Attack on the historical Jesus

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, May 13, 2007.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    That article is full of the same old, poorly thought out, bad history that "some" critics have been using for years. Allow me go through just a few of their "arguments".

    ==This point, is pointless. The fact is that in the field of ancient history not having "contemporary" accounts of a historical figure is not unusual at all. In fact, it is very common. There are several reasons for that. So whether we are talking about Alexander the Great, Jesus Christ, or any other ancient figure, it is not uncommon for us to have little to no "contemporary" writings about them. With a historical figure such as Jesus this is even more true. Why? He was not a earthly king or president. Jesus was, from a purely human standpoint, a traveling preacher who attracted large crowds. It is not surprising that no contemporary writings, about Him, have survived. Notice I said "survived".

    ==Markian priority is a theory based on various grammatical assumptions and not on actual historical fact. While I accept Markian priority I would never claim it as a fact. As for Paul not citing the Gospels, well there is a very good reason for that. Most of Paul's writings predate the Gospels. However historical information Paul gives about Jesus matches, perfectly, the historical information the Gospels give us about Jesus (ex 1Cor 11:23-26). As for the Gospel of Mark being "midrash" and not "historical", that is an opinion and not a fact. The fact is the Gospels, including Mark, claim to be historical works and they read as historical works (Lk 1:1-4, Jn 20:31-30, 21:25, Mk 1:9, etc).

    I could keep going but it would take too much time to go through all of his points. What I am seeking to show is that his arguments are the same arguments that have been used for hundreds of years. Christians, and nonChristians alike, have refuted many of these arguments time and time again.

    Beyond that, who wrote that article? I see no name attached to the article (only a handle) nor do I see anything about the author's background. Does this person hold a degree in history (ancient, anything?), theology, religion? If not, why should they be considered an authority on historical/theological matters? If this person, who looks very young, does have such a background why is it not listed?
     
    #2 Martin, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    First of all we know that contemporaries for Christ include Matthew, Mark and John, Peter, James, Jude and Paul (who was called Saul and was at the stoning of Stephen as an adult).

    We also know that Luke was very likely a contemporary with Christ.

    That means instead of having NO accounts from ANY contemporary we have many accounts from many contemporaries. We have no reason at all to suppose that these writers were "born after the death of Christ".

    The fact that they lived in or near Jerusalem at times and they wrote in favor of the accounts of the Gospel is irrefutable proof.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whenever you see the term "historical Jesus" expect it to be an article undermining Jesus' deity, attempting subvert the accuracy of the scriptures, and deny much of the Bible's content.

    Such writings mask this attempt by trying to cast it as a search for truth. It's usually a rehash of the same old stuff.
     
  5. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    His essay is a regurgitation of many "classic" arguments against the historicity of Jesus. A few things I noticed:

    1. No one ever seriously posited the non-existence of Jesus until the 19th (?) century, with Bruno Bauer. That includes enemies, historians, and anyone else who would have had an opinion on the Christian sect.

    2. To the ancient writers cited, Jesus was a peasant from a hicktown who thought Himself the Messiah . Palestine was replete with self-proclaimed Messiahs, many of whom had a pretty significant following. To the unbelieving historians, Jesus would have been lumped among them.

    3. Most historians agree that Josephus said something about Jesus. The dispute is about whether entire passage is genuine or whether only some of it is genuine.

    4. Luke is one of the greatest ancient historians who ever lived, and at least had access to eyewitness information. It takes a lot of creative thinking to deny that.

    5. There is evidence that John's Gospel is, indeed, an eyewitness account.

    Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger all mention Jesus.

    The argument from silence does not work in their favor; rather, it works to their detriiment. If Jesus had not existed, the early Christians' claim that He did should have made the sect a laughingstock to both Jewish and Gentile opponents of the movement.

    In view of actual history--rather than a mere list of people who, for whatever reason (probably because to them, miracle workers and Messiah figures were nothing special) neglected to mention Jesus--the argument that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist seems downright silly.

    Michael
     
  6. Dustin

    Dustin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    0
    The White Horse Inn broadcast for this week was on this very subject.

    Listen to it here: http://www.whitehorseinn.org

    They even tacked an extra half hour or so on the broadcast. They cite secular sources from the same time period that agree with the Gospel accounts.

    Very, very interesting and informative.


    Soli Deo Gloria,
    Dustin
     
  7. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming, as is the weight of evidence for his ministry, miracles, and resurrection.

    McDowell and Strobel are among the sources one can use for a very effective overview of the facts. Jesus not only existed, Jesus did something that caused a tectonic shift in the worldview of a significant segment of humanity; so great a shift that within three hundred years the leader of the entire known world acknowledged him as Lord.
     
  8. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another example of ridiculousness by unbelievers. Jesus life on earth is one of the most documented existences ever. Oops, just read tp's post above. well said.
     
  9. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you guys. :)

    The problem is that some christians might not be able to say anything against those claims because they haven't really studied those things. And even if you have read a book from McDowell then the problem is still that those sceptics simply claim that those accounts from Josephus,Tacitus and friends aren't valid. How can they say this? They directly laugh about it when you even mention Tacitus and Josephus as if this was totally old and disproven. :confused:
     
  10. tragic_pizza

    tragic_pizza
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, all you can do is present the evidence.

    It's up to God to bring them into reconciliation, not up to you.
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many independant references to Jesus, the founder of a Jewish sect whose followers think he came back from the dead. Don't know of any non-christians who think he actually did.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    True but that is a circular observation since "non Christian" by definition is one who does not believe Christ died and then rose from the grave as He promised and as the Bible predicted.
     
  13. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    This is it!

    You can't make someone believe and your frustration with their unbelief will only give credence to their stance. State the facts, step back and let the Holy Spirit do His glorious work!
     
  14. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    Schnitzelhof:

    "His essay is a regurgitation of many "classic" arguments against the historicity of Jesus. A few things I noticed:

    1. No one ever seriously posited the non-existence of Jesus until the 19th (?) century, with Bruno Bauer. "

    GE:

    Yea. In the end all these 'arguments' are aimed at the denial of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. We have several university professors (here in RSA) who say one doesn't need a body to have a resurrection, and such stupid things. They are esteemed men in our educated society of high intellect.

    " No one ever seriously posited the non-existence of Jesus until the 19th (?) century, with Bruno Bauer. "

    GE:

    Weren't there like enthusiasms of unbelief during the first few centuries AD already?
     
  15. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,869
    Likes Received:
    3
    GE:

    Christians of our day there are who claim resurrections from the dead by the score, like healings by the score, and strange tongues and ....

    Would not the very falseness of these Christians, give good reason to the unbeliever for his unbelief? Must all the blame be place before their door?

    (I know of another 'justification' of the unbelievers' 'faith', but won't mention it now.)
     
  16. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, Bitsy, and tragic_pizza, amen and amen!

    I sometimes thing the best thing we can do in our witnessing is to present the claims of Christ in the gospels and then just shut up.
     

Share This Page

Loading...