1- The gospel message is not irrational or un-scientific, especially in light of modern physics

2- The gospel works - it has changed the lives of untold millions of people

3- It's a message that is desperately needed by all human beings.

4- Unless we've grown hard, there's a small voice in each of us telling us it's true.

Of course the gospel message can be twisted and mis-communicated - this is why we need one Church led by one man, the successor of Peter. It's also why our gatherings should be centered around the Eucharist (Jesus Himself) rather than a preacher.

Mark,

Very nice post. There are lots of examples, as you say, that show that the early church didn't just make up Jesus' life, death, or resurrection. When I think about the torture and deaths of 11 of the Apostles--none of whom recanted, but all of whom could have spared themselves if they had--I am sure that THEY believed in Jesus. Nobody endures such horror to defend something made up. This thought helps me, sometimes, too.

We at the Chamber of Commerce of Bugtussle, Oklahoma are weary of the utter lack of respect the rest of the nation has for us, this time from that city slicker from Seattle, Mr. Shea.

So while we suppose we should be honored for being mentioned in the same sentence as the town where Jesus was raised, we must protest most strenuously our fair hamlet once again being used to denote the American equivalent of a "jerkwater town" in ancient Palestine.

"If you are inventing a Messiah from scratch, you would never have him be from the first century equivalent of Bugtussle, Oklahoma [i.e., Nazareth]"

However, if you're trying to invent a Messiah from pre-existing traditions, then it makes sense to "line up" your candidate with one or more popular prophetic musings about where Messiah would come from. The jews of that time were crowning dozens of candidates as messiahs, and each group was cherry picking from one or more information streams passed down in jewish tradition.


"This complex relationship is, if you are just inventing a God, an enormous waste of time, leading to problems such as sects who honor John more than Jesus"

The John the Baptist figure was a necessary invention due to the popular ideas about some "Elijah" type figure coming before Messiah to prepare his way. So, the followers of Jesus crowned John the Baptist as that Elijah-type figure. Here we see again that the first century jews were inventing a messiah by lining up Jesus and other contemporary figures with pre-existing jewish musings about what messiah might be.

Jesus was fashioned to fit numerous pre-existing profiles of messiah, and this was good enough to convince his followers, but not most other jews or skeptics. It's too hard to make any messianic claimant fit all the prophetic traditions associated with him. You have to cherry pick some, and then close associates will find it convincing enough.

The jews of that time were crowning dozens of candidates as messiahs

Prove it.

The John the Baptist figure was a necessary invention due to the popular ideas about some "Elijah" type figure coming before Messiah to prepare his way.

Great. Then there should be dozens of other Elijah figures for your dozens of other messiahs. Name them.

Jesus was fashioned to fit numerous pre-existing profiles of messiah, and this was good enough to convince his followers

Right. That's no doubt why Peter's reaction to Jesus' prophecy of crucifixion was, "Right behind you, Chief!" and Jesus' response was, "You've always understood me, Peter. Way to go!"

Very nice post, Mr. Shea.

While I do not think much of Ms. Nelly's comments, I will say that she has a point about the number of would be messiahs at the time. Indeed, even John in the first chapter of his Gospel seems to need to remind us that the Baptist was not the messiah and the Baptist does go out of his way to subordinate himself in that gospel. Add to the list, Judas of Galilee (both the Acts of the Apostles and Josephus note this fellow), Theudas (not the one St. Paul was associated with), Anthronges, Shimo bar Kokhba a century or so later, Menahem from the Jewish Revolt....sorry, if even Spong can be right on occasion...well so can Ms. Nelly. And she is right on this one.

Hi Rob:

Yeah, I'm aware of the guys you cite. They do not constitute "dozens". Nor do they, in the slightest, resemble anything like the career of Jesus. Indeed, they tend to look like, well, the conventional contemporary Jewish conception of the Son of David, attempting a political overthrow of political enemies and re-establishing some sort of independent political state mechanism. No John the Baptist or Elijah figure. Big on swords, not so big on dying and rising from the dead. Nelly called J the B a "necessary intervention". The lack of a corresponding figure in these other messianic claimants (and really, only Bar-Kochba actually was hailed as Messiah, as far as I can tell) doesn't really sell me on how "necessary" J the B was to a fictitious messiah story. It looks a whole lot more like the gospels record him because he was real--like Jesus.

Wow. Until now I thought Bugtussle was the home of the Beverly Hillbillies. Now it's a place to stop and take a picture with a real life chamber of commerce!

Mr. Shea,

I preface this with the statement that these are not things I believe, but wonder how to answer them should they come up...
I have heard this kind of argument before as you describe being presented by Bishop Spong. But if he (and we) can think of these things, so too can an inventor of a messiah character. What I mean is this:
First level thinking is: What do I need to say to convince others I am the Messiah?
Second level thinking is: What are the arguments others will give to why I am NOT the Messiah?
Third level thinking is: What are the counters to those arguments?
and so on...

Couldn't Jesus or "Jesus' character inventors" merely have said to themselves "Everyone would expect that the Messiah will be some great political leader, so let's turn that on its head and use the 'He MUST be the real Messiah, because no man would choose a God to be hung on a tree, have complicated familial relationships, be born in bugtussle, etc.'"

If we can think it, couldn't they have?

That's right, Rob. The New Testament scriptures mention a few of these other messianic claimants, and then there are at least a dozen more from the apostolic period which are *known to written history*. If you click on this following link, about halfway down the page you'll see a list of messianic figures of that era. See: livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html

The top half of the page is useful as well, for it profiles a range of common prophetic jewish traditions about Messiah around which later claimants were evaluated, and perhaps even shaped.

About John the Baptist and Elijah, the gospels themselves discuss this expectation that there must be "an Elijah figure" to go with the Messiah, and John is given as Jesus' "Elijah." So, an Elijah was undoubtedly a necessary personage to accompany any messianic claimant, and it's no surprise that the apostles made John that Elijah. Someone had to be Elijah.

I don't think Spong's view holds up well against that history.

Basically, we know Jesus is the Messiah because of a convergence of evidences. Jesus certainly fit some of the prophetic jewish themes about Messiah. But that alone doesn't cut it. The contemporary eyewitnesses (apostles) to the resurrection are also key.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence, however, is that the apostles and Jesus **predicted the end of the Old Covenant Dynasty and acted in advance** to create a successive judaism that would be fully detached from the Temple, the animal sacrifices, the priesthood of Aaron, and the 12 Tribes--all of which went extinct at AD 70. History vindicated Jesus and the apostles as true prophets in this regard, and there is no way around this. The only possible successor to Mosaic Judaism is the New Covenant form, which we know to be "Catholic Christianity."

Funny how the Truthers who waste time pretending to try to get at the Truth never bother with the fact that the Jesus Myth twaddle has been debunked repeatedly.

http://tiny.cc/chYY8

If we can think it, couldn't they have?

You seem to be changing the terms of the debate. Now, instead of any sort of actual evidence that Jesus never existed, you are simply asking everybody to agree that it is somehow remotely possible, without a shred of proof, that the apostles could have chosen to created a fictional being called Jesus and attribute lots of wildly improbable characteristics to him.

It is also possible that there exist the Land where things do all melty and the Universe without Shrimp that the characters on Buffy the Vampire Slayer allude to. But I'm not gonna bet the farm on "isn't it possible?" suddenly morphing into "I know for sure Jesus (or Alexander or Einstein) never existed".

The longer I live, the more I think Trutherism is a species of mental illness.

I've occasionally thought of what a civil court case to establish the reality of Christ's existence and resurrection might look like. No eyewitnesses remain, but we do have some small number of contemporary records and a larger number of letters and accounts written by witnesses and their contemporaries.

It would make a worthy presentation.

Mr. Shea,

I'm sorry to have goaded you into such a difficult position so as to have to argue using principles and syllogisms. I should have not asked so much of you. I was merely following argument out to another conclusion. This, I see now, was clearly wrong of me, since it is abundantly apparent that our goal in this world is to administer discourse with healthy amount of vitriolic spite without actually addressing the issue, or at worst a backhanded compliment that an idiot can sometimes get the right answer. Thanks for adding to my knowledge base. I will be sure to come back again.

As a Catholic, I know and believe that not only was Jesus a real historical figure, but He is also the living, Eternal God who knows and loves me personally and unconditionally. Here is the surefire way to know without a doubt that Jesus was and is real.. open your heart and ask Him in.

The fact that you have taken the trouble to come to a Catholic web site to argue the non-existence of the Jesus Christ with devout believers is a testament to the power of the Gospel and and the truth of Christ's message and mission - Nelly, you are prescious to God,and though you cannot yet see it He is calling you out and to Himself - and one thing about the truth is, if you sincerely look for it, you will find it and when you do you will know the truth is a person - Jesus Christ - All the best to you in your search - you are in my prayers..And I hope you do indeed come back here to wrestle and wrangle with us - :]

Melinda et. al.,

I'm not convinced that Spong's "proofs" are too solid. Rather, I believe that it is a convergence of historical 1st century testimony, eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and the prescience of the apostles in predicting the end of the Old Covenant system and tribes that ensure that Jesus is Messiah.

As I mentioned earlier, history itself shows that the apostles and Jesus were true prophets in their prediction of the end of the Old Covenant Judaism decades before it took place. Contrary to all other then-contemporary jewish hopes and expectations, Jesus and the apostles predicted the end of the Old Covenant Dynasty and acted in advance to create a successive "New Covenant" judaism that would be fully detached from the Temple, the animal sacrifices, the priesthood of Aaron, and the 12 Tribes--all of which went extinct at AD 70, vindicating the apostles and Jesus.

In light of first century history, the only possible successor to Mosaic Judaism is the New Covenant form, which we know to be "Catholic Christianity." Jesus and the apostles alone were raised up as true prophets predicting the doom of Old Covenant Jerusalem and setting up the New Heavenly Jerusalem, the Catholic Church.

Since people can't predict the future, and since Jesus and the apostles DID accurately predict the future of their temple and city, they are true prophets as borne out by history.

Seriously? Did you read the comments? I do appreciate and will always need the prayers, but it seems as if you don't get what I'm saying. If you are only speaking of Nelly's comments, that's one thing, but you quoted me. I began my original comment by disclaiming that I don't actually think there is a problem with proving that Jesus existed, but was rather bringing up a difficulty in the discussion that one might reasonably assume that someone, non-believer or believer, might ask within the framework of a discussion on Jesus' historical existence. One speaking with authority as Mr. Shea does would be expected to easily see that and answer accordingly. He did not. I found that disappointing.

Remember that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica for those who shared basic principles in the existence for one God, and the Summa Contra Gentiles for those that didn't. This allowed him to skip unnecessary preparatory arguments with those that shared the common ground of faith, and yet still reason to the basic principles with those that did not. But in both, he presented arguments for and against each question, looking at it from every angle. I was attempting to do the same here. Unfortunately, Mr. Shea merely negated the worth of my question and made an argument ad absurdum where one was neither warranted nor profitable, the 'rebuttal' itself becoming the most absurd thing on the page.

It is our duty to know our faith. It is our duty to know it's principles and be able to argue to it with any and all. Consequently, we must, like St. Dominic, constantly seek to view the tenets of our faith from many angles, and hone our arguments for why we believe what we believe, not only for our own good, but for those times when we're are questioned by those knowingly or unknowingly outside the Church. The best place to do this is amongst ourselves first, which is why I, a Catholic, come to a Catholic website. Not to merely find out what's going on or get a pat on the back, but challenge myself and others to learn our faith all the more. We know not where our opponent is coming from, nor what they share as far as common principles, until the discussion is on. Semper paratus!

Given that you write like a Jesus Seminar skeptic, why do you say you are a Catholic?

My heartfelt apologies, Domiane!! - I did get you and Nelly mixed up - that's what I get for staying up way too late...LOL...and now that I look back at your replies I realize that you were simply disputing Mark's argument regarding Spong...but honestly considering the apparent tone of your some of your responses it was an easy mistake to make...atheists posts trolling the web looking for believers to argue with look eerily similar to a couple of your posts - but you were simply playing the devil's advocate to show how Spongs conclusions were not as worthy as Mark believed ...but that said I now see the point you were trying to make and do appreciate the clarification...sorry for the confusion:]

Melinda, Thanks. You get it. Playing the Devil's advocate is what I was doing. Apparently, if one doesn't read the clear discaimer right at the beginning of my question, then people might interpret the Devil's advocate as the Devil.

Roberta,
I am Catholic because Faith was given to me along with a heaping amount of grace to accept the gift. I don't know what Jesus Seminar skeptics write like. I've never seen one label himself as much in writing. But if they commonly read and quote our Church's greatest Doctor, and the lives of Saints, then the world is in a much better place than I think.
If challenging a man on a soap box to be more rigorous in his intellectual arguments is considered skeptical, then I am guilty. I am skeptical of ad hominem attacks. I am skeptical of indifference to knowing our Faith deeper and deeper. I am skeptical of those willing to ignore the substance of challenging discussion because it is not easy, or because on the surface their opponent seems to be presenting arguments against the faith, while not doing so as a proponent of the truth value of such statments. This is why I brought up the Aquinas reference. Many times he "argues" against the truth in his Sed Contra points, and if you isolate those arguments out of context, one could presumably and plausibly assume St. Thomas was not 'Catholic', and wrote like a Jesus Seminar skeptic as well.

Seriously, is intellectual discourse dead in the world? I am Roman Catholic, and an orthodox one at that, devoted fully to faithfully following the Holy Father, tradition, and Holy Scripture. But that shouldn't matter to whether or not my question gets answered, nor how. I asked a serious question. Why challenge my Catholicity in an ad hominem attack? Why can't anyone answer my question?

The sad reality is that I asked my original question because I didn't feel the author of this article was being very rigorous in his intellectual development of the topic. Now it's clear that almost nobody else is either, as shown by constant questioning of my Faith, implications that I must be atheist merely for asking a question. So sad. So very sad. Rather than asking someone why they call themselves Catholic when you so clearly are judging them to not be one, why don't you put your effort into converting them by answering their questions and learning something for yourself in the process?