Historicity of Jesus (Myth)

Be sure to watch the second video as well. It discusses how Christians (Jews who believed in Jesus of Nazareth) worshipped him as God immediately following the cross/resurrection. What would it take for such religious people to worship a man? Many of them to their death.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Jesus
• myth
• Historicity
• history
• historical
• christian
• christianity
• habermas

[TheThunderduck]

The new testament is NOT a historical document. They can't even get the year of Jesus' supposed birth right.

[nacker]

@TheThunderduck I forget... what year does the new testament claim Jesus was born?

[TheThunderduck]

@nacker The Gospels state that Jesus was "About 30 years of age" when he was crucified (supposedly, I don't believe the story at all) in 33 A.D. One passage says he was born under Herod's rule (Herod died around 4 B.C). Unfortunatley Caeser Agustus ordered 3 census' during hids rule. 28 B.C, 8 B.C. and 14 A.D. Which means the whole story of having to go to Bethlehem for the Census is crap. BTW, the Romans did not demand you return to the ancesteal home in a census.

[nacker]

@TheThunderduck I see where you are coming from, but I would encourage you to do some good investigation to double check your data and where you get it from. The Gospels do not state that Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was crucified. Luke 3:23 said he was about 30 when he began his ministry. Christ's age at his crucifixion would depend on how long one believes his ministry was. There is a lot of evidence that supports the validity of many censuses being conducted

[nacker]

in Judea at that time - as well as indications from other Roman territories that some of these censuses would require a traveling to ancestral homes. There is also grammatical possibilities in the original Greek language that the phrase translated - "first registration when Quirinius was the governer" could be translated, "the registration before Quirinius"... since the registration of Quirinius causes a rebellion, it would be a good marker of time a historian would want to use as

[nacker]

apposed to the one before it, that had little political significance. All of that to say this, - the issues you've brought up are not enough to write off the Gospels as historically false. If you'd like me to, I can try to find a peer-reviewed article discussing this information that I could link you to in a PM or something.

[TheThunderduck]

@nacker I started studying history when I was in elementary school and I'm now 46. I have researched. I read the Bible trying to get answers. What I got was a bunch of unbelievable myths and a God who's cruelty would make Hitler blush. One of my biggest problems with the whole story of Jesus is not one word, not one, was written about him while he was alive. This guy supposedly raised the dead and nobody bothered to comment about it in writing ???

[Jehstfan]

There are over 150 scholars Christian and not who stated the existence of Jesus.

[sirdelrio]

I encourage you people, to check "the historical jesus: scholars debate" where Habermass with Licona as sideshow both debate Robert Price on the authenticity of the 1st corinthians passage. You'd all see how Habermass uses all of his imagination and willpower in order to make the fundamentalist view come out right. No critical thinking, no rigurous method, no historical judgement, all wishfull harmonization. At some points it seems like he's going to cry. And licona only embarrases himself.

[sirdelrio]

Gary, Wells would grant you 1st corinthians is pauline, but i dont think he wouldjump into uncorrupted inerrancy like you do. Your favorite passage in corinthians, the creed, is contradictory with other aspects of the pauline letters. So either paul didn write this, or those, or he was lying in one. A word you might wanna include in your ancient history "scholar" vocabulary is INTERPOLATION.