Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It is absolutely clear that Jesus contemporaries strongly believed that he did things for which there was and there remains no explanation within current understanding.

No. it isn't absolutely clear. Only the gospels, written decades later, speak about it...

100% this.

I think people have had the claim that the bible should be taken as a factual given hammered into them so much that they forget to actually pause and take stock of the fact that actually, the bible is simply a list of claims.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus ever having existed or doing anything remotely like the things claimed in the bible. Not one.

[Mudhammam]

100% this.

I think people have had the claim that the bible should be taken as a factual given hammered into them so much that they forget to actually pause and take stock of the fact that actually, the bible is simply a list of claims.

There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus ever having existed or doing anything remotely like the things claimed in the bible. Not one.

There are accounts written by people who would have known contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul, for example, and even though the Gospels weren't put into writing until at least twenty-five years after Jesus is thought to have been crucified, scholars almost always assent that kernels of fact can be extracted from them (coupled with Tacitus and Josephus, for example, it's likely Jesus had a brother named James, was baptized by a certain John the Baptist, and suffered crucifixion under Pontius Pilate).

[Fidel_Castronaut]

All still second hand though.

When we consider the record keeping of the day why is there silence from every possible governmental or judicial body that would have made a reference to this Jésus fellow? Considering the apparent hullabaloo surrounding his execution for example you'd think there would be at least something there.

[abaris]

There are accounts written by people who would have known contemporaries of Jesus, such as Paul, for example, and even though the Gospels weren't put into writing until at least twenty-five years after Jesus is thought to have been crucified, scholars almost always assent that kernels of fact can be extracted from them (coupled with Tacitus and Josephus, for example, it's likely Jesus had a brother named James, was baptized by a certain John the Baptist, and suffered crucifixion under Pontius Pilate).

Josephus, as I mentioned earlier, is a known forgery. And that's the one and only passage where an actual person named Jesus is mentioned. And all the other authors only talk about a group called christians, not a person.

But that aside. It doesn't matter, if Jesus as a person existed. Vicki Q claimed It is absolutely clear that Jesus contemporaries strongly believed that he did things for which there was and there remains no explanation within current understanding. That is untrue. There are no accounts outside the gospels for anything miraculous happening.

[Mudhammam]

Josephus, as I mentioned earlier, is a known forgery. And that's the one and only passage where an actual person named Jesus is mentioned.

There are two references to Jesus in Josephus. The longer one was undoubtedly tampered with but there's good reason to think it contains original information. Granted, Josephus came after the Gospels, but at least it demonstrates that relatively early on Jesus was viewed as a historical person.

And all the other authors only talk about a group called christians, not a person.

But that aside. It doesn't matter, if Jesus as a person existed. Vicki Q claimed It is absolutely clear that Jesus contemporaries strongly believed that he did things for which there was and there remains no explanation within current understanding. That is untrue. There are no accounts outside the gospels for anything miraculous happening.

That miracles occurred and that Jesus' followers believed he demonstrated divinity in some way are two separate issues.

[abaris]

That miracles occurred and that Jesus' followers believed he demonstrated divinity in some way are two separate issues.

Let me put it this way: That some people may have believed that miracles occured. And we know nothing about Jesus's followers outside the bible. There are no contemporary accounts, but there may well have been campfire tales. And as it is with such tales, they grow and grow.

The people Jesus supposedly preached to were superstitious illiterates that knew next to nothing about the world surrounding them.

The tales of Jesus aren't any more credible than Homer's Iliad. Yes, there is actually a city named Troy, yes, there has been fighting. But there's no evidence of Apoll showing up to shoot Achill with his arrow.

[Mudhammam]

Let me put it this way: That some people may have believed that miracles occured. And we know nothing about Jesus's followers outside the bible. There are no contemporary accounts, but there may well have been campfire tales. And as it is with such tales, they grow and grow.

The people Jesus supposedly preached to were superstitious illiterates that knew next to nothing about the world surrounding them.

The tales of Jesus aren't any more credible than Homer's Iliad. Yes, there is actually a city named Troy, yes, there has been fighting. But there's no evidence of Apoll showing up to shoot Achill with his arrow.

We agree on everything here except that "we know nothing about Jesus's followers outside the bible." There are numerous writings by Christians of various background that didn't make it into the Canon. One with a historical interest can't eliminate the value of such testimony as it regards early Christian belief and practice because of the author's conversion to Christianity any more than a person's allegiance to Greece or Rome, or an Epicurean or Stoic philosophy for that matter, discredits everything they say.

[abaris]

There are numerous writings by Christians of various background that didn't make it into the Canon. One with a historical interest can't eliminate the value of such testimony as it regards early Christian belief and practice because of the author's conversion to Christianity any more than a person's allegiance to Greece or Rome, or an Epicurean or Stoic philosophy for that matter, discredits everything they say.

I don't know if you're familiar with the works of Bart Ehrman. He gives an excellent account of how the bible came to be in his book "The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why".

There are numerous clips on the internet where he explains his premisses and he does a much better job in explaining it than I could ever do. Suffice to say, I agree with him on most everything he says about the validity of the old accounts and the texts that didn't make it into the canon.

[Mudhammam]

Waiting for his book Did Jesus Exist? to arrive in the mail. :-)

[Vicki Q]

Agree with the support for Bart Ehrman- probably my favourite non-christian writer.

Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.

Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.

Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.

Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.

It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.