So these guys existed, they were preaching, the same gospel, AND THAT PROVES JESUS EXISTED!!! what the fuck??? And where do you get that peter was the main apostle? the unwritten yet gospels!!!???? the epistles????
@sirdelrio This wasn't an attempt to demonstrate that Jesus existed, I think that's pretty much a given. What he was trying to demonstrate is that there is some reason to think that Jesus was raised, based on historical data that just about everybody accepts.
@standinstann You have to understand the difference between saying that Jesus was a person who lived and taught things that later became the Christian religion, and saying that Jesus was the son of god who was crucified, died, and was raised on the third day. Historians generally agree on the former, we have no way of testing the latter. the historical Jesus is in the same camp as the historical Socrates, not the historical hobgoblin.
This is the greatest distraction sophistry I-HAVE-E-VER-HEARD! IT'S AMAZING. he never got even nearer proving his point, he just threw some facts at our faces and claimed that they support the historicity of the resurrection. All they support is that the apostles were preaching at some time. Just because they were preaching a risen jeshua (savior) at year X doesnt mean the savior lived at year X minus Y. It means they were preaching.
I'd like to know how that kinder math figures have any weight as a refutation to the claims of critical scholars??? how do your figures, Gary, proof that Paul recieved the gospel from jesus??? where's the accordance??
@TonDogWayner I agree that Paul never met Jesus. BUT!! Paul claims he met Jesus' brother in the flesh, James. And he claims to have met Peter and John who knew Jesus in the flesh. They are a few other individuals who also met John who wrote in the 2nd century. To me most of the facts point to a historical Jesus! visit wwwdotjosephusdotcom to see the hard evidence that Josephus' TF actually discusses Jesus and his crucifixion by Pilate but rejects Jesus as Messiah as does Tacitus.
I will continue on top as I can't access the bottom lines for some reason.
Good question. Yes. At least for me.
I grew up in a Muslim country. But I grew up a Christian. Moving several times I was exposed to different cultures, so I applied their different theories to the world. So I really tried to make this work including a god. It did not work. So I tried the same without a god and everything fell into place.
So I have seen different sides have chosen the fitting one based on logics.
Zechariah 12:10 written in 520 B.C. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Verse 8 is the context & remember God will never share His glory for He is a jealous God, "The house of David shall be like God."
To Muslims remember Jesus kept His mouth quiet (dumb) in that He never recanted from His testimony despite Pilate scourging to get Him to recant.
Jesus said in Mark 14:62 "I am; & ye shall see the son of Man (His title for yrs at that time) coming in the clouds." Daniel 7:13-14
It's definitely a touchy subject. I highly recommend the book- Lord or Legend? - by Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.
The truth is that propagnada can be used both ways...to persuade people to believe in something that didn't happen, and to persuade people to believe something didn't happen when the best evidence points toward it actually happening.
It is to the benefit of each indidual to study the evidence honestly and thoroughly as possible and not just take another's word for it.
I am still working my way through The Jesus Legend, which combines scientific evidence available with biblical claims. Difficult, but rewarding.
Your other point is equally true: study the evidence.....
This proves the most difficult for me as there are so many claims to the ultimate truth.
I try to dissect as many statements as possible, but I am a strategic developer who is used to abstract models and their interpretation. My outlook is biased. I believe in facts and numbers.
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd look at ancient and modern texts to check the validity of the existence of a Jesus with the biblical features.
The problem is that for someone like me, the Bible-based texts are fiction, so I disregard them completely.
It is difficult for me to follow their line. Their narrative is tough as they insert a lot of quotes, so you are constantly switching between Bible and the text, which is tedious.
Then you need to keep track of the point and not get bogged down. Whew
Have you checked out Lord or Legend? It is supposed to be a summary of the same information written for us lay-people.
Why do you disregard the Bible-based texts on the outset? There is really strong evidence for them as solid history... unless one is a materialist/naturalist then he/she dismisses them on a purely philisophical basis...?
Most books on this topic are too primitive. If someone comes up with the same old Tacitus/Pliny/Clement arguments I simply ignore them.
No, no philosophical reason here, just plain evidence. I have not found one shred of evidence to substantiate any biblical text. We know the price of bread from the ~40 historians who recorded facts at the time and the place, but no mentioning of a Jesus of Nazareth. And there are too many contradictions in the Bible to make it trustworthy.
Is the entire content shown as falsified... certain key arguments have good counter arguments that show them fully 'wrong' or just showing them as not being fully conclusive?... Many texts on the subject discuss multiple points and it would seem to be difficult to say the entire text is "refuted" as much as shown as "shown as not fully conclusive." In the end, we all have to study the evidence as objectively as possible and come to a conclusion.
Though I have no definition of refuted I call a text refuted if
1. a peer to peer review has opened a number of holes or refuting documents
2. if I hear the same old arguments where contrary proof exists.
Like there are people still referring to Pliny the Youngers' letter to Rome asking for instructions. While mentioning Christians, this can't be considered proof that Jesus existed.
Other texts have been shown to be fakes or forgeries, so I reject them. It all collapses and amounts to nothing.
Much of everything we know about 1st century Jewish history comes from a single source - Josephus... he mentions Jesus twice... one is obviously interpolated... but not obviously fully forged. The other is not.
But the point is that there was not some large guild of historians waiting to record the actions of a Jewish rabbi... even if they other Jews were claiming miracles.
Much of what we know of the Persian wars only comes from Herodotus... 70 yrs after the fact.
A lot of what we think we know of Alexander the Great only comes from Arrian... 400 yrs after the fact.
I think that your standards are flawed. There is very large support for Jesus compared to the rest of history. The gospels are attested to in their writings style, linguistics, archaeology, context, etc.
If you put it like that, you are right. But I maintain that a single source is not enough. Alex left a lot of proof for his existence: texts, second accounts, coins, inscriptions. What about Aristotle?
I maintain there should be more speaking for Jesus. In the Bible, secular, historian proof, texts, eyewitness reports, documents of geological events, etc etc.
Only Josephus. Flawed, manipulated. Fake?
Can a God-oriented person deliver an accurate account of anything relating to Jesus Christ?
None of your witnesses can be independantly verified, and there are at least forty known scribes, writers, biographers, historians and philosophers who never bothered to mention the Christ figure.....even as a man.
There is no serious historical evidence for your Christ figure, and Habermas is a silly Christian apologist.
SHALOM! Did you know that Yeshua (JESUS) the Messiah suffered and died for the atonement of sins and resurrected on the third day. He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, therefore he was sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world by the sheding of his precious holy blood (see Isaiah 53:5-7, John 1:29, Hebrews 9 & 13:11-12 and Revelation 1:5). Yeshua HaMashiach is the atonement on Yom Kippur, AMEN.
Celsus dates around 150AD, very early. An Epicurean philosopher, he vehemently assaults the NT. Also, Porphyry is shortly after him and assails the NT for alleged contradictions, but is easily shown that these are superficial. But, how could they assault the text if there was no text? The NT text is very early, not late.
Dr. Habermas is brilliant. I wonder what the skeptics do with the fact that Celsus and Porphyry (Greek philosophers) attacked the Gospels very early. How could they attack something that didn't exist. Also, why do skeptics need to find some "phantom" book out there, not yet discovered? Why not just rely on the first hand accounts. Those accounts are full of proprietary first century knowledge.
The gospels fit extremely well as eye witness accounts, circulated during the lives of eye witnesses, within the 1st century oral/scribal jewish culture of the time. I'm not sure what you are quibling about over the definition of "first hand account".
There is no historical reason to mistrust the names attributed to the gospels. They would be Contempories of Jesus. At least two of them walked with him through out his ministry. One wrote down Peter's accounts (Mark), and Luke investigated the claims as a historian (see his historical accuracy in the book of Acts) The gospels have incredibly strong historical foundations as long as you investigate objectively instead of writing them off on the outset due to presuppositions.
Skeptics of the Bible search out a video on youtube named:" Non Biblical evidence as proof for Jesus"
Jehstfan 4 months ago
So these guys existed, they were preaching, the same gospel, AND THAT PROVES JESUS EXISTED!!! what the fuck??? And where do you get that peter was the main apostle? the unwritten yet gospels!!!???? the epistles????
sirdelrio 4 months ago
@sirdelrio This wasn't an attempt to demonstrate that Jesus existed, I think that's pretty much a given. What he was trying to demonstrate is that there is some reason to think that Jesus was raised, based on historical data that just about everybody accepts.
standinstann 1 month ago
@standinstann READ AGAIN THE TITLE. AND "historical data that just about everybody accepts" LOL
sirdelrio 1 month ago
@standinstann You have to understand the difference between saying that Jesus was a person who lived and taught things that later became the Christian religion, and saying that Jesus was the son of god who was crucified, died, and was raised on the third day. Historians generally agree on the former, we have no way of testing the latter. the historical Jesus is in the same camp as the historical Socrates, not the historical hobgoblin.
standinstann 1 month ago
This is the greatest distraction sophistry I-HAVE-E-VER-HEARD! IT'S AMAZING. he never got even nearer proving his point, he just threw some facts at our faces and claimed that they support the historicity of the resurrection. All they support is that the apostles were preaching at some time. Just because they were preaching a risen jeshua (savior) at year X doesnt mean the savior lived at year X minus Y. It means they were preaching.
sirdelrio 4 months ago
Freaking retard! your whole case and numbers support the critics!!!! He recieved the gospel from the apostles!!!
sirdelrio 4 months ago
I'd like to know how that kinder math figures have any weight as a refutation to the claims of critical scholars??? how do your figures, Gary, proof that Paul recieved the gospel from jesus??? where's the accordance??
sirdelrio 4 months ago
@TonDogWayner I agree that Paul never met Jesus. BUT!! Paul claims he met Jesus' brother in the flesh, James. And he claims to have met Peter and John who knew Jesus in the flesh. They are a few other individuals who also met John who wrote in the 2nd century. To me most of the facts point to a historical Jesus! visit wwwdotjosephusdotcom to see the hard evidence that Josephus' TF actually discusses Jesus and his crucifixion by Pilate but rejects Jesus as Messiah as does Tacitus.
boblackey1 7 months ago
I will continue on top as I can't access the bottom lines for some reason.
Good question. Yes. At least for me.
I grew up in a Muslim country. But I grew up a Christian. Moving several times I was exposed to different cultures, so I applied their different theories to the world. So I really tried to make this work including a god. It did not work. So I tried the same without a god and everything fell into place.
So I have seen different sides have chosen the fitting one based on logics.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
We have all made similar journey's, and are continuing to do so...
That is why intelligent, honest, and loving dialogue is so important.
I've come to believe that reality does not make sense except that God exists.
nacker 2 years ago 3
And you are entitled to it, no problem.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Zechariah 12:10 written in 520 B.C. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Verse 8 is the context & remember God will never share His glory for He is a jealous God, "The house of David shall be like God."
To Muslims remember Jesus kept His mouth quiet (dumb) in that He never recanted from His testimony despite Pilate scourging to get Him to recant.
Jesus said in Mark 14:62 "I am; & ye shall see the son of Man (His title for yrs at that time) coming in the clouds." Daniel 7:13-14
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
Pity so many people believe in propaganda, myths, legends, PR and marketing.
If I were rich I'd offer 1,000,000 to anyone who can offer proof of the existence of the Jesus with all the attributes in the Bible.
I'd never have to part with my money.
We know the price of bread and a theatre ticket at the time, but no mention of an eclipse or an earthquake.
No proof outside of the Bible.
No eyewitnesses. No contemporary record. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
It's definitely a touchy subject. I highly recommend the book- Lord or Legend? - by Gregory A. Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy.
The truth is that propagnada can be used both ways...to persuade people to believe in something that didn't happen, and to persuade people to believe something didn't happen when the best evidence points toward it actually happening.
It is to the benefit of each indidual to study the evidence honestly and thoroughly as possible and not just take another's word for it.
nacker 2 years ago
Point taken.
I am still working my way through The Jesus Legend, which combines scientific evidence available with biblical claims. Difficult, but rewarding.
Your other point is equally true: study the evidence.....
This proves the most difficult for me as there are so many claims to the ultimate truth.
I try to dissect as many statements as possible, but I am a strategic developer who is used to abstract models and their interpretation. My outlook is biased. I believe in facts and numbers.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
How is the Jesus Legend? Since reading Lord or Legend I've wanted to check it out... but my school work determines what I get to read right now.
nacker 2 years ago
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd look at ancient and modern texts to check the validity of the existence of a Jesus with the biblical features.
The problem is that for someone like me, the Bible-based texts are fiction, so I disregard them completely.
It is difficult for me to follow their line. Their narrative is tough as they insert a lot of quotes, so you are constantly switching between Bible and the text, which is tedious.
Then you need to keep track of the point and not get bogged down. Whew
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Have you checked out Lord or Legend? It is supposed to be a summary of the same information written for us lay-people.
Why do you disregard the Bible-based texts on the outset? There is really strong evidence for them as solid history... unless one is a materialist/naturalist then he/she dismisses them on a purely philisophical basis...?
nacker 2 years ago
No, I have not.
Most books on this topic are too primitive. If someone comes up with the same old Tacitus/Pliny/Clement arguments I simply ignore them.
No, no philosophical reason here, just plain evidence. I have not found one shred of evidence to substantiate any biblical text. We know the price of bread from the ~40 historians who recorded facts at the time and the place, but no mentioning of a Jesus of Nazareth. And there are too many contradictions in the Bible to make it trustworthy.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Hey man. I'll shoot you a Personal message with some books I've enjoyed. I have a few comments on your conclusions.
"Most books"?
Maybe you've been reading the wrong books. Surely you haven't read them all and can conclude from evidence that "most" of them are primitive.
There are a lot of people looking at the evidence and coming to different conclusions... we all have to sort through our presuppositions.
All the things you've discussed here have good talking points on both sides.
nacker 2 years ago
Agreed - on all points.
My experience shows that there are too many people still quoting refuted texts, like Habermas. This is what I call primitive.
Then there are people blindly and constantly quoting biblical passages. This is what I call primitive.
And then there's people telling me to look at the trees or starting with Pascal's wager. This is what I call primitive.
I think I'll have to write a book to get my thoughts sorted properly.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
What classifies a text as refuted?
Is the entire content shown as falsified... certain key arguments have good counter arguments that show them fully 'wrong' or just showing them as not being fully conclusive?... Many texts on the subject discuss multiple points and it would seem to be difficult to say the entire text is "refuted" as much as shown as "shown as not fully conclusive." In the end, we all have to study the evidence as objectively as possible and come to a conclusion.
nacker 2 years ago
Though I have no definition of refuted I call a text refuted if
1. a peer to peer review has opened a number of holes or refuting documents
2. if I hear the same old arguments where contrary proof exists.
Like there are people still referring to Pliny the Youngers' letter to Rome asking for instructions. While mentioning Christians, this can't be considered proof that Jesus existed.
Other texts have been shown to be fakes or forgeries, so I reject them. It all collapses and amounts to nothing.
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Much of everything we know about 1st century Jewish history comes from a single source - Josephus... he mentions Jesus twice... one is obviously interpolated... but not obviously fully forged. The other is not.
But the point is that there was not some large guild of historians waiting to record the actions of a Jewish rabbi... even if they other Jews were claiming miracles.
nacker 2 years ago
Much of what we know of the Persian wars only comes from Herodotus... 70 yrs after the fact.
A lot of what we think we know of Alexander the Great only comes from Arrian... 400 yrs after the fact.
I think that your standards are flawed. There is very large support for Jesus compared to the rest of history. The gospels are attested to in their writings style, linguistics, archaeology, context, etc.
nacker 2 years ago
If you put it like that, you are right. But I maintain that a single source is not enough. Alex left a lot of proof for his existence: texts, second accounts, coins, inscriptions. What about Aristotle?
I maintain there should be more speaking for Jesus. In the Bible, secular, historian proof, texts, eyewitness reports, documents of geological events, etc etc.
Only Josephus. Flawed, manipulated. Fake?
Can a God-oriented person deliver an accurate account of anything relating to Jesus Christ?
StopSpamming1 2 years ago
Can a God-oriented person deliver an accurate account of anything?
Can an anti-God oriented person deliver an accurate account of anything related to anything?
It all depends on our presuppositions... on both sides.
nacker 2 years ago
nacker,
None of your witnesses can be independantly verified, and there are at least forty known scribes, writers, biographers, historians and philosophers who never bothered to mention the Christ figure.....even as a man.
There is no serious historical evidence for your Christ figure, and Habermas is a silly Christian apologist.
intermediatespecies 2 years ago
Thanks for your constructive input :)
nacker 2 years ago
SHALOM! Did you know that Yeshua (JESUS) the Messiah suffered and died for the atonement of sins and resurrected on the third day. He was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, therefore he was sacrificed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world by the sheding of his precious holy blood (see Isaiah 53:5-7, John 1:29, Hebrews 9 & 13:11-12 and Revelation 1:5). Yeshua HaMashiach is the atonement on Yom Kippur, AMEN.
knightsofstjoan2004 3 years ago
Jeff could you tell me *when* Celcius & Porphyry "attacked" the gospels?
SethVincent 4 years ago
Celsus dates around 150AD, very early. An Epicurean philosopher, he vehemently assaults the NT. Also, Porphyry is shortly after him and assails the NT for alleged contradictions, but is easily shown that these are superficial. But, how could they assault the text if there was no text? The NT text is very early, not late.
JEFFSCOTTK1 4 years ago
Dr. Habermas is brilliant. I wonder what the skeptics do with the fact that Celsus and Porphyry (Greek philosophers) attacked the Gospels very early. How could they attack something that didn't exist. Also, why do skeptics need to find some "phantom" book out there, not yet discovered? Why not just rely on the first hand accounts. Those accounts are full of proprietary first century knowledge.
JEFFSCOTTK1 4 years ago
You must not understand what "first hand account" means.
TavishHill 4 years ago
The gospels fit extremely well as eye witness accounts, circulated during the lives of eye witnesses, within the 1st century oral/scribal jewish culture of the time. I'm not sure what you are quibling about over the definition of "first hand account".
nacker 4 years ago
I assure you I do. First hand accounts are eyewitness accounts (Matthew, John), or close documentaries of eyewitness accounts (Luke and Mark).
So what prey tell is your point? - out of curiosity.
JEFFSCOTTK1 4 years ago
TavishHill: Exactly. They don't understand what 'first-hand' or 'eye-witness' accounts mean.
Instead, these people believe that an anonymous author who writes something decades after the subject lived, is considered 'Contemporary'. -WRONG.
All the writtings of the Church Fathers in the first century prove, is that Christians believe in Jesus, not that he historically existed.
BoyintheMachine 3 years ago
There is no historical reason to mistrust the names attributed to the gospels. They would be Contempories of Jesus. At least two of them walked with him through out his ministry. One wrote down Peter's accounts (Mark), and Luke investigated the claims as a historian (see his historical accuracy in the book of Acts) The gospels have incredibly strong historical foundations as long as you investigate objectively instead of writing them off on the outset due to presuppositions.
nacker 3 years ago