Amaleq13

You should reread his comments. They are entirely on-target. Noting that a question suggests ignorance of a subject is not an insult. There is a significant difference between apparent ignorance and an accusation of stupidity, if only that the former can be fairly easily corrected.

Not at all. What it should do is inspire you to do more research since the questions do suggest an inadequate amount was involved in their creation.

No, it needs a complete make-over.

aa5874

But, is any information about Jesus of the NT really lost? There are four stories about Jesus in the Gospels that represent Jesus as the Son of God of the Jews, who was crucified, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Acts of the Apostles make similar claims, the epistles have the very same information, even the church writers do the same.

What information or evidence about Jesus of the NT that can possible be lost?

The information that contradicted the NT and church writers.

avi

Thank you Ben, great responses, I learned a lot reading this thread. Very well written.

mountainman

Dear Dave31,

Nice list of challenging questions.
If you dont mind I'll just respond to one ...

Christians destroyed all the Pagan temples, writings, history and killed the Pagan Priests because they (the pagans in the epoch of Constantine) knew the ancient historical truth that there was in fact no historical jesus, and that the the new testament canon was a fictional account. In the words of one of the christian emperors of the later fourth century Demolish Them !!!!!!!!!!!!! .

Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

This list relies rather to heavily on hearsay, and Ben has already pointed out that a lot of that hearsay was composed by people who were rather uneducated. It also doesn't really connect with the thesis...

But can I just comment on this part of the challenge?

Isn't it really too easy for people to go around demanding "prove things to me"? If we had a village idiot who couldn't read, demanding "prove something to me", would we respect him? Or would we demand that he acquire an education?

It's a terribly EASY form of polemic, requiring neither education nor intelligence; merely a determination to reject whatever may be proferred by anyone foolish enough to respond by raising whatever objections seem easiest. Is there anything that could not be 'rebutted' by someone from that approach?

Whether Christianity is true or not; whether conformity to societal values (the position that seems to be silently adopted by all the ex-Christians) is true or not; whatever the facts on any subject, surely they will not be reached in this manner, but only by intelligent examination of all the cases, and an evaluation of them that includes descoping whatever the enquirer wants to believe (or not believe).

Thus I think that this form of challenge, endemic in atheist polemic, in fact tends to discredit those who advance it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

I agree that Christians who claim the reality of the biblical Jesus have done a really lousy job of supporting that claim with good evidence.

The reality of the historical Jesus is quite a different story, and your apparent supposition that only Christians can accept it is quite groundless. I agree with Ben that your questions reveal a considerable lack of knowledge about modern notions of historiography.

aa5874

There is no evidence anywhere for a historical Jesus, the HJ is just a straw man.

All the evidence, or written information in the NT and church writings clearly described Jesus as the Son of the God of the Jews who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.

The evidence as presented by these apologetic authors are all implausible, fictitious, unrealistic.

Once the evidence provided by the NT and church writings are rejected then one cannot just assume that some other Jesus existed without any evidence.

What is the composition of the historical Jesus?

Jesus could have beem a composite of multiple real characters, that is, the original author of the Jesus story may have fabricated his Jesus based on a real magician, a itinerant preacher, a faith-healer, a failed messiah who was crucified and a holy ghost.

In such a case, Jesus of the NT can never ever be historical, but at so late a time, without no evidence or information, the HJ is just a futile, time-wasting character that cannot be re-constructed using the very same manipulated, incredible, anonymous stories.

How was Jesus of the NT composed, was he based on multiple characters?

Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer was a character based on multiple real characters. Tom Sawyer just cannot ever be a figure of history.


The HJ is a waste of time, no evidence or information is available.

show_no_mercy

Apollonius, Alexander of Abonutichus, and James the Just weren't claiming (or after the fact declared) to be god with a message for the entire world. And not just any message, but the most important message dealing with the world's salvation.

I actually have a reason why Jesus didn't write anything down or had anything dictated - he was a normal human being; an apocalyptic itinerant preacher who thought the world was going to end in a couple of years so there was no point to write anything down. Maybe the real Jesus was Barabbas...

Atheos

Actually, standard apologist fare for this question is as follows:

"God knew that if Jesus had written anything himself then everyone would take that one part that Jesus wrote and not pay attention to anything else".

This apology can be extended to include an explanation of why there is no physical evidence of the existence of an HJ.

"God knew that if Jesus had left behind so much as a sandal, everyone would worship that artifact rather than worship God".

Tidy apologetics for sure, but they leave us exactly where we began, with no reason to believe any of these extrordinary claims except for anonymous testimony and appeal to popularity.

spin

Seems you're moving the goal posts. This is what you said:

* Why didn't Jesus HIMSELF write anything or had anything dictated? He was around for about 30 years before he started his ministry (50 years if you accept Irenaeus); what the hell was he doing all this time?

That doesn't require Jesus to be anything more than someone who can write.

Was he illiterate? Couldn't such a figure write the gospel message in a couple of years or less?

Any way to ever test such a hypothesis? Short answer: no.


spin