Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (science, Hebrew)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are cherry picking what the Wiki article says and implying what it doesn't say. Most scholars do not deny that the gospels contain history though scholars disagree about which details are historical and which ones aren't. They simply recognize that the Gospels weren't written AS history. Nevertheless, as per the wiki article,
Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies,[²²][²³] the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.[²²]
However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.
Did Jesus Exist, The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, p.71
Ehrman doesn't believe everything in the Gospels is historical of course, but he does recognize their importance as historical sources of information.
You would completely trash the Gospels which is something that scholars don't do.
I missed this post and another one from an atheist critical of me when I wrote #563.
Quote:
You are cherry picking what the Wiki article says and implying what it doesn't say. Most scholars do not deny that the gospels contain history though scholars disagree about which details are historical and which ones aren't. They simply recognize that the Gospels weren't written AS history. Nevertheless, as per the wiki article,
Here's what the end of the article on the temple's destruction and it's impact on Christianity had to say:
"The death of Jesus on the cross would, in some ways, be justified as a fundamental part of Judaism by the end of the age of sacrifice, the end of the temple rituals. In Christianity, the essence of sacrifice would live on eternally through the death of Jesus."
The destruction of the temple ended the annual sacrifice and a new eternal sacrifice would replace it through Jesus' death. That's what the article is saying. Deny it all you want, but there it is in black and white:
It was the destruction of the temple that made possible the acceptance of Jesus' death as a one-time eternal sacrifice for all sins for all time.
Quote:
However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.
You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of--twisting the words of Ehrman to make them fit what you want his words to say. Ehrman is not saying the gospels are historical sources of information about Jesus. He's saying they're historical sources of information--PERIOD. That could be about the temple, about the topography of Israel, about the towns in Israel, about the occupation of Israel by the Romans and on and on. That's historical information.
When combined with his other statement about Jesus:
“In the entire Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
— Bart Ehrman (c.2012)
that pretty much nails shut the fact that Ehrman didn't consider the gospels to be historical sources of information about Jesus. He certainly didn't think Luke to be a credible historian and discounts everything Luke had to say about Jesus. And why wouldn't he and other secular Biblical scholars discount Luke? One only has to look at that ridiculous verse in Luke 22:43
An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
to realize Luke isn't writing history, he's writing theological religious belief which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus in a historical sense. How in the hell would Luke have known an angel appeared to Jesus? You claim Jesus told Peter and Peter told Luke, which is about the most ridiculous hearsay-riddled way of justifying the validity of Luke's statement anyone has ever heard. FLASH: legitimate historians don't accept hearsay as credible historic fact. In sum, Ehrman doesn't consider the gospels to be historical sources of information about Jesus, he never says that. He considers them to be historical sources of information about Israel in general.
I missed this post and another one from an atheist critical of me when I wrote #563.
Here's what the end of the article on the temple's destruction and it's impact on Christianity had to say:
"The death of Jesus on the cross would, in some ways, be justified as a fundamental part of Judaism by the end of the age of sacrifice, the end of the temple rituals. In Christianity, the essence of sacrifice would live on eternally through the death of Jesus."
The destruction of the temple ended the annual sacrifice and a new eternal sacrifice would replace it through Jesus' death. That's what the article is saying. Deny it all you want, but there it is in black and white:
It was the destruction of the temple that made possible the acceptance of Jesus' death as a one-time eternal sacrifice for all sins for all time.
You are doing the exact same thing you accuse me of--twisting the words of Ehrman to make them fit what you want his words to say. Ehrman is not saying the gospels are historical sources of information about Jesus. He's saying they're historical sources of information--PERIOD. That could be about the temple, about the topography of Israel, about the towns in Israel, about the occupation of Israel by the Romans and on and on. That's historical information.
When combined with his other statement about Jesus:
“In the entire Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
— Bart Ehrman (c.2012)
that pretty much nails shut the fact that Ehrman didn't consider the gospels to be historical sources of information about Jesus. He certainly didn't think Luke to be a credible historian and discounts everything Luke had to say about Jesus. And why wouldn't he and other secular Biblical scholars discount Luke? One only has to look at that ridiculous verse in Luke 22:43
An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.
to realize Luke isn't writing history, he's writing theological religious belief which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus in a historical sense. How in the hell would Luke have known an angel appeared to Jesus? You claim Jesus told Peter and Peter told Luke, which is about the most ridiculous hearsay-riddled way of justifying the validity of Luke's statement anyone has ever heard. FLASH: legitimate historians don't accept hearsay as credible historic fact. In sum, Ehrman doesn't consider the gospels to be historical sources of information about Jesus, he never says that. He considers them to be historical sources of information about Israel in general.
I know this goes over your head but since Christianity began some 40 years before the temple was destroyed, the temple's destruction had absolutely no part in the creation of Christianity are in Jesus being believed to be the Savior.
As for Ehrman, you just called him a liar because he said, in writing, that the gospels can and must be considered as historical sources in a book about the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. So of course Ehrman was referring to the gospels as historical sources for Jesus. Ehrman stated the following.
''As I will try to show momentarily, the Gospels, their sources, and the oral traditions that lie behind them combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed.''
Did Jesus Exist, The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, p. 70 [Written by the way in 2012]
Written by Erhman just before saying that the Gospels can and must be considered as historical sources of information. So instead of accusing me of twisting what Ehrman said you should have read his book for yourself.
Here. Listen to Ehrman for yourself in this very recent interview in which Ehrman discusses the gospels as historical sources for Jesus. You'll have to listen to it on YouTube itself because the video didn't embed properly. Just click on the link below the video.
Please read the Gospel of John then read it a second and third time. After three times you will find the truth. If after the third reading you still maintain your belief of its lies and or fabrication then I'm afraid there's no hope for you as you have committed the unpardonable sin which means youre unfortunately going to spend an eternity of separation in the Lake burning with fire. This is not an end for those rejecting the Lords offer of salvation. You dont die you live forever in Hell designed for the devils and their angels.
Why should we believe a gospel that had a whole chapter added almost 100 years after the alleged author allegedly died?
Boy, Mike it take some real brass rocks to tell University-educated PhD scholars who majored in Biblical studies and ancients religions and got their PhD's in those fields that they don't know what in the hell they're talking about. Leave it to you. Your ramblings have nothing to do with the reality of how the destruction of the temple and the loss of the sacrificial altar would have led to the adoption of the avatar Jesus as a one-time Lamb-of-God sacrifice to replace the annual sacrifice of the lamb which was lost, and I presented the evidence of just that. I mean it fits together like a hand into a glove. Most people would be capable of seeing the connection. But not you, no siree Bob. You're going to go with Paul being in Corinth between the 50's to the 60's so somehow that proves the temple destruction couldn't have influenced Jesus being chosen as the savior. Once again, only you know how those two fit together.
Sorry, I agree with Mike here. The one time sacrifice of Jesus is not only in Paul, it is specifically stated in Hebrews, as a replacement for the annual temple sacrifice. Both Paul's letters and Hebrews were written before 70 AD.
The destruction of the temple influencing later Christianity does not refute Mike's point.
I know this goes over your head but since Christianity began some 40 years before the temple was destroyed, the temple's destruction had absolutely no part in the creation of Christianity are in Jesus being believed to be the Savior.
As for Ehrman, you just called him a liar because he said, in writing, that the gospels can and must be considered as historical sources in a book about the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. So of course Ehrman was referring to the gospels as historical sources for Jesus. Ehrman stated the following.
''As I will try to show momentarily, the Gospels, their sources, and the oral traditions that lie behind them combine to make a convincing case that Jesus really existed.''
Did Jesus Exist, The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, p. 70 [Written by the way in 2012]
Written by Erhman just before saying that the Gospels can and must be considered as historical sources of information. So instead of accusing me of twisting what Ehrman said you should have read his book for yourself.
Here. Listen to Ehrman for yourself in this very recent interview in which Ehrman discusses the gospels as historical sources for Jesus. You'll have to listen to it on YouTube itself because the video didn't embed properly. Just click on the link below the video.
Okay, this is never going to get settled so I'll leave it to the readers to decide who has made the better presentation.
Okay, this is never going to get settled so I'll leave it to the readers to decide who has made the better presentation.
I'll bite...
You haven't made your case. You want to approach this like a lawyer approaches a case...claiming that all that's needed is the lowest standard of proof, which is the preponderance of the evidence.
Yet, what I've seen you do, too many times, is to 'switch it up'. From YOUR position, you only need "preponderance" of evidence against. But when the other side comes in, you demand a higher standard of evidence; that is, you want either 'clear and CONVINCING' evidence, and/or, you want "evidence beyond reasonable doubt'.
Sorry, but you can't have a double standard. Not in a law court. The fact alone that you demand a higher standard of proof than you're willing to provide could easily get your case dismissed in a heartbeat.
Sorry, I agree with Mike here. The one time sacrifice of Jesus is not only in Paul, it is specifically stated in Hebrews, as a replacement for the annual temple sacrifice. Both Paul's letters and Hebrews were written before 70 AD.
The destruction of the temple influencing later Christianity does not refute Mike's point.
Don't forget the authentic letters of Paul in complete form don't show up until the Codex Sinaiticus sometime in the 4th century, almost 300 years after they were purportedly written. That was plenty of time to add and subtract from the texts by the church--and we know for a fact tampering of the texts was rampant through the first few hundred years of the early church when they were trying to settle on what dogmas they wanted for their new religion. Additionally, historians aren't sure Hebrews was written by Paul--they just attribute to him for lack of anyone better to attribute it to.
I would ask the readers to consider this question:
If the Christian god really wanted us to believe Jesus was his divine son sent into the world to die for our sins, why would he leave historical matters related to Jesus so messy, confused and in such controversy that hundreds of books are written pointing out the evidence the gospel Jesus is a myth and Christian apologists have to write hundreds of books defending Jesus?
You haven't made your case. You want to approach this like a lawyer approaches a case...claiming that all that's needed is the lowest standard of proof, which is the preponderance of the evidence.
Yet, what I've seen you do, too many times, is to 'switch it up'. From YOUR position, you only need "preponderance" of evidence against. But when the other side comes in, you demand a higher standard of evidence; that is, you want either 'clear and CONVINCING' evidence, and/or, you want "evidence beyond reasonable doubt'.
Sorry, but you can't have a double standard. Not in a law court. The fact alone that you demand a higher standard of proof than you're willing to provide could easily get your case dismissed in a heartbeat.
Sorry, thrill. You didn't win this one.
Then let's take my claims one at a time, Mink. Are you up for that?
Why should we believe a gospel that had a whole chapter added almost 100 years after the alleged author allegedly died?
Christians never respond to that one. It's a sore point with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
