bacht

My understanding is that the majority of scholars and laymen accept the historical existence of Jesus. The mythicist position is still a minority opinion.

There is already a huge body of material analysing every detail of Jesus' life as described in the New Testament. It is quite acceptable to take another look at the original evidence to see if another interpretation is possible.

Jesus was supposed to have risen from the dead. This is an extraordinary claim. Does the Christian tradition provide extraordinary evidence to support it?

aa5874

My understanding is that scholars REJECT the Jesus of the NT and are proposing some OTHER Jesus, but they are not really sure who this Jesus was. He may have been a wandering itinerant preacher but certainly did not say or do many things as described by the NT's authors.

Quite true.

Once it is claimed that Jesus MAY have existed, then it is reasonable to think or suggest that Jesus may NOT have existed, and the latter will always be true if no-one can show that Jesus MUST have existed.

Doug Shaver

They are mentioned in the Pauline epistles. Those documents are in no way dependent on the gospels.

Doug Shaver

Even before that stone was found, no skeptic ever questioned his existence.

It's interesting how quickly so many apologists assume that anyone who disagrees with them just hasn't done any research.

How much chutzpah does a Christian need to accuse anyone of being biased?

Prove it. Pick any historical figure you want, whose existence is disputed by nobody, and list all the evidence -- all of it -- on which historians base their belief in his existence. Until you can do that, you have no basis for any assertion about the equality of the evidence.

aa5874

So, how are you going to show that the Pauline Epistles are independent of the gospels?

I hope you not going to use the Epistles to corroborate itself, if so, then the epistles become inerrant. Paul cannot verify Paul.

Toto

Mountainman's favorite hobbyhorse has been split off here as irrelevant to the OP.

Doug Shaver

If you mean to ask how I'm going to convince you that they're independent, my answer is that I'm not even going to try.

But I will tell you why I believe they are independent. I believe it because I believe they were written several decades before the gospels were written.

aa5874

Did you read what you just wrote? In effect, you believe the epistles are independent because you believe your belief about them. How circular. There is just nothing there.


You just do NOT know when the Pauline Epistles were written or who actually wrote them.

You have failed to take into consideration that Eusebius in Church History was confused or did not even realise that there were more than one author who was using the name Paul.

You cannot use the Epistles to corroborate its own veracity, you MUST use some external non-apologetic source and there is NONE.

Your belief is irrelevant and may be completely erroneous if you do not have external information to support such a belief.

bacht

Sure, if you the mean the supernatural messiah Jesus. The orthodox Christ celebrated on Christmas and Easter is no longer the Christ of the scholars.

Popular writers give us "Jesus Christ Superstar","The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Da Vinci Code" etc, all based on the premise that there was SOMEBODY like Jesus that we haven't quite identified. Entertaining but wrong imo.

spamandham

If the epistles were written several decades prior to the Gospels, isn't it likely that they influenced the Gospels?