Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[DeistPaladin]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars. And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. If you argue against evolution, the counter is not just "all the scientists say so" but also includes a mountain of evidence for it.

The logical fallacy with The Historical Jesus is called "appeal to authority" or saying something is true only because some smart people say so. Even experts in their field of expertise are required to produce evidence for what they believe and why.

Speaking personally, I now advocate for "The Jesus Moot" theory. The only detailed accounts we have on The Historical Jesus come to us through the Gospels and if they Gospels aren't reliable as historical documents or they don't tell a coherent, compatible-with-itself story, we'll never know anything about this mysterious figure and so his existence is moot.

Bart Ehrman and other divinity scholars are welcome to pursue this elusive Historical Jesus in their Ivory Towers and get back to me if they find anything.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened.

Please define "important events".

If you mean the supernatural events, such as the resurrection or the healing miracles, it's fair to say such public displays of divine power would have gotten attention. The best we have outside the Bible is an oblique 2nd century reference in the Annals of Tacitus.

If you mean the more mundane events, we can only assume they happened for want of any extra-Biblical confirmation.

There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down.

Elvis.

That one word.

Elvis.

How many "Elvis sightings" were there in the immediate aftermath of his death? How many people believed them? How many tabloid publications were there on this subject? And we live in a more skeptical time where fact checking is relatively easy.

Want another word?

Reagan.

How many conservatives today are unaware that Reagan raised taxes, negotiated with our adversaries, cut and ran in Lebanon, compromised with Democrats and did other things contrary to the GOP's iconic representation him. And this was within the lifetimes of those who remember him. I was one of his supporters as a young Republican.

How about Washington? He was barely in his grave before the ridiculous stories about the cherry tree were circulated.

Davy Crocket, a legend from my state. He existed. Do you think he really "killed him a bear when he was only three" as the song goes? That song dates to the same century as his life. Nobody cried "false" that we remember today.

There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen. People and places were named. Their children would still be around.

...and yet there were Docetics who thought Jesus was a spiritual apparition. Apparently this rival faction of Christianity was so significant as to get not one mention but two in the NT.

1John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Note that John doesn't appeal to obvious recent history or family that might have known Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. He doesn't dismiss the Docetics as crazy for denying an obvious recent historical fact. He condemns them with the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess".

Why?

The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Religions spread quickly all the time, sometimes even in the face of prejudice and persecution.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

In reality, pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation were serious problems with written holy documents, never mind oral tradition.

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story.

What do you base that on?

As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

...and?

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

Which empty tomb? There were at least two that we know of today, both claiming to be the real deal. That's not counting James Cameron's.

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

We have four contradictory accounts.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--

...or he rose up into the sky on the day of his resurrection according to the last chapter of Luke.

It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

Even if you could prove that, and prove that they were given the opportunity to renounce their Christ and refused (see letters of Pliny to Trajan where the Christians did curse Christ under threat and torture), it would prove nothing.

Jim Jones.
David Koresh.
The Hale Bopp, Heaven's Gate cult.

Fanaticism proves nothing.