Questioning Jesus’ Existence

[Papa Zoom]

His name is Larry Taunton. He wrote a book about his interactions with Hitch.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B010...65&keywords=the+faith+of+christopher+hitchens

That's the one. Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering,

In my view you are creating a false dilemma with your statement:

The bible IS NOT a history book like...
"The History of WWII".​

It is not history vs. relationship with God for human beings.

Biblical faith essentially is a commitment to or relationship with God who has intervened in history in such a way that will allow that intervention to be examined by the techniques of historical study used to investigate 'the history of WW II'.

History does not allow Christians to prove everything with absolute certainty, just as all things from history are not known with 100% surety because we were not there to capture all things.

We can show that the Gospels, for example, are historically accurate as history, using the tools of historiography. We can only argue in terms of probability with all history, whether that is ancient history or history from a year ago.

Here is one of the significant issues regarding a portrait of Jesus. If the Jesus discovered through historical research were not like the Jesus of the Gospels, that would eat away at my faith.

So, the Gospels deal with history. If the essential claims of the early church's description of Jesus were falsified by historical research, that would significantly affect my faith as it would make the actions of the historical Jesus questionable.

In saying this, I'm not stating that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Scriptures which can be authenticated by historical methodology.

I can check the historicity of the Bible with the same tools that I use to check the historicity of what happened during WW II. What's the point of using those historical tools on the Bible if it isn't history. The Psalms create a different issue because they are poetry.

Oz

Hi Oz

OK. Let's say it this way since I really do agree with what you say above.
We can check the historicity of Christ with means other than the bible. Josephus comes to mind.

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

This is the only mention of Jesus outside of the gospels that I personally know of since this is a subject I never studied at all.

The O.P. is saying that this is intentionally done. It's intentionally done because those who are against Christianity like to cast doubt on agnostics and also on weak Christians who are easily swayed.

I believe that once one has come into contact with God, he will be strong no matter what is thrown his way and what objections he encounters.

To say that Jesus existed as a historical person, still does not accomplish too much, in my opinion. Was He who He said He was? Did the Apostles imagine Him to have qualities He really didn't? Did they really see Him after the crucifixion? Did they just want to establish a new religion?

I can't say that I've ever heard the above questions being spoken of in these documentaries. I have heard that the appearance of Jesus after His death was just a vision.

Still to this day, although it will be called circular reasoning, I like the proof of the bible best to show that Jesus not only existed, but that He was God incarnate...the death of the Apostles for their belief.

For me, it's impossible to think He did not exist as He was portrayed in the N.T. since all the Apostles, except maybe one, went to their death and/or imprisonment, or both, because of their belief in Him.

This is enough for me. If it isn't, it means the person will not believe unless God touches them personally.

I also agree that to combat this, it is important for a believer to have some response when confronted with this. Personally, I never have been.

There are discrepancies in the bible, this is a comfort to me, as I've already explained. (it eliminates the possibility of a conspiracy).

 

[GodsGrace]

The Bible (as I'm sure you know) isn't a book but a collection of books. The Bible isn't a book on poetry but there are the poetry books for example. Here's how one site breaks it down:

The Old Testament can be broken down into the following categories:

1. The Pentateuch - Genesis to Deuteronomy
2. History - Joshua to Esther
3. Poetry and Wisdom - Job to Song of Solomon
4. The Prophets - Isaiah to Malachi

The New Testament can be broken down into these categories:

1. History - Matthew to Acts
2. Letters - Romans to Jude
3. Apocalypse - Revelation

This is the approach I was taught when I attended Bible college.

Here's another: http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible/divisionsofoldtestamentbooks.pdf
http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible/divisionsofnewtestamentbooks.pdf
http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible.html

:nod

Hi Papa Zoom,

I know the above, not because I attended bible college, but because I taught it to pre-teens in church.

The last link of yours is very good and I wanted to thank you for it. I must say that I like Oz's page very much too (spencer.gear.dyndns.org).

The O.T. did record history so that the story of the Hebrews could be passed down from one generation to the next. It was very important to them that God had a hand in everything that happened, and that's the way the history is told.

As far as the N.T., if you check your second link, you see that ONLY ACTS is listed under the title of "History". Acts IS truly a historical book that tells of the acts of the Apostles after Jesus died and ascended so that the story may go down in history.

I still maintain that the other books are not history, and if fact, your chart in the second link would agree to this.

Every other book in the N.T. was written about Jesus and to remember Who He is, not to record historical events. There is history in each book, however.

This is all I'm saying. The books, other than Acts, were not written to record history - they were written to record Jesus.

The only reason I insist is because if they ARE viewed as history, what are we to do with the discrepancies? How do we explain the most glaring of all ... the census, which I've already brought up. Was there a census? Who was the governor of Syria? Were there two census? How could Luke make such a mistake when he specifically wanted to record some history for the gentiles?

Unless one is a history enthusiast AND a Christian, I don't think they would be at all concerned with the above.

It seems to me that OzSpen might be, and maybe others like him. If an explanation is needed, then so be it. The bible can be investigated just like any other book, as Oz has explained.

As we see, all this historical information in the N.T. does not help to diminish the documentaries as to Jesus historicity!

 

[GodsGrace]

If someone brings up an idea that is incorrect, it gives us an opportunity to correct, set straight, and point people to the Lord Jesus Christ. And we must remember our faith is not based on reason but on hearing the Lord, just like it is written, Rm 10:17 So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

A person might reason that God could exist and seek Him thus find Him. But it is the hearing Him for yourself that gives us the faith the Jesus Christ does indeed exist, (believe).

So if someone thinks Jesus never existed and announces it, we know we have someone that needs to know Him, and can and should then point out the reality that He does indeed exist and indeed can be heard from. We are not preaching the Jesus Christ existed, but that He exists now and is there for us. Still, if someone doesn't know He existed in the past they certainly don't know Him personally in the present, and we have an opportunity to correct that.

I just want to say that our faith is also based on reason.
This is one of the first things I learned in the very basic theology classes I took years ago. I was taught that our faith is a reasonable faith and can be based on reason.

Before one could come to believe the bible, they must first believe
Jesus existed
Jesus was the Christ
The N.T. stories are true
Why are they true?

My own walk showed me that believing Jesus and believing the bible are two different concepts. But this is personal and will be different for everyone. I believed in Jesus FIRST and then started reading the bible after a few YEARS!

Before studying anything, I had to come to some conclusion as to the veracity of the N.T. I did this by believing in our Lord and those who wrote about Him.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz

OK. Let's say it this way since I really do agree with what you say above.
We can check the historicity of Christ with means other than the bible. Josephus comes to mind.

In Rome, in the year 93, Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews. While discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate, Josephus included the following account:


About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)
http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

This is the only mention of Jesus outside of the gospels that I personally know of since this is a subject I never studied at all.

The O.P. is saying that this is intentionally done. It's intentionally done because those who are against Christianity like to cast doubt on agnostics and also on weak Christians who are easily swayed.

I believe that once one has come into contact with God, he will be strong no matter what is thrown his way and what objections he encounters.

To say that Jesus existed as a historical person, still does not accomplish too much, in my opinion. Was He who He said He was? Did the Apostles imagine Him to have qualities He really didn't? Did they really see Him after the crucifixion? Did they just want to establish a new religion?

I can't say that I've ever heard the above questions being spoken of in these documentaries. I have heard that the appearance of Jesus after His death was just a vision.

Still to this day, although it will be called circular reasoning, I like the proof of the bible best to show that Jesus not only existed, but that He was God incarnate...the death of the Apostles for their belief.

For me, it's impossible to think He did not exist as He was portrayed in the N.T. since all the Apostles, except maybe one, went to their death and/or imprisonment, or both, because of their belief in Him.

This is enough for me. If it isn't, it means the person will not believe unless God touches them personally.

I also agree that to combat this, it is important for a believer to have some response when confronted with this. Personally, I never have been.

There are discrepancies in the bible, this is a comfort to me, as I've already explained. (it eliminates the possibility of a conspiracy).

Wondering,

Please go back to my post #38 where I provide other evidence outside of the Gospels for Jesus' existence.

To say that Jesus existed as a historical person, still does not accomplish too much, in my opinion. Was He who He said He was? Did the Apostles imagine Him to have qualities He really didn't? Did they really see Him after the crucifixion? Did they just want to establish a new religion?

I can't say that I've ever heard the above questions being spoken of in these documentaries. I have heard that the appearance of Jesus after His death was just a vision.

You are hypothesising with some of your questions. Hypotheses need to be tested.

Where would you go to see evidence for your question, 'Was He who He said He was'? If you go to the Bible, you'll need some kinds of criteria to determine if it's a reliable source.

Are you a doubting Thomasess with your questions?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The Bible (as I'm sure you know) isn't a book but a collection of books. The Bible isn't a book on poetry but there are the poetry books for example. Here's how one site breaks it down:

The Old Testament can be broken down into the following categories:

1. The Pentateuch - Genesis to Deuteronomy
2. History - Joshua to Esther
3. Poetry and Wisdom - Job to Song of Solomon
4. The Prophets - Isaiah to Malachi

The New Testament can be broken down into these categories:

1. History - Matthew to Acts
2. Letters - Romans to Jude
3. Apocalypse - Revelation

This is the approach I was taught when I attended Bible college.

Here's another: http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible/divisionsofoldtestamentbooks.pdf
http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible/divisionsofnewtestamentbooks.pdf
http://www.biblecharts.org/thebible.html

:nod

Papa,

Let's take one of your examples: 'Letters - Romans to Jude'. Is there any history in these letters?

Take Galatians.

• 'To the churches of Galatia' (Gal 1:1). Did these churches exist in the Galatian region of Asia Minor? If they did, they were churches with historical roots. A historical investigation could find some details of their existence.
• Were Peter, James, John and Barnabas were involved in taking the Gospel to the Gospel to both Jews & Gentiles (Gal 2:8-10), were these individuals people who acted in history?
• 'But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned (Gal 2:11). Were Paul and Cephas people who acted in history? Was Antioch a city whose history can be investigated?

I'm raising these points because history is entwined with the teaching of this letter. Yes, it is a letter, but the letter and its theology would not have been possible without historical underpinnings.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

THis kind of rubbish sells books, fills seminars, and fills empty air for CNN and other similar entertainment networks targeting people who don't know any better.

The issue is not that they continue to publish such rot decade after decade and century after century.

The issue is why is there an audience to listen to or watch or read this junk? Why hasn't the CHURCH been so effective in preaching AND LIVING the Gospel that no one in their right mind would give such nonsense 5 seconds of their time?

There will always be detractors, liars, frauds, and scoundrels who make a living peddling that garbage.

The answer is not to try to silence them.

The answer is to preach the gospel at all times and, if necessary, to use words.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
(Mat 5:16)

Jim,

Yes, that does involve constantly preaching the Good News but it also includes defending the faith with apologia to counter the anti-Christian nonsense that is out there.

We get it here in Australia as well, especially around Easter and Christmas. I got so peeved by the junk I was hearing that I wrote this article for my homepage last year: Junk you hear at Easter about Jesus’ resurrection.

I'm considering resurrecting some of this material, editing it down, and presenting to a local newspaper that is online. I have written a few articles for Online Opinion, an online e-journal.

Oz

 

[chessman]

Perspectives in this topic:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reasonable-faith-podcast/id252618197?mt=2&i=1000383106856

http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/09/26/bible-tells-biblical-authority-denied/

http://northpointonline.tv/messages/who-needs-god/the-bible-told-me-so

 

[K2CHRIST]

I just want to say that our faith is also based on reason.
This is one of the first things I learned in the very basic theology classes I took years ago. I was taught that our faith is a reasonable faith and can be based on reason.

Before one could come to believe the bible, they must first believe
Jesus existed
Jesus was the Christ
The N.T. stories are true
Why are they true?

My own walk showed me that believing Jesus and believing the bible are two different concepts. But this is personal and will be different for everyone. I believed in Jesus FIRST and then started reading the bible after a few YEARS!

Before studying anything, I had to come to some conclusion as to the veracity of the N.T. I did this by believing in our Lord and those who wrote about Him.

God gave us the ability to reason and so it must be important. Still the Bible says faith comes by hearing! Bible mentions that all have sinned, how men tend to fall away from Him, that nobody comes to the Lord except drawn by God, so how good is our reasoning really?

I do believe we need to read about and remember what God has done. I do believe we need to read our Bible. I do believe that because we can reason that we need to consider the existence of God. And if we really have done that the only logical reasoning would be to seek the Lord for what He has to say to us, but we don't do that. If we did we would find that He does talk to us and has indeed been standing at the door talking to us and just waiting for us to open the door. But if He is indeed standing there knocking with His voice like is written in the Scriptures, our reasoning must really be letting us down badly. Because who, if they thought about it, wouldn't want the advice and counsel of God?

Of course by reason we should want to hear what God has to say to us. And Jesus said He would never leave us. So here is a question; How many times today have you (and I mean everyone who could be called 'you' and not just 'wondering') have you today already heard and talk to God almighty, God all knowledgeable, God your Lord Jesus Christ and listened to the words He personally had to say to you?

We all need to ask ourselves that question. I don't hear seek His voice and listen to Him nearly enough. But I hear from Him about a dozen times a day, and thought it is 8:20 Am this morning while I am writing this I have already heard from Him four or five times of which one of them was during a walking where we conversed back and forth for about 20 minutes.

When I got up this morning one of our three cats was feeling bad and having a hard time breathing. My wife wanted me to take the cat to the doctors today because she was off to work, I was suggesting waiting until she got off and we could go together then, That is what most of my conversation with the Lord was about. He started off by asking me if I really thought He was there. I heard Him ask me that, so indeed I believed He was there. He was telling me that making the cat well was an easy thing for Him (God) to do. I reminded Him that I had actually already pray and had asked Him to do it. "But what about Karen (my wife)? Did she first ask you to pray or start seeking Me, or did she first want you to talk the cat to the vet?". It was the vet of course that she thought about first. He then told me " that He could use the vet" and kept the conversation going by telling me how He uses people to heal others because that is according to our faith. He talked to me about faith and love, and how Karen loved the cat and that was important but is it our love of His love that is best? Never-the-less it looks like I am going to be calling my daughter to help me talk the cat to the vet because of where my wives faith is at.

My wife is a Christian and she also knows about hearing the small voice of the Lord, but I don't think she listened to the Lord at all this morning. So I am currently believing that God is going to use the vet to heal our cat, but I also work in a healing ministry where I see God instantly heal people, and I believe God could have instantly heal our cat. But He said according to our faith, and my wives reasoning caused her to seek the vet first. So is it our reasoning or Him that we are seeking???

Prov 2:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straights. Do not be wise in your own eyes. Fear the Lord and turn away from evil. It will be hearing to your body And refreshment to your bones.