Koyaanisqatsi

What am I on ignore?

The only test is what the Romans thought. They were the ones who were supposedly hunting down and killing the disciples for "professing their belief" in Jesus, yes? Why would any Roman soldier kill any "disciple" for "professing their belief in Jesus?"

:huh:

Sarpedon

Quiet, you.

The last thing religious believers want to hear is that their little cult is utterly irrelevant to non-members, and the world doesn't revolve around them and their beliefs.

Koyaanisqatsi

Painted eggs-actly!

aa5874

You seem to be making contradictory statements, first you say that Christian academics haven't had a problem opposing orthodoxy, and then you say the christian does not hear what the historian says but adds all their baggage to the claims and thus render them unhistorical and going from ordinary claims which require little or no evidence to extra-ordinary claims which require an extra-ordinary amount of evidence- evidence we simply do not have.

It is evident from the very name or classification 'Christian' that these academic believers have no problem accepting that Jesus is historical. I am not at all concerned about numbers, I need to see on what basis a person makes a decision.

There is no evidence for the Jesus described in the NT.The NT has specific information about this Jesus. His birth is specific, his miraculous life is described at lenght, his death, his missing body, his resurrection and ascension are all written about, with at least four versions. This is the Jesus, in particular, we are trying to locate and there has been no evidence to support that Jesus, especially from historians.

To simplify my position there was never any person named Jesus who was the son of a woman named Mary who was conceived without sexual contact with a man. That is the Jesus I cannot locate in any historians writings

RPS

No there isn't. As I initially acknowledged: "And, as far as I can tell, the experts are unanimous that Jesus was an historical figure (with lots of disagreement over the details)."

There is more to the base story than this.

As best we can tell, Peter preached a crucified and resurrected Jesus that he saw in the flesh after that resurrection. He could only have not known that to be false, if it actually was false, had there been a mass hallucination. Do you have any evidence of that?

I agree that people can believe strange and unlikely things. But I've never seen or heard of (and can't even imagine) a scenario where someone "believes" something s/he knows to be false.

As established above, the misrepresentation charge is unequivocally false.

Those who reject Christianity have an interest in proving it to be false, as a mythical Jesus would accomplish for all intents and purposes. Neither apparent interest should negate apparently good scholarship without evidence beyond the alleged conflict.

Professionals can be and sometimes are wrong in their areas of expertise. But go to E&C any day of the week and look at YECs being criticized on account of what "scientists" think. Those who reject the professionals re Jesus are really no different in approach from YECs who reject evolution.

Quite obviously, historians disagree.

There is a huge difference between altered and created out of whole cloth.

I don't think he accepted any such thing. Neither does Fredriksen.

Sure it does. It means that MJ claims are false.

Again, the experts disagree.

So now you're arguing about what the historical Jesus did and said rather than denying His existence. That's a wholly different (and perfectly legitimate) issue.

And I agree, largely for the reasons you go on to state. The issue faced here is not what Jesus did and said but rather his very existence. An interpolated Josephus is extra-Biblical evidence of such existence.

Can you show a listing of peer-reviewed research showing such "substantial doubt"?

Historians are forced to deal with what they have.

You've moved the goalposts. We can legitimately argue all kinds of stuff about the historical Jesus. But the original issue related to mere existence.

There are three main possibilities -- wholly fake; wholly accurate; and partially accurate but interpolated. As I understand it, the partially accurate but interpolated view is the clear majority among scholars.

BTW, I see these problems as typically human rather than typically Christian.

Then I am corrected.

This isn't a problem limited to experts.

Yes, but all experts have powerful motives in all directions. Groundbreaking research that trumps the consensus is the best way to gain academic success and acclaim. Christian biologists haven't had a problem supporting evolution despite what some see as its powerful attack on Christianity.

Christianity isn't that strong an influence among most people. Besides, there are some, perhaps many, scholars with the integrity to follow the evidence where it leads.

The universe of non-Christian Jesus scholars isn't large, but Fredriksen and Vermes are as respected as there are in the field, as I understand it.

As the study of evolution shows, academia isn't heavily invested in supporting perceived Christian orthodoxy. In some cases, there is greater incentive to attack it.

We aren't discussing apologetic literature here -- Christian or anti-Christian. We're talking about real experts.

I don't see sufficient basis to claim that all the apostles died as martyrs for the faith.

As best as we can tell, Peter preached that he had seen a resurrected Jesus and was killed for his Jesus-affiliation. If he knew the preaching was false, why wouldn't he deny any current affiliation if it allowed him to save his skin?

It's a matter of observation, not education.

I think their very ordinariness makes the case more powerful. Think of Watergate -- men among the most powerful in the world with an unbelievably huge investment in maintaining a lie and they couldn't do it.

I don't think there's any such thing.

The NT itself is evidence. You just interpret it differently than the academic consensus does.

enoch007

Firstly to admit I've only scanned the posts above and if I am repeating something someone said above, I apologize for being redundant.
Briefly scanning the above I think I noticed many answering the question directly, listing examples of sacrificing for a "lie" or other dubious causes, etc.

But I wish to contend with the original premise, that is: Many who knew Jesus died believing in him. Now I may be somewhat mistaken without the copious research necessary to track down all data on any actual historical figures who professed first hand knowledge, but as a point of genreral principle, many of those who may have witnessed, who knew, who saw etc the actual personage of jesus, and professed to be followers of same, perished in circa 70 AD in the seige of Jerusalem. That is where the Christian Church of Jersualem supposedly met it's end, and many elders of that Church, including James the Just, met their ends. And they did not meet their ends professing Jesus but caught up in a religio-political revolt against Roman occupation and sacrelidge, a rather nationalistic pursuit. Now, of course, Christianity went on to propagate itself in Gentile communities and these produced their share of martyrs but these cannot be counted as eye-witnesses of the ministry of Jesus. Now,there were Christians who met their end as a result of internal Jewish religious violence, again, what true ratio of eye-witnesses to simple converts I do not know. But conversion is a very strong and persuasive element that can exert tremendous influence on any individual, without the necessity of being on hand, eye witnesses to the origins of any belief. Sometime more so in the absence of first hand knowledge.

gracebkr

I will give you it was unequivocally altered. I will not even go into that. The point is Jesus' name is there. His divinity could have been forged. It is an account referring to his existence. Which is my only point here to those who argue He even existed and that He is a myth. Argue his Divinity all you want, I will disagree.

gracebkr

It is blasphemy.

gracebkr

Someone called me a Christian apologetic on here and I had to look up what that meant. LOL

Barbarian

If by a historical Jesus you mean an ordinary human being who did all or some of the ordinary and mundane stuff Jesus is credited with in the gospels, then I am agnostic on the issue of his existence, leaning nonetheless more towards accepting the historicity of such a person. But a historical attestation of this ordinary layer of the Jesus story is absolutely not helping the Christian cause, which is entirely and exclusively built upon the supernatural component of the story, upon the resurrection and the other lesser miracles. I am of the opinion that the TF references to the miraculous layer (he was the Christ etc.) are undoubtedly wholesale interpolations, while the ones to the ordinary layer may or may not be; I am leaning towards accepting their authenticity.