Jesus

[Ovedya]

No serious student of history would ever deny that Jesus existed, so there is really no point at all debating the subject. Jesus existed.

The question, therefore, is whether the Jesus of the Bible existed. That is, whether the Jesus to whom the Bible attributes the various miracles that we read of in it, and to whom the Bible reveals as the true Son of God (The prophesied Messiah), is the same Jesus that all sane historians acknowledge existed.

Now, I wonder if any of you are familiar with the works of Aeschylus? If not, take a minute to Google the name. Aeschylus was a playwright - said to be the father of the Greek tragedy. He supposedly lived between 500 and 450 BC.

What if I said to you that I did not believe that Aeschylus ever existed, and that there was no conclusive evidence of his existence at all?

Would you believe me, or would you think me crazy?

[ted]

A stolen body?

Two Roman guards were set so that very thing would not happen at His grave. Upon the word that He was not in the grave, they trembled because they knew that they were in trouble.

No, I don't believe the body was stolen or hidden at all. No Roman soldier would risk his life for a Jew to make him step aside from that which he guarded.

Nice try.

t.

[WISDOM]

No serious student of history would ever deny that Jesus existed, so there is really no point at all debating the subject. Jesus existed.

The question, therefore, is whether the Jesus of the Bible existed. That is, whether the Jesus to whom the Bible attributes the various miracles that we read of in it, and to whom the Bible reveals as the true Son of God (The prophesied Messiah), is the same Jesus that all sane historians acknowledge existed.

Now, I wonder if any of you are familiar with the works of Aeschylus? If not, take a minute to Google the name. Aeschylus was a playwright - said to be the father of the Greek tragedy. He supposedly lived between 500 and 450 BC.

What if I said to you that I did not believe that Aeschylus ever existed, and that there was no conclusive evidence of his existence at all?

Would you believe me, or would you think me crazy?

Very good point. There's DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of his existence that can be researched through Greek history and corroborative resources.

[WISDOM]

Good point Ted. None of the disciples had motive to steal HIS body (they were hiding in fear of their own lives). The Sanhedrin and their supportive radical groups definitely wouldn't have removed the body, and if so, would it not have been VERY easy to produce it and shut down this talk of resurrection?! And the Romans could have cared less, because they didn't worship one GOD!

That's an awful lot to consider for a person who supposedly never existed!

[WISDOM]

Ok BA....I saw where you "editted" in your response to my question about what happened to the body of someone who Ratio may think never existed. So, let's talk a little here. Since the Jews historically had a physical concept of resurrection, one of the things they would do was to keep the bones of their deceased, and put them in storage to be preserved until the resurrection (granted the Saduccees didn't believe this) when The LORD would raise up the righteous dead of their nation of people and bring them together in the final kingdom.

Now, if CHRIST didn't exist, YET HE had all of those followers even BEFORE the Church was established, and HE was the righteous person all claimed HIM to be, wouldn't you honestly find it kind of strange that under the so called tight security provided around HIS grave that there were NO BONES ever found to be preserved? Incidently....no well known academic authorities today assert that the body was stolen (graverobbers or not). They've dismissed that form of thinking. So then that brings us back full circle to this....where is the body?

BA and Ratio.....are you going to respond?

[artsylady]

If you are a scholar and believe in the resurrection, then you are a Christian Scholar.

Much like a lawyer who happens to be a Christian is called a "Christian lawyer"? Don't laugh, I do know a few.

Are we talking about the same thing? Do you mean Bible scholars? I would say most of them by far are probably Christian and that's probably why they've chosen that profession.

[apothanein kerdos]

Scholars might disagree over the MEANING of Christ's resurrection (or even over whether Jesus should be called 'Christ', or whether His resurrection means anything), but very, very few historians are prepared to say the resurrection did not occur. A 'theologian' is much more likely to say that than is an historian.

Christians believe the resurrection, not scholars. If you are a scholar and believe in the resurrection, then you are a Christian Scholar.

matt

If you're a scholar and deny the ressurection, you're a liar or not really a scholar. There is enough historical evidence about Jesus that, if we are honest with ourselves, we have to accept almost all of the Gospels.

[Leonard]

Scholars might disagree over the MEANING of Christ's resurrection (or even over whether Jesus should be called 'Christ', or whether His resurrection means anything), but very, very few historians are prepared to say the resurrection did not occur. A 'theologian' is much more likely to say that than is an historian.

Christians believe the resurrection, not scholars.

matt

No, Matt. I use the word scholars very, very carefully. Many non-Christian scholars acknowledge that Jesus appears to have risen from the dead. Christian scholars attach a particular meaning to the resurrection. Anybody--even an atheist--can believe in the resurrection. It was simply an historical event. Like saying: "Joe ate a hot dog." And you are more than welcome to believe the historical event of the resurrection has no more meaning than Joe eating the frankfurter! However, you would play false to the normal rules of historicity to proclaim the resurrection did not take place.

It is a FACT Matt, that there are more 1st hand, 2nd hand, and 3rd hand reports for the resurrection of Jesus, than for any fact of the ancient world. But that Jesus rose from the dead, does not 'prove' He is the Savior Christians proclaim Him to be. Christianity comes into play in that we believe that Resurrection somehow means our salvation. Even secular historians acknowledge that Jesus did rise from the dead. Now some might argue that He wasn't really dead, perhaps, but still more people reported seeing Him alive after THEY believed they saw Him die, than people who reported seeing ANY other event of the ancient world.

Scholars who look at the issue at all, almost universally conclude the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. As a college teacher who tends to stay in touch with a lot of what's going on in academe, I assure you it is so.

So, I would very much like for you to produce those eminent scholars you claim exist, who put forth real academic arguments that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Leonard

[WISDOM]

You know Matt, I've found it rather interesting how you've avoided my question. Is that because you don't have an answer for me? A bit baffling, isn't it to say the least. However, don't worry. Every atheist I've asked that question hasn't been able to return an answer of substance to me. And that's basically because once you do some strong background research on the historical facts surrounding JESUS CHRIST, you'll find the evidence weighs VERY STRONGLY in HIS favor...that is, in being WHO HE claimed to be.

I figured you wouldn't be able to respond, so by not doing so my friend, you already given me your answer - you don't know. Thanks anyway Matt!

Edited January 24, 2006 by WISDOM

[artsylady]

Pretty much and I agree that most Bible scholars are just that because they believe the Bible to begin with. Of course there are some that study the Bible and just it's history. There are some of us that have studied Bible history and became skeptical and left however.

Probably true. I would think the percentages would be rather small, personally. There are archeologists who don't beleive that the Bible is the word of God either, yet they have little choice to believe in it's accuracy as a historical timeline. Faith is necessary and if they don't have it, they don't have it. They probably wish for their own personal reasons, to remain without it.

I brought up the fact, for instance, that there were 2 people, both named Jesus that were crucified and they lived 100 years apart from one another. So, which are we suppose to believe? If I'm Christian and want to support my stance, it would easily be the Biblical account.

I don't think that another person has the name of Jesus means anything at all. There are many out there bearing the same name today. In fact, some wacko, probably from California, just changed his name to Jesus Christ.

There are also characters that sought to fulfill prophecy and become the messiah, but you don't hear about those in church and that is honestly funny to me. Everything should be considered, not just the Bible. If not, then you are practicing Circular Reasoning and it's a Logical Fallacy.

Sure there are characters who sought to fulfill prophesy. Jesus had no control over many things like being born in Bethlehem, of a virgin, having visitors from the East as a child or being killed by the Jews for having done nothing. It wasn't a Jewish conspiracy remember. They wouldn't have wanted to have fulfilled this one. They despised him, yet helped him acheive this prophesy.

So if there was hundreds of prophesies surrounding a coming messiah, and there were a few kooks out there who claimed they'd fit the bill by claiming 2 or 3 , or even 4 or 5 of the prophetic attributes, why would we hear about these people in church? Why is that a logical fallacy?