Existence of Jesus (preaching, bible, mission, myth)

[nightflight]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

The rapid growth in Christianity in the 1st century certainly seems to be adequate reason to believe.

By that same logic the rapid growth of the Mormon Church is evidence that Joe Smith really did have golden tablets.......

[Salt & Light]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

1. There are far better Christian Biblical historians and scholars than John McDowell that you could use. He's no scholar in my understanding of the word. Mainly because he writes from "faith" that the Gospels and letters in the NT are actual facts and are "inspired" by a god, so doesn't make any effort to actually investigate ALL the evidence, especially anything that contradicts his beliefs.

Speaking of “investigating evidence” have you presented anything other than personal opinion?

Originally Posted by Jaymax

2. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about who may have mistranslated the Hebrew word almah as virgin. I meant that whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Greek was the one that wanted to make it clear that Jeshua was supposedly born of a virgin to fulfill the requirements of a Jewish messiah. To make the prophecy fit, this person probably translated the Hebrew word for "young woman" from the Isaiah verse into the Greek word pathenos (which does mean virgin as you say) when he referenced Isaiah's prophecy in relation to what an "angel" visiting Joseph was supposed to have said.

So far this remains an unsupported opinion which rejects examination of cultural views, to name just on factor.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

3. You are using the Gospels to prove the Gospels, on the assumption that they are actual true stories when there is no proof that any of the Gospels were actually written by any actual eye-witnesses.

So far we can use this method because you have not presented credible evidence that would indicate they are forgeries.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

4. The Gospels contradict each other both in details and in the theme of the messages of their stories, so these "eyewitnesses" apparently witnessed the same events very differently. They depicted "Jesus" saying and doing one thing in one story and doing or saying (or not doing and saying) something quite different in another story of the same event. So...who was right and who was wrong? Or did whoever write the stories just make up stories to support what they wanted people to believe? Try reading each of the 3 Synoptic gospels side by side and compare each individual "event" to see all the contradictions. As for the gospel attributed to John, the "Jesus" depicted there is completely different again and "said and did" completely different things to the other 3 gospels.

The Gospels were indeed recorded by different individuals from different perspectives. Each is directed to a different people group. This does not equate to the “contradiction” as you suggest. A careful review will confirm that they do harmonize but are not “identical”. Indeed if they were copies of each other there would be a concern that they were forgeries.

I invite you to please be specific in pointing to one of the “contradictions” you claim exists so that we can examine whether it is as you say. In other words, I’m asking you to support your claim.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

5. It appears you just copied and pasted most of your post from someone else's post on another website from 2002, presenting it here as your own thoughts and not as a quote of someone else's work. Is that the behaviour of a "sincere student" and "discerning researcher"? I'd call it plagiarism. Unless you're the person called Ralph on that website? Perhaps I should just post a reply to Ralph's points on that other website? I bolded the portion of your post that belongs to this Ralph person.

I’m sorry; I don’t know Ralph nor did I copy and past my post from the website that you found that has virtually the same information that I used. Welcome to the information age! I do indeed have the rights to use the text that I posted and I'm confident that Ralph does too.

Originally Posted by Jaymax

7. There probably was an itinerant Jewish preacher/rabbi called Jeshua who was crucified as a criminal against the State. But each of the 4 gospels depicts a very different "Jesus" in their stories, as they clearly each had different agendas. And that's not even counting the agendas of the early church fathers. No wonder there are so many different denominations of Christians. It must be confusing to decide which particular version of "Jesus" they want to follow.

These concerns will be addressed when you submit an example to be examined as I requested for your item 4.

[JakeDog]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Can you answer any of these questions in regard to your ancestors who lived oh-say … 400 years ago? The church kept good records then also. In fact I believe that the majority of today's population would be hard pressed to prove the existence of their great-great grand parents using your prescribed method. And I can assure you that the survival of records from then is far more likely than those of ancient times.





There are indeed historical writings that confirm Christ Jesus as a historical living person.

• Tacitus – Roman historian
• Josephus – Jewish historian
• Lucian – Roman, Roman rhetorician and satirist
• Pliny the Younger - Roman lawyer and author

In addition there is the Talmud which is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history.

Maybe this can soothe that “very suspicious feeling” you’re having by giving you a starting point to begin your personal research.

Great great grandparents? Who cares? We know the exact birth and deaths for many historical figures of that time period- and it seems to me that when great importance is placed upon the death of someone, they would have mentioned the actual date that they died (if they really existed that is).
Tacitus- not contemperaneous and does not give any details, only appears to make passing reference to the existence of christians.
Josephus- Even most theologians acknowledge the dubious nature of this passage, which is likely attributed to Eusebius as there is no reference to this questionable and odd passage prior to his "tinkering" with Josephus. In any event, he is NOT contemperaneous, even if we believe Josephus actually wrote it.
Lucian-2nd century, not contemperaneous, merely speaks of the beliefs of the christians. Has nothing to say about Jesus himself beyond that which is provided by believers.
Pliny the Younger- born well after the death of Jesus, he gives hearsay accounts by christian fanatics. That is evidence of the existence of christian fanatics at the time of Pliny the Younger. Nothing more.
The absence of any mention of the historic jesus by any contemparenous writer is damming, and using the mention of the believers of christianity merely proves the existence of christians. We also have tons of historic mention of the followers of other son's of god- you understand this isn't evidence that those "son's of god" exist, right?

[Roxolan]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

I’m sorry; I don’t know Ralph nor did I copy and past my post from the website that you found that has virtually the same information that I used. Welcome to the information age! I do indeed have the rights to use the text that I posted and I'm confident that Ralph does too.

I'm not learned enough to comment on the rest of the debate, but this is ridiculous. Look, there's no problem with copy-pasting, as long as you mention your sources (whether this Ralph guy or somebody else), and nobody cares about copyright issues. But don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you wrote four paragraphs which, by pure coincidence, are word-for-word identical to what Ralph wrote.

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Speaking of “investigating evidence” have you presented anything other than personal opinion?


So far this remains an unsupported opinion which rejects examination of cultural views, to name just on factor.


So far we can use this method because you have not presented credible evidence that would indicate they are forgeries.


The Gospels were indeed recorded by different individuals from different perspectives. Each is directed to a different people group. This does not equate to the “contradiction” as you suggest. A careful review will confirm that they do harmonize but are not “identical”. Indeed if they were copies of each other there would be a concern that they were forgeries.

I invite you to please be specific in pointing to one of the “contradictions” you claim exists so that we can examine whether it is as you say. In other words, I’m asking you to support your claim.


I’m sorry; I don’t know Ralph nor did I copy and past my post from the website that you found that has virtually the same information that I used. Welcome to the information age! I do indeed have the rights to use the text that I posted and I'm confident that Ralph does too.


These concerns will be addressed when you submit an example to be examined as I requested for your item 4.

I found one other source for the EXACT same 4 paragraphs with the exact same wording you posted as your own work. Perhaps old Pastor Ralph is also a plagiarist? Or this Reverend Purkey fellow is a plagiarist too? Neither mention any references and present the work as their own, but they are both exactly the same as yours. Purkey's Bible Study Outlines

So where DID you copy and paste those paragraphs from? Where's your link? You do know that Plagiarism is theft and intellectual dishonesty? Stealing and lying? From a Christian?

As for my opinions, they are formed after reading a number of books by biblical scholars, including the book I'm reading at the moment -"Jesus Interrupted". So I can't give you online links to the text of these books to read. But I found a website that sums up a lot of what many other Biblical scholars think about the virgin birth. Here it is:
Myths surrounding the birth of Jesus

Now on to some contradictions and discrepancies. Surely you are not saying that there are NO contradictions in the Gospels? If so, I'd have to wonder what you were doing while you were reading them? Watching the football?

Harmonise? How? Do you put all the pages in a blender?

There's a good bit of plagiarism in the Gospels, but they certainly don't "harmonise". Most serious scholars generally agree that Mark was written first, then the authors of Matthew and Luke based their writings on Mark, but made their own additions and changes to suit the message they were trying to convey. John was probably written last and has a very different message to the other 3.

There are verses which are copied almost word for word, but there are also plenty of differences. It's obvious that not only were the authors writing to different audiences, they were writing about very different versions of the person they called Jesus and different versions of what he was supposed to have said and done or what his purpose was.

To make you do a bit of work instead of just copying and pasting answers from some other source, here's just a few questions for you. All of these questions have different and often contradictory answers depending on which Gospel you read. There are plenty more, but I think that's enough to start with.

Get back to us when you can answer them all without contradicting yourself or one or other of the Gospel authors. Tell us who is right and who is wrong? Some of these questions I've taken from Bart Erhman's books. I've given a few hints to make it a little easier for you.

-Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod? Or during the time that Quirinius was Roman governor of Syria? Or both? (Which is impossible as Herod died in 4 BC and Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 AD, 10 years after Herod died.)


-How many generations are there between David and Jesus? 28 or 41?


-Who was Joseph’s father? Heli or Jacob?


-Where did Joseph and Mary live before Jesus was born? Was it Bethlehem or Nazareth?


-Was Jesus born in a manger or was he born in the house where Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem?


-Was it 3 Wise men or 3 Shepherds who came to worship Jesus as a baby?


-Was there a general Census ordered by Caesar Augustus or did Herod order the slaughter of all male children under two? (Neither of which rather major events are mentioned by any historians of the time)


-Did Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt soon after Jesus was born or did they go to Nazareth?


-What Did the Voice at Jesus’ Baptism Say?


-Where Was Jesus the Day After He Was Baptized?


-Was Jairus’s Daughter Already Dead?


-How Long Did Jesus’ Ministry Last?


-When did the Cleansing of the Temple happen? A week before Jesus died or at the beginning of his ministry?


-When Jesus entered Jerusalem during the Triumphal Entry, how many animals did he ride?


-What happened at the trial before Pilate?


-What did Jesus tell the high priest when questioned at his trial?


-How and where did Judas die?


-Was Jesus crucified on Passover day at 9am in the morning or was it a day earlier on the Day of Preparation for Passover, sometime after noon?


-What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?


-What did the centurion say when Jesus died?


-When was the curtain in the Temple ripped?


-Who actually went to the tomb after Jesus had died and who or what did they see there?


-Did the disciples go to Galilee or to see Jesus ascend? Or did they stay in Jerusalem to see him ascend?

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by Fullback32

Thanks for the link and the author Jaymax. Sounds like good reading. I started life as a Catholic...went to Catholic school...the whole thing. I started questioning things I was being taught at a rather early age. Eventually I left the Church in 1984 and started looking at different Protestant denominations for a couple of years, but they all posed more questions than answers. Finally, I left it all behind around 1994. The more I researched Christianity and it's history, then compared it to Judaism, the more I realized it was so much hooey. I look forward to reading this man's work as he sounds like he is from a similar background. Thanks again.

I was brought up as a Catholic as well. The Brown Bomber Sisters of St Joseph.
Erhman has written some great books in my opinion and he has a style which is easy to read. Because he is now an agnostic, he doesn't get all caught up in assumptions based on faith which I find really annoying with some other authors. Early Church history can be fascinating, but I want to read about it from an historical, factual point of view, not a biased faith based one.

Happy reading!

[Jaymax]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

I'm not learned enough to comment on the rest of the debate, but this is ridiculous. Look, there's no problem with copy-pasting, as long as you mention your sources (whether this Ralph guy or somebody else), and nobody cares about copyright issues. But don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you wrote four paragraphs which, by pure coincidence, are word-for-word identical to what Ralph wrote.

Pastor Ralph.... and Reverend Purkey too, apparently. I couldn't find any other instances other than those 2.

Hmmm...those names almost fit together don't they?

Ralph and Purkey?

[Salt & Light]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Look, there's no problem with copy-pasting, as long as you mention your sources (whether this Ralph guy or somebody else), and nobody cares about copyright issues. But don't insult our intelligence by claiming that you wrote four paragraphs which, by pure coincidence, are word-for-word identical to what Ralph wrote.

Roxolan & Co.,

As was clearly stated the argument that Jaymax presented is by no means a “new or original” argument. It is an age old argument which has had innumerable reasoned responses presented to refute it. Please feel free to do a search on the topic so that you can become more familiar with the debate and comment from an informed perspective.

Again I will reiterate what we, as Christians, have been saying throughout this discussion.

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Unfortunately, you have failed to do so [support you opinion] while opting to take the Atheist default position of “We don’t believe you Christians because you cite sources that we don’t agree with”. Consequently that is not a defense at all, it is forfeiture by refusing to engage while ignoring a substantial body of evidence. That is your purgative but it does not prove anything other than the fact that you are following a belief system (the religion of Atheism) by what I would consider blind faith.

Most Atheists won’t accept anything as evidence purely because they disagree with it, not because of the integrity of the evidence. Most Atheists achieve their agenda by utilizing a few tactics that appear to be different but the end result is the same; the refusal to acknowledge evidence while neglecting to present evidence to support their position. The credibility of evidence is measured by its ability to balance or prevail over opposing evidence. So far I have not seen any opposing evidence that can be examined in the light. We have been presented with claims but no supporting evidence or enough detail to begin examining the validity of the stated opinion (claim).

[Salt & Light]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

Josephus- Even most theologians acknowledge the dubious nature of this passage, which is likely attributed to Eusebius as there is no reference to this questionable and odd passage prior to his "tinkering" with Josephus. In any event, he is NOT contemperaneous, even if we believe Josephus actually wrote it.

Josephus is indeed considered “contemporaneous”. He lived between 37 – 100 AD. He is recognized as a historian of that time and certainly interviewed people who were witnesses to the phenomena of Christ Jesus.

Your claim that Josephus is not credible simply doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny of his writings. As we know there are two quotes that mention Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities: The smaller Antiquities 20.9.1 and a larger being Antiquities 18.3.3. Both of these have been targeted by the Jesus-myth circle as partial forgery or marginally authentic due to transcription by Christian scribes. For example hyper skeptic G A Wells, rejects the small passage as a partial forgery or marginal gloss, as did Arthur Drews. Adding to this highly controversial argument, Wells says that it is "widely admitted" that both this passage, and the larger one are interpolations. [Well.HistEv, 18] However an impartial in-depth study will bring the researcher to the conclusion that Wells' "widely" estimation is quite a bit off.

According to Josephan scholar Louis H. Feldman [Feld.JosMod, 684-91] , 4 scholars regard Antiquities 18.3.3 as completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation as Wells does.) While Graham Twleftree [Twel.GosP5, 300] , offered an unusual view, rejecting the smaller passage on rather thin grounds of terminology , but strangely, accepts most of the larger passage as genuine!

I encourage you to check into this further. At least the skeptics of yester-year had the critical thinking skills necessary to develop the argument for the modern skeptic “scholars”. Consequently these arguments remain as fragile today as they were when they were first developed.

[Arjay51]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Most Atheists won’t accept anything as evidence purely because they disagree with it, not because of the integrity of the evidence. Most Atheists achieve their agenda by utilizing a few tactics that appear to be different but the end result is the same; the refusal to acknowledge evidence while neglecting to present evidence to support their position. The credibility of evidence is measured by its ability to balance or prevail over opposing evidence. So far I have not seen any opposing evidence that can be examined in the light. We have been presented with claims but no supporting evidence or enough detail to begin examining the validity of the stated opinion (claim).

Sounds exactly like what you christians do. Refuse to believe anything that is uncomfortable to consider or disputes your dogma. All of your evidence is valid only if all evidence against is valid.

You need to open your eyes (and mind) and truly examine evidence presented to you, instead of mrely saying it is invalid because you don't believe it.

Your type of arguement is one reason so many dismiss your faith. Belief because of a story supported only by supposition but termed inerrant/.