CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[Vicki Q]

I don't think it's overwhelming, and there are people here, who have much more knowledge of the subject than I do, who would surely contest it. Whether or not Jesus was a real man and was really executed by provincial Roman authorities is rather beside the point, which is, are Jesus' claims true? His messianic claims are the keystone of your faith; if they are not true, then your faith is sorely misplaced. I see no good historical argument verifying those claims. What makes the Christian salvation story non-fictional, when its claims are as historically verified as the parable of Elisha?

Starting with the OP, hopefully we've reached the point of agreement that the story is about an innocent man being attacked by a large mob of teenagers threatening to kill him. God responds to protect His man, and in doing so a number of the young thugs had their non-existence double confirmed, or something.

Anyway, its hard to get morally outraged over the deaths of fictional characters; those who were doing so can now go and lie down in a darkened room with a cold towel on their heads listening to whale song, safe in the knowledge that It's All Right.



There may well be people on this site who would contest the historicity of the crucifixion, but academics in relevant disciplines don't bother. It is, however, useful that people do challenge this claim on websites, because in doing so they flag up to the rest of us the need to treat any information they provide with careful checking.

You are absolutely right that in order to avoid Jesus' claims about Himself going the same way as other non-historical stories, I would set out a clear historical case. As Paul put it, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”. If you check my posting history, you can find the line I take.

Indeed, Jesus' crucifixtion is a detail few historians would find objectionable. Unfortunately for us, the early Christians' obsession with the message of the Jesus story overshadowed their interest in the biographical or historical details of Jesus' life and death.

I can't disagree with much of this. It would be so nice to know what Jesus looked like, whether he was left or right handed, which websites he posted on regularly...

The gospel writers were operating to an extent within the conventions of their time, and were starting with the Greek bios format. I would agree they went some way beyond that, and the kerygma was an important purpose, but you have to start with a known genre or people don't know how to read you (see post 169).

I would challenge their lack of interest in Jesus' history (Luke certainly does in his introduction!). The bios may not be history quite in the way we do it (e.g. speeches are reconstructed rather than recorded), but it is intended as proper history.