing left to comment on. Give one single reason how it was decided that Jesus is an historical figure, not just an article that says most scholars believe, but an actual reason. I know you can't. If you believe it is because others believe.

 

[shunyadragon]

That article describes an echo chamber of believers, there is not a single reason given as to how Jesus could possibly be an historical figure. Take away the miracles and there is nothing left to comment on. Give one single reason how it was decided that Jesus is an historical figure, not just an article that says most scholars believe, but an actual reason. I know you can't. If you believe it is because others believe.

Well, ah . . . you are a believer and apparently believe the historical Jesus existed, please explain why?!?!?!? Can you cite any outside references during the life of Jesus concerning his miraculous supernatural life?

Like othr historical figures in the ancient world there are historical literature that refer to Jesus existed, and even though they are not contemporary to Jesus they refer to testimony that Jesus existed, As with other historical religious figures it is sufficient to support their existence in history. The problem will always be that that like miraculous and supernatural claims today there lacks objective nor verifiable evidence for any miraculous events ever taking place.

It is time for you to make the effort to understand how academic history works instead of slinging maure based on a religious agenda. Religious claims and beliefs are NOT documentable in history regardless of which religion one believes. If you believe these event can be documented by second sources during the life of the religious leader please provide the references and evidence.