Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[Aractus]

Aw, did I hurt your fee-fees?

You are unable to post on-topic and repeatedly tried to shift the argument away from the topic. Goodbye.

---

Regarding the historicity of Jesus and what the gospels say about it, you all are taking the position not that they are fairly accurate until proven otherwise, but they are "hopelessly inconsistent" and unreliable until proven that they are not. Why should this be the default position, OR do you think that there is proof that they are inaccurate and unreliable? If so, please share.

Okay, clearly this is not directed at me, but I must respond. My argument isn't that the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts are major - they're relatively minor - but I'm asking the question of what Jesus taught. Now as I've shown he categorizes the Pharisees as changing the Law of God which is precisely what the first century Christians do in Acts 15/AD 50/the Jerusalem Council. It is also my argument that I agree with scholars that we have 99.5% of the original wording of the NT (and ~95% of the OT) and that the gospels were most likely written between 50-63AD including John. That doesn't mean all their facts are right, and we know for certain that some are wrong. For instance, Jesus casts Legion out in two entirely different locations (Mark/Matthew) and we are certain we have the original wording of those verses so at the very least Matthew or Mark is wrong in that verse. We also have two contradictory accounts of Judas regarding who bought the field. Both can't be right, either Judas bought it or the Jewish authorities bought it, or no one bought it - but both can't be right at the same time.

From the beginning of Luke: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

How is this not what you are looking for? Someone talked to eyewitnesses and wrote everything down? We rely on this standard all the time.

Oh there's no evidence that Luke ever talked to any eye witnesses. Paul did, but we don't have any evidence whatsoever that Luke had sources other than written for the life of Jesus.

The reason most scholars agree that Jesus not only existed, but was indeed crucified is the gospel accounts from 4 different groups of people, some mention of him from Josephus and Tacitus, but most importantly, that the early church would not have developed as it did had not a core of these things been true. This is called corraborating evidence and is considered very good evidence when judging historical events.

I agree with you, Jesus was indeed crucified sometime 30-35AD and most likely on the 4th day of the week (Wednesday as we would call it). But that doesn't prove that he was resurrected. The resurrection accounts are not written until at least AD 50.

You all have your head in the sand if you think Jesus did not live, teach, and die on a cross.

Again I agree and this thread is about identifying exactly what he did teach.