The Historicity of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Poor guy. You were caught interjecting some random shit into the thread and now you want the person who pointed it out to you to go away.
Do you ever take responsibility for your actions? Or is it always "someone else's fault"?
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Obtenebrator:
There are no inconsistencies in the Gospels. The Christian Greek Scriptures aka New Testament ("NT") is entirely consistent. Jesus' 1st Century disciples reported various incidents from different viewpoints. Those are not inconsistencies; it's simply reporting the same incident from a different angle.
Go ahead and dismiss to your heart's content. Until you can prove the miracles and the resurrections did not happen, your comment is simply that of an unbeliever. Nothing more.
Alter2Ego
Verified User
EdwinA:The witnesses to Jesus's existence and ministry were almost entirely Jewish. We know most Jewish scholars would destroy any evidence of his existence whenever they found it, it's a frequent practice with them in those days, denying anything outside their post-Ezra cult as not existing. But, we have the 4 Gospels and Paul, all Jewish or a disciple of educated Jews in Luke's case, and some scholars hold the opinion that Luke was also a Jew. Then there are the followers, numbering in the thousands and known to already exist in those years and soon after his death.
Even Bart Ehrman, an oft cited critic of Christianity, wrote a book proving he was a real person.
Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
DArrell Bock has written extensively on the evidence that the orthodoxy regarding the NT books are indeed valid and can be trusted, as opposed to the Gnostic rubbish and the silly nonsense that Constantine rewrote a lot of stuff in the 4th Century.
The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities
IS JESUS WHO YOU THINK HE IS?Perhaps you've heard the recent buzz about "alternative Christianities" and "new gospels." Speculations have shown up in magazines, documentaries, popular fiction, and even on the big screen. Much of the controversy stems from a library of ancient texts found...www.barnesandnoble.com
See also Joachim Jeremia's excellent econmic and social history Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus, which extensively verifies that NT texts are indeed contemporary writings and there are no anachronisms in them, making it impossible for them to have been in some later century. He extensively footnotes the book and used entirely Jewish sources.
AS for whether he was a 'divine' son of God or not isn't relevant to the issue of whether he really existed or not; the fact is he did indeed exist, and was a well educated rabbi to boot..
Great comments and fine research on your part. Although I don't agree with your last paragraph, "AS for whether he was a 'divine' son of God or not isn't relevant to the issue of whether he really existed or not; the fact is he did indeed exist, and was a well educated rabbi to boot," the rest of your comments are great!
Alter2Ego
Prove miracles did happen.
dancindave
Verified User
Seems human reproduction medical pseudoscience is about as great a miracle as flaming flying chariot gravitational pseudoscience......
Then explain his different genealogies? And why would it matter what line Joseph had if he wasn't the father?
Different genealogies are not just the same thing from a different view point.
I am under no obligation to prove a negative.
Pretty much by definition.
Litmus
Verified User
it is your obligation, but it cannot be done.
that's a pickle you put yourself in.
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Kafka:
Jesus's life started off as a spirit son (an angel). His spirit life force was transferred into the human Mary. Joseph was not his biological father. So what is your point?
My point is that two different accounts representing the real life of Jesus show different geneaologies which means the people who wrote the Gospels were NOT necessarily working from the same set of data indicating that it's possible that a lot of the back story of Jesus was...sorry for this...made up.
Rubbish. The two genealogies are easily explained and in detail in several sources. It's also possible you just need to discredit the proof for other reasons than historical accuracy, is all.
Yes. Mary's ancestors would be the ones that matter, and of course Jewish traditions would create problems with that genealogy due to laws re levirate marriage to brothers-in-law and ancient Hebrew prohibitions forbidding female names in genealogical tables. If a man died his wife would then marry one of his brothers and the line of descent would also be expanded via being adopted and other legalisms..
His genealogy is important due to needing to establish his family's status and 'racial purity'; there were extensive racial purity laws established in those days that determined Temple access, educational access, economic rights, etc. for the family.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes, there are timeline inconsistencies, among others. Why is that a problem? The gospels can still be read and the lessons understood.
Like what? The priorities were in topical arrangements, not chronological order, in the four Gospels and Paul's, letters, for instance. In the Old Testament, Isaiah isn't in chronological order either. This isn't an error, it's an editing choice. There are editions of the Bible laid out in chronological order for scholarship and enlightenment, but this doesn't invalidate anything re the intent, as you said..
Some examples:
Alleged Chronological Contradictions - Apologetics Press
Since the Bible begins at the Creation with Genesis—the book of beginnings—and ends with the book of Revelation (which many scholars believe was the last recorded book of the Bible), students of the Scriptures often assume that the Bible was compiled chronologically. Many students approach their...
apologeticspress.org
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
One big one was the more-than-a-decade between Jesus having been born and Jesus still not yet born.
Historical timeline:
* Herod the Great was king of the Jews between 37 BCE to 4 BCE.
* Ten years later (i.e. 6 CE) , the Jewish kingdom became a Roman province, under the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius
* Upon becoming a Roman province, Quirinius ordered a census.
Gospel Inconsistency:
* In Matthew, Jesus is born sometime prior to 4 BCE and is visited by wise men from the east. Those same wise men visit Herod the Great and reveal that the true king of the Jews has been born. Herod has all children under two years of age killed.
* In Luke, Jesus is not yet born in 6 CE. Quirinius orders a census. Joseph and pregnant Mary return to Bethlehem only to find no room at the inn. They find shelter in a barn in which Jesus is born and wrapped in swaddling clothes.
The only way to claim that this is not a major inconsistency is to declare that there are, in fact, two or more Jesus Christs.
Never established he actually managed to kill them all.
In Matthew, Jesus is born sometime prior to 4 BCE.
4 B.C. is later than 6 B.C., so where is the conflict? Herod died in 4 B.C., two years after 6 B.C.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
There were Censuses before 6 A.D.
lol