The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Saquist]

The Gospels—History or Myth?

Around the world the story of Jesus of Nazareth—a young man who changed the course of human history—is woven into the fabric of society. It is part of people’s formal and informal education. Many consider the Gospels to be the fountains of timeless truths and adages, such as, “Let your Yes mean Yes, your No, No.” (Matthew 5:37)

The Gospels have provided the basis and inspiration for courage, endurance, faith, and hope. Would you not, then, agree that it should take irrefutable evidence to dismiss these accounts as mere fiction? Considering the immense influence that the Gospel accounts have had on human thought and behavior, would you not demand convincing proof if someone wanted to cast doubt on their authenticity?


QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

♦ Could the Gospels be a masterful invention?

Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, says: “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ‘marketed the Messiah’ to make him conform to Christian doctrine that evolved after the death of Jesus.” While the Gospels were being written, however, many who had heard Jesus’ sayings, had observed his deeds, and had seen him after his resurrection were still alive. They did not charge the Gospel writers with any form of fraud.

Consider the death and resurrection of Christ. Not only do the Gospels contain reliable accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection but so does the apostle Paul’s first canonical letter to Christians in ancient Corinth. He wrote: “I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely.” They were custodians of historical facts regarding the life of Jesus.

The inventiveness alleged by modern critics is not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rather, it appears in documents of the second century*C.E. So certain unscriptural narratives about Christ were produced when an apostasy from true Christianity was developing among communities alienated from the apostolic congregation.—Acts 20:28-30.

♦ Could the Gospels be legends?

Author and critic C. S. Lewis found it difficult to view the Gospels as mere legends. “As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends,” he wrote. “They are not artistic enough to be legends. . . . Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.” It is also interesting that although noted historian H. G. Wells did not claim to be a Christian, he acknowledged: “All four [Gospel writers] agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry the . . . conviction of reality.” H.G. Wells, a creator of fiction disassociating the Gospel accounts as fiction.

Consider an instance when the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples. A good legend maker would likely have had Jesus stage a spectacular comeback, deliver a momentous speech, or be bathed in light and splendor. Instead, the Gospel writers simply describe him as standing in front of his disciples. Then he asked: “Young children, you do not have anything to eat, do you?” (John 21:5) Scholar Gregg Easterbrook concludes: “These are the sorts of touches that suggest a genuine account, not myth-building.”

The accusation that the Gospels are legends also stumbles on the strict rabbinic method of teaching that was in fashion during the time of the writing of the Gospels. That method adhered closely to learning by rote—a memorizing process using routine or repetition. This favors the accurate and careful rendering of Jesus’ sayings and works as opposed to the creation of an embellished version. (I'll be posting that in another thread)

♦ If the Gospels were legends, could they have been compiled so quickly after the death of Jesus?

According to available evidence, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33*C.E. This means that the accounts of his life were put together in a comparatively short time after his ministry ended. This poses a tremendous obstacle to the argument that the Gospel narratives are mere legends.

Time is needed for legends to develop. Take, for example, the Iliad and the Odyssey by the ancient Greek poet Homer. Some hold that the text of those two epic legends developed and became stabilized over hundreds of years. What about the Gospels?

In his book Caesar and Christ, historian Will Durant writes: “That a few simple men should . . . have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”

♦ Were the Gospels later edited to fit the needs of the early Christian community?

Some critics argue that the politics of the early Christian community caused the Gospel writers to edit the story of Jesus or add to it. However, a close study of the Gospels shows that no such doctoring took place. If Gospel accounts concerning Jesus were altered as a result of first-century Christian intrigue, why do negative remarks about both Jews and Gentiles still appear in the text?

A case in point is found at Matthew 6:5-7, where Jesus is quoted as saying: “When you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites; because they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men. Truly I say to you, They are having their reward in full.” Clearly, this was a condemnation of Jewish religious leaders. Jesus further said: “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations [the Gentiles] do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.” By quoting Jesus in this way, the Gospel writers were not trying to win converts. They were simply recording statements actually made by Jesus Christ.

There is much more. Consider also the Gospel accounts regarding the women who visited Jesus’ tomb and saw that it was empty. (Mark 16:1-8) According to Gregg Easterbrook, “in the sociology of the ancient Middle East, testimony by women was considered inherently unreliable: for instance, two male witnesses were sufficient to convict a woman of adultery, while no woman’s testimony could convict a man.” Indeed, Jesus’ own disciples did not believe the women! (Luke 24:11) It is thus most unlikely that such a story would have been deliberately invented.

The absence of parables in the episle and in the book of Acts is a strong argument that those in the Gospels were not aserted by early Christians but were spoken by Jesus himself. Additionally, a careful comparison of the Gospels with the epistles reveals that neither Paul’s words nor those of other writers of the Greek Scriptures were artfully reworded and ascribed to Jesus. If the early Christian community had done such a thing, we should expect to find at least some of the material from the epistles in the Gospel accounts. Since we do not, we can surely conclude that the Gospel material is original and authentic. (an epistle meaning a formal letter)

♦ What about seeming contradictions in the Gospels?

Critics have long claimed that the Gospels are full of contradictions. Historian Durant sought to examine the Gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

Seeming contradictions in Gospel accounts are often easily resolved. To illustrate: Matthew 8:5 says that “an army officer came to [Jesus], entreating him” to cure a manservant. At Luke, we read that the officer “sent forth older men of the Jews to [Jesus] to ask him to come and bring [the] slave safely through.” The officer sent the elders as his representatives. Matthew says that the army officer himself entreated Jesus because the man made his request through the elders, who served as his mouthpiece. This is just one example showing that alleged discrepancies in the Gospels can be resolved.

What of the claims of higher critics that the Gospels do not meet the criteria of real history? Continues Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial . . . No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”


WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION?

After considering the foregoing points, what do you think? Is there real, convincing proof that the Gospels are mere myth? Many find the questions and doubts raised about the authenticity of the Gospels to be shaky and unconvincing. Classifying the accounts of Jesus as myth and legend runs counter to how they are represented and recieved in ancient times. The existence of these accounts are positive indications of the historical value. Being centuries removed it would be most difficult to offer true detractions to it's testimony. But we all form our own opinions.

I am continuing to do research on this topic as the forums continues to bring the topic to light. An open persepective and objective consideration of the facts are prefered as are all other intelligent commentary.

[Sarkus]

The Gospels—History or Myth?
The Gospels have provided the basis and inspiration for courage, endurance, faith, and hope. Would you not, then, agree that it should take irrefutable evidence to dismiss these accounts as mere fiction? Considering the immense influence that the Gospel accounts have had on human thought and behavior, would you not demand convincing proof if someone wanted to cast doubt on their authenticity?A simple answer: no.

If someone wants to claim the Gospels as fact it is THEY who are making the assertion and the onus of proof is upon them to provide the necessary evidence.

And if they wish to assert the performance of the miracles within the Bible as described, they need to provide very good evidence indeed.

The Roman / Greek pantheon of Gods were also the basis and inspiration for the civilised European world - so you would have us believe these as more than mere fiction on this basis?
Or is it solely because the Gospels have had "a good press" since their writing in 100 AD or so, and have become so widespread that you think they are more deserving?

And the fact that they contain "timeless truths" is mostly irrelevant, as there is not a single idea in the Gospels that really goes beyond "do as you would have done to yourself".

So you're basically onto a loser in these forums with your approach - as no rational person would start with the assumption that they are truth, merely on the bases you have provided.

So - try starting from the assumption that they are fiction - and work upwards based on actual evidence, rather than trying to start at your claim and ask for it to be shot down.

[BlueMoose]

-Just some counter questions included in your post.

The Gospels—History or Myth?

Around the world the story of Jesus of Nazareth—a young man who changed the course of human history—is woven into the fabric of society. It is part of people’s formal and informal education. Many consider the Gospels to be the fountains of timeless truths and adages, such as, “Let your Yes mean Yes, your No, No.” (Matthew 5:37)

The Gospels have provided the basis and inspiration for courage, endurance, faith, and hope. (-So have other religions ?) Would you not, then, agree that it should take irrefutable evidence to dismiss these accounts as mere fiction? Considering the immense influence that the Gospel accounts have had on human thought and behavior, would you not demand convincing proof if someone wanted to cast doubt on their authenticity? (-This goes for other religions as well, so Shiva is by this definition/analogy existing God ?
Not attacking against the gospels, just the reasoning.)


QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER

♦ Could the Gospels be a masterful invention?

Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar, says: “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ‘marketed the Messiah’ to make him conform to Christian doctrine that evolved after the death of Jesus.” [/I](-Very biased opinion one might think ?) While the Gospels were being written, however, many who had heard Jesus’ sayings, had observed his deeds, and had seen him after his resurrection were still alive. They did not charge the Gospel writers with any form of fraud (-And we know this how ?)

Consider the death and resurrection of Christ. Not only do the Gospels contain reliable accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection but so does the apostle Paul’s first canonical letter to Christians in ancient Corinth. He wrote: “I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely.” They were custodians of historical facts regarding the life of Jesus.
(-From that point on Gospels are history, of course...)

The inventiveness alleged by modern critics is not found in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rather, it appears in documents of the second century*C.E. So certain unscriptural narratives about Christ were produced when an apostasy from true Christianity was developing among communities alienated from the apostolic congregation.—Acts 20:28-30.

♦ Could the Gospels be legends?

Author and critic C. S. Lewis found it difficult to view the Gospels as mere legends. “As a literary historian I am perfectly convinced that whatever the Gospels are, they are not legends,” he wrote. “They are not artistic enough to be legends(-Where goes the line, if that was what they were after ?). . . . Most of the life of Jesus is unknown to us, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so.” It is also interesting that although noted historian H. G. Wells did not claim to be a Christian, he acknowledged: “All four [Gospel writers] agree in giving us a picture of a very definite personality; they carry the . . . conviction of reality.” H.G. Wells, a creator of fiction disassociating the Gospel accounts as fiction. (-Did he give any reasoning how did he come to such conclusion ?)

Consider an instance when the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples. A good legend maker would likely have had Jesus stage a spectacular comeback, deliver a momentous speech, or be bathed in light and splendor. Instead, the Gospel writers simply describe him as standing in front of his disciples. Then he asked: “Young children, you do not have anything to eat, do you?” (John 21:5) Scholar Gregg Easterbrook concludes: “These are the sorts of touches that suggest a genuine account, not myth-building.” (-Thats if you are not building myth that such a passage would serve the myth) lol ;)

The accusation that the Gospels are legends also stumbles on the strict rabbinic method of teaching that was in fashion during the time of the writing of the Gospels. That method adhered closely to learning by rote—a memorizing process using routine or repetition. This favors the accurate and careful rendering of Jesus’ sayings and works as opposed to the creation of an embellished version. (I'll be posting that in another thread) (-And still the Gospels do contradict each other ?)

[I]♦ If the Gospels were legends, could they have been compiled so quickly after the death of Jesus?(-It would take 4 guys to do it in this case, they arent that long books.)

According to available evidence, the Gospels were written between the years 41 and 98 C.E. Jesus died in the year 33*C.E. This means that the accounts of his life were put together in a comparatively short time after his ministry ended. This poses a tremendous obstacle to the argument that the Gospel narratives are mere legends. (-That is if you believe the authors.)

Time is needed for legends to develop. Take, for example, the Iliad and the Odyssey by the ancient Greek poet Homer. Some hold that the text of those two epic legends developed and became stabilized over hundreds of years. What about the Gospels? (-How come that there is 1,200 Christian organizations in North America, it has developed for sure.)

In his book Caesar and Christ, historian Will Durant writes: “That a few simple men should . . . have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”

♦ Were the Gospels later edited to fit the needs of the early Christian community?

Some critics argue that the politics of the early Christian community caused the Gospel writers to edit the story of Jesus or add to it. However, a close study of the Gospels shows that no such doctoring took place. If Gospel accounts concerning Jesus were altered as a result of first-century Christian intrigue, why do negative remarks about both Jews and Gentiles still appear in the text?

A case in point is found at Matthew 6:5-7, where Jesus is quoted as saying: “When you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites; because they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men. Truly I say to you, They are having their reward in full.” Clearly, this was a condemnation of Jewish religious leaders. Jesus further said: “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again, just as the people of the nations [the Gentiles] do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.” By quoting Jesus in this way, the Gospel writers were not trying to win converts. They were simply recording statements actually made by Jesus Christ.

There is much more. Consider also the Gospel accounts regarding the women who visited Jesus’ tomb and saw that it was empty. (Mark 16:1-8) According to Gregg Easterbrook, “in the sociology of the ancient Middle East, testimony by women was considered inherently unreliable: for instance, two male witnesses were sufficient to convict a woman of adultery, while no woman’s testimony could convict a man.” Indeed, Jesus’ own disciples did not believe the women! (Luke 24:11) It is thus most unlikely that such a story would have been deliberately invented.

The absence of parables in the episle and in the book of Acts is a strong argument that those in the Gospels were not aserted by early Christians but were spoken by Jesus himself. Additionally, a careful comparison of the Gospels with the epistles reveals that neither Paul’s words nor those of other writers of the Greek Scriptures were artfully reworded and ascribed to Jesus. If the early Christian community had done such a thing, we should expect to find at least some of the material from the epistles in the Gospel accounts. Since we do not, we can surely conclude that the Gospel material is original and authentic. (an epistle meaning a formal letter)

♦ What about seeming contradictions in the Gospels?

Critics have long claimed that the Gospels are full of contradictions. Historian Durant sought to examine the Gospel accounts from a purely objective standpoint—as historical documents. Though he says that there are seeming contradictions in them, he concludes: “The contradictions are of minutiae [trivial details], not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.”

Seeming contradictions in Gospel accounts are often easily resolved. To illustrate: Matthew 8:5 says that “an army officer came to [Jesus], entreating him” to cure a manservant. At Luke, we read that the officer “sent forth older men of the Jews to [Jesus] to ask him to come and bring [the] slave safely through.” The officer sent the elders as his representatives. Matthew says that the army officer himself entreated Jesus because the man made his request through the elders, who served as his mouthpiece. This is just one example showing that alleged discrepancies in the Gospels can be resolved.

What of the claims of higher critics that the Gospels do not meet the criteria of real history? Continues Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial . . . No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.”-How is that, those couldnt be a metaphors of something else because...?)

WHAT IS YOUR CONCLUSION?

-No final conlcusion yet, suspicious to say at least.

After considering the foregoing points, what do you think? Is there real, convincing proof that the Gospels are mere myth? Many find the questions and doubts raised about the authenticity of the Gospels to be shaky and unconvincing. Classifying the accounts of Jesus as myth and legend runs counter to how they are represented and recieved in ancient times. The existence of these accounts are positive indications of the historical value. Being centuries removed it would be most difficult to offer true detractions to it's testimony. But we all form our own opinions.

I am continuing to do research on this topic as the forums continues to bring the topic to light. An open persepective and objective consideration of the facts are prefered as are all other intelligent commentary.

-You are welcome, gotta study more the subject before commenting more.

[spidergoat]

-The influence of the Gospels should have no bearing on their historicity.

-This: They did not charge the Gospel writers with any form of fraud.

Contradicts with this: ...apostasy from true Christianity was developing among communities

The people that wrote and compiled the orthodox collection of gospels would have considered the opinions of the "apostates" to be heretical. Already we see disagreement about what Jesus' life and death meant. The orthodox put a label on those who disagreed with them, effectively shutting them up. I wonder how much actual violence was involved.

-Overall, I think your analysis is more religious than scholarly.

[Saquist]

A simple answer: no.

If someone wants to claim the Gospels as fact it is THEY who are making the assertion and the onus of proof is upon them to provide the necessary evidence.

And if they wish to assert the performance of the miracles within the Bible as described, they need to provide very good evidence indeed.

The Roman / Greek pantheon of Gods were also the basis and inspiration for the civilised European world - so you would have us believe these as more than mere fiction on this basis?
Or is it solely because the Gospels have had "a good press" since their writing in 100 AD or so, and have become so widespread that you think they are more deserving?

And the fact that they contain "timeless truths" is mostly irrelevant, as there is not a single idea in the Gospels that really goes beyond "do as you would have done to yourself".

So you're basically onto a loser in these forums with your approach - as no rational person would start with the assumption that they are truth, merely on the bases you have provided.

So - try starting from the assumption that they are fiction - and work upwards based on actual evidence, rather than trying to start at your claim and ask for it to be shot down.

It's your opinion Sarkus but I can't agree with where you're placing the burdeon of proof. Hardly anything in any ancient is actually provable. You see it's not I "claiming" that the gospels are history. The gospels themselves present themselves as historical. So I see it as if you're going to assert against the source documents implication of validity it would do to have a valid reason why.

-Just some counter questions included in your post.



-You are welcome, gotta study more the subject before commenting more.


Thanks, I 'll definitely consider them tonight. And I certainly appreciate your foot work.

[Saquist]

-The influence of the Gospels should have no bearing on their historicity.

-This:

Contradicts with this:

The people that wrote and compiled the orthodox collection of gospels would have considered the opinions of the "apostates" to be heretical. Already we see disagreement about what Jesus' life and death meant. The orthodox put a label on those who disagreed with them, effectively shutting them up. I wonder how much actual violence was involved.

-Overall, I think your analysis is more religious than scholarly.


Apostasy occured only after the last of the apostles had died. Intresting note: This was predicited.

In anycase it's not a contradiction to say the people at the time found no fault with the writings vs...after when behavior toward those teaching and writing become subjective to the point where they are today.

To bolster my "religious perspective" or spirituallity as you see it I've given numerous scholarly points to illistrate. And they're are many more.

[spidergoat]

That isn't true. Mary Magdalene had quite a different interetation of the resurrection than the other apostles. The truth is the gospels contain a little bit of history, and a lot of creative interpretation.

[Saquist]

I'll look that up spidergoat.

[spidergoat]

She felt her vision of Jesus was not literal, and that anyone could cultivate it. It seems likely that the orthodoxy would be against such a notion, since they wanted to claim sole authority to decide what is true, on the basis of apostolic succession. Mary's vision would form a decentralized theology on the basis of personal revelation, and so rob the church of political power.

[Pandaemoni]

I am not sure any of those writings existed anywhere near the time Jesus was alive. None of them was even written by the apostles, or anyone who knew Jesus personally, so far as we know.

As for no one charging them with fraud...how would they? They people who heard Jesus speak likely never heard the early versions of the Gospels. There were no printing presses, no Internet, and no one to cry "fraud" to other than your friends. Jesus did not preach to an incredibly literate crown in general, so the ones most likely to make the charge are least likely to have recorded the charge.

So far as I know, know one who knew Jesus ever renounced gnostic teachings as "fraud" either, nor would I have expected them to.

The Bible that exists today is an interpretation of Jesus' life and teachings, and it may or may not be the one He would have sanctioned. That, there is no objective way to ever know.

There were sizable "Christian" communities that rejected the divinity of Jesus at the same time the gospels were being written, and they had their gospels as well. In fact, even within the gospels we have the sermon on the mount (Matthew) and the sermon on the plain (Luke), which many scholars would tell you are likely two versions of the same event, happening in two different locations. How? Because one or both of the gospel writers got the setting wrong and each set forth the sermon itself in his own way. What mattered to them was not the historical accuracy of the sermon, but the message it conveyed.

There are references in the Gospels to historical events and people, and then there are references to plainly ahistorical ones (like the census of "all the inhabited earth", which never happened...and even if there were a more limited census, that did not happen near the time of Jesus' birth, and never would have required that Mary or Joseph leave Nazareth...).

Clearly the gospel writers were seeking to convey the message of Jesus, but there's no evidence that they held complete historical accuracy to be a major virtue. In fact these were writers who took on the names of the apostles, because writing under the name of a more famous, well-regarded person was a common thing in those days, which suggests a bit of a "marketing" mindset, rather than a scholarly one.

[spidergoat]

Ever see Roshomon? People can witness the same event and see different things. The apostles were like students, there is no guarantee any of them understood Jesus as he intended.

[SnakeLord]

Critics have long claimed that the Gospels are full of contradictions.

It is seemingly the case, from people in the tomb to when and how judas died to jesus' own last words. For now we can forego these things. Sure, one of the witnesses had counting difficulties, I get it.

What is worth looking at are the extraordinary claims:

http://www.snakeystew.com/l1.jpg

What we have here is an example indicative of Chinese whispers and "legend" making. The birth of a superhero right before your eyes.

The problem here of course is that we now have to dismiss all of them bar one as giving inaccurate information. That is certainly not a good start when someone declares something as true.

Please, explain the diagram.

[Saquist]

I have not found that scriptural quote spidergoat.
I'm however not well versed in the orthodox Christian teachings. They are mostly traditional and contradictory. Rarely do they stand eye to eye with what is written. Policitical Power is a common goal in Christendom and continues down to our day. Maintaining that control requires that we simply not ask Why or how but merely trust it blindly. I for one don't intend to preceed onto that particular course.

[Saquist]

Lets not draw impropper conclusions.

According to the dictionary a contradicition is much different from inacurracy.
A contradiction should require a clear an direct opposition to a subject point.
Omiting contrary to popular belief is not in itself a contradiction.

We can put the participants on trial. Testimony is more difficult to trial. As a result we know perspective, which is a limited angle of view, differs from person to person. In a court of law we can not assume a will full contradictionor opposition of this level simply because of omission in testimony. This does not represent the requirement in my eyes for "contradiction" which is defined a opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas.


Asking a number of people the number of people at a concert will result in varying numbers. But it's more than just that. Because we are speaking of angels. We can not merely assume what one saw all saw.

To comment on the graph. I would need exstenive explanation as to it's meaning.
I look forward to it. Right now I'm off to pay bills

[spidergoat]

I doubt you will find anything about Mary's revelation in the scriptures.

[SnakeLord]

Lets not draw impropper conclusions.

According to the dictionary a contradicition is much different from inacurracy.

I'm certain it is. You will notice, if you read my post, that I did not assert that anyone be dismissed for contradiction, (I said we will skip them), but that they must be dismissed for being inaccurate. Why is it that as time passes more extraordinary events are added just like one would expect from any fictional story given a case of chinese whispers and some imagination?


We can put the participants on trial.

Actually you can't put anyone on trial. You can't even show that any of the authors were sane, or not snorting something they shouldn't be snorting. You have nothing but that very same text to claim that very same text as true. It's like a man writing down that he has a 13 inch penis and you accepting the claim on the basis that he wrote it. Who in their right mind would accept such idiocy?

In a court of law we can not assume a will full contradictionor opposition of this level simply because of omission in testimony

I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Whether that's because I am drunk or you type shit is unknown. I'll let you know in the morning. However....

If in a court of law the first witness said there were 2 people and the second witness said there were 4 people, a distinct problem would arise.

Asking a number of people the number of people at a concert will result in varying numbers.

What the hell, let's come up with an average... 60,000? I dunno but It's probably around there. Why are you trying to compare that to a maximum of 4 people? We're not talking concerts, this is nothing difficult.

I find your argument quite laughable. That nobody can be expected to count 60,000 heads accurately has what bearing on a maximum of 4 people?

Because we are speaking of angels. We can not merely assume what one saw all saw.

Nobody even agrees on that.

To comment on the graph. I would need exstenive explanation as to it's meaning.

That's self evident, even my daughter grasped the concept. She's 8.

[Revolvr]

Well Saquist, I’m not sure what research you are really doing on this forum. There are few here who understand Christianity at all, and many who hate it with a passion. They even think Christianity is evil and violent, as if there were Christian terrorist bombers running around killing people.

Most people here are very closed minded, who presuppose there can be no God, no Jesus other than fiction, no resurrection, no apostles. No amount of reason, logic or historical extra-Biblical evidence will sway them. Everything has to be a giant conspiracy.

The reason everything must be a conspiracy is worth discussing. All of the New Testament authors were murdered for their beliefs (save for one). They each had the opportunity to recant, or die. They chose death. No one would choose death for a fictional story. Therefore the anti-Christians have to prove the entire thing was made up, none of these people existed. Even the extra-Biblical references by Tacitus, Josephus and others, from where we get most of our knowledge of ancient Rome, must be corrupted when it came to Jesus. It becomes a conspiracy larger and more impossible than even the “911 Truthers” and the controlled demolition of the towers.

Ironically some of the most anti of Christians believe in the imploded towers myth. But I digress.

Every Biblical contradiction that might exist has been found and argued over for almost 2000 years. No contradictory archaeological evidence has been found. Those who believe have no issue with these contradictions as they all have easy explanations. Those who don’t want to believe keep rehashing the old arguments over and over hoping to find new non-believers. The so-called contradictions I have looked at are non-issues. However, as the Bible is an “inspired” work of men, I would expect some inconsistencies. This is unlike the Qur’an which contains the Actual And Literal Perfect Word of God. One single contradiction in the Qur’an renders the whole thing suspect. Not so with the Bible.

Though I have looked at the various claims of atheists, ultimately, religion cannot be understood intellectually. Christianity is the only religion I know of were believers are asked to form an actual personal relationship with God. Christians feel that relationship and know God exists because they feel His presence in a very real and profound way. That, Saquist, is why people believe the Bible is true.

[kaneda]

Bart D Ehrman's book: "Misquoting Jesus" shows us how the new testament came about. It should be a compulsory read for all christians.

The early gospels had no names. There is no evidence of when they were written and the fact that apologists and critics didn't quote from them even mid-second century suggest that they may not have been written till the end of the second century. We have a few verses that ended up in John, from 125 AD, then nothing till the third century when suddenly we have virtually whole books from the gospels. Why?

Outside of the bible, there is no evidence Jesus existed (other than known christian forgeries) and maybe the same with his disciples. It is strange in a time when the average person lived only 30 years that manuscripts were not written immediately to preserve the information but according to what is believed, people who did not know Jesus wrote it decades later.

Many religions which christians accept are all false often quickly grew up from nothing, gained huge numbrs of followers, even people willing to die for these false religions. Yet christians somehow believe there religion is different to these.

[Saquist]

I doubt you will find anything about Mary's revelation in the scriptures.

That makes my job a bit more difficult.

I'm certain it is. You will notice, if you read my post, that I did not assert that anyone be dismissed for contradiction, (I said we will skip them), but that they must be dismissed for being inaccurate. Why is it that as time passes more extraordinary events are added just like one would expect from any fictional story given a case of chinese whispers and some imagination?

Ah...that's where you're going. Well we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding. Should it be entirely unexpected when speaking of the power that it is suggesting.

[w1z4rd]

Are the Gospels history or myth? Ill go with historical myth.

[Saquist]

The ignominious execution of Jesus as a contemptible criminal provides “the most convincing argument against opponents of the historicity of Jesus,” states Trilling. Why? Because the execution “encumbered, even hindered, the dispersion of the new faith among Jews and non-Jews.”

~If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles! Furthermore, Jesus’ death is attested to as an historical event not only by the four Gospels but also by the Roman writer Tacitus and by the Jewish Talmud.~

The problem with recognizing particulars of the bible as historical and others as non historical is the indefinite nature that results. The task then is to decipher truth from fiction yet without hard proof all that is left is speculation. Even more profound, raw skepticism is left to guide the search and we might as well just draw straws.

Incredulous is not from my point of view a true point of contention. So I understand what you're saying but it seems the graph is break down of non beliveable situations. That's fine. I'm at a lost as to understand how this is a damaging counter points.

Well Saquist, I’m not sure what research you are really doing on this forum. There are few here who understand Christianity at all, and many who hate it with a passion. They even think Christianity is evil and violent, as if there were Christian terrorist bombers running around killing people.

Most people here are very closed minded, who presuppose there can be no God, no Jesus other than fiction, no resurrection, no apostles. No amount of reason, logic or historical extra-Biblical evidence will sway them. Everything has to be a giant conspiracy.

The reason everything must be a conspiracy is worth discussing. All of the New Testament authors were murdered for their beliefs (save for one). They each had the opportunity to recant, or die. They chose death. No one would choose death for a fictional story. Therefore the anti-Christians have to prove the entire thing was made up, none of these people existed. Even the extra-Biblical references by Tacitus, Josephus and others, from where we get most of our knowledge of ancient Rome, must be corrupted when it came to Jesus. It becomes a conspiracy larger and more impossible than even the “911 Truthers” and the controlled demolition of the towers.

Ironically some of the most anti of Christians believe in the imploded towers myth. But I digress.

Every Biblical contradiction that might exist has been found and argued over for almost 2000 years. No contradictory archaeological evidence has been found. Those who believe have no issue with these contradictions as they all have easy explanations. Those who don’t want to believe keep rehashing the old arguments over and over hoping to find new non-believers. The so-called contradictions I have looked at are non-issues. However, as the Bible is an “inspired” work of men, I would expect some inconsistencies. This is unlike the Qur’an which contains the Actual And Literal Perfect Word of God. One single contradiction in the Qur’an renders the whole thing suspect. Not so with the Bible.

Though I have looked at the various claims of atheists, ultimately, religion cannot be understood intellectually. Christianity is the only religion I know of were believers are asked to form an actual personal relationship with God. Christians feel that relationship and know God exists because they feel His presence in a very real and profound way. That, Saquist, is why people believe the Bible is true.


I'm aware of the attitude problem on sci forums. Perhaps my motives are steeped in idealism of bringing two seemingly opposed parties to the table of discussion. Foolish perhaps. I know there is a middle ground because I think I'm standing on it.

I live in a factual world. I live and breathe facts. From a question I allow the facts to shape the road ahead and as I progress the branching paths are the possibilities I'm more than willing to explore. I admittedly don't understand skeptisicm. It seems to have no other purpose but to bar one from exploring the possibilities being presented and with no other reasoning but incredulous and pointless demur. I was looking for something substantial fromt the antagonist and from what I can tell, it's not there.

I've recently run across Tactitus. I had never heard of him before but Josepheus is well known. I find what you say sound and reasonable. I have seen the 911 conspiracies. at some points I notice things that would question what happened but it's that it runs away rapidly into a long chain of elaborate coincidences....and I've always had a problem believing in endless coincidences that just happend to appeal a pattern. And when it's not a coincidence a conspiracy must be perfect to be undetectable or at least unproveable.

I did not expect to find your post so enlightening and well constructed Revovr.
Thank you for your honesty.

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, pity not a single Roman wrote about that execution. Also, Pilots form of execution was not crucifixion.

[Sarkus]

It's your opinion Sarkus but I can't agree with where you're placing the burdeon of proof.Unfortunately that is not how rational debates or even science begins.

Hardly anything in any ancient is actually provable. You see it's not I "claiming" that the gospels are history. The gospels themselves present themselves as historical. So I see it as if you're going to assert against the source documents implication of validity it would do to have a valid reason why.Drivel.

The gospels do NOT present themselves as anything.
The gospels are merely words on a page.
If you wish to present them as more than that then the onus of proof is upon you.
This is how science works.
This is how, hopefully, this debate will work.
You do NOT start with the claim and try to knock it down... you start with nothing and build up your claim.

The fact that you disagree with this tried and tested approach / method is irrelevant, and it is a trick that theists have tried over and over again to persuade others to listen to their ideas.
Otherwise anyone can claim anything and require others to prove them wrong:
"Oooh - did you know that gravity works differently on only one planet in the Universe - called Zlarbarg IV. This is truth. You must prove me wrong!"
It gets pathetic, doesn't it.


So I suggest you start again and attempt to support the position of the Gospels as more than myth with evidence. If the weight of evidence supports your theory - great.

[Myles]

[QUOTE=Saquist;1713399]That makes my job a bit more difficult.


Ah...that's where you're going. Well we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding. Should it be entirely unexpected when speaking of the power that it is suggesting.

How can human beings talk about things " beyond normal human understanding". That's got to be a first

[SnakeLord]

Well we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding. Should it be entirely unexpected when speaking of the power that it is suggesting.

What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

[Revolvr]

I'm aware of the attitude problem on sci forums. Perhaps my motives are steeped in idealism of bringing two seemingly opposed parties to the table of discussion. Foolish perhaps. I know there is a middle ground because I think I'm standing on it.



Well you might find middle ground within yourself, but it won’t be found here.

I mentioned Tacitus and Josephus but there are others to look up. There are many non-Biblical references to Jesus, his crucifixion, and the early growth of Christianity. These are non-Christian sources, so all are skeptical at best, hostile at worst, sometimes satirical.

In the first century we have:


Cornelius Tacitus,
Flavius Josephus,
Pliny the Younger,
Suetonius,
Mara Bar-Serapion,
Lucan of Samosata,
The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)


All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Some mention other early martyrs and corroborate some events in the New Testament. This is where we get most of our historical information about times around the first century AD. As someone else said, all of these have to be forgeries. Somehow early Christians, knowing they would later create fictional Gospels, had to get to these writings and forge them without anyone noticing. A vast conspiracy over 200 years in the making.

There are also other early non-canonical Christian writing and heretical works from the first century. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

[nova900]

More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

But..the roman emperor was not/is not passed off as a divine figure with a specific idealogy attached to it.In a sense the roman emperors were all regarded as Gods by the roman public but that is entirely different than a strictly religous figure.
The agenda in doing so would be quite different as opposed to a non-divine person.

[Revolvr]

So I suggest you start again and attempt to support the position of the Gospels as more than myth with evidence. If the weight of evidence supports your theory - great.

If you want to look at this in a more modern legal evidentiary sense, it’s been done. And much better than I could do here.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853): one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.”* Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system.

Greenleaf was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection.

After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, “Testimony of the Evangelists”.

“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”*


Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. Queen Elizabeth II knighted him twice. Luckhoo said:

“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”**


Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist, and an atheist. He decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

After compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Motivated by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, "The Case for Christ", which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader –

“remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.”***


[*Both quotes I use are from Greenleaf’s book or back cover]
[**from Sir Lionel Luckhoo, “The Question Answered: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” Luckhoo Booklets]
[***Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998]

[nova900]

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist, and an atheist. He decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

After compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Motivated by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, "The Case for Christ", which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader –




Strobels' main criticism is that he was very biased in his approach. He only interviewed evangelical conservative Christians.No liberal ones or any non-Christian scholars.
Nor did he interview any real critics of christian apologetics.
Strobel devoted an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd ;an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar, but Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself!

[Myles]

What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

Sorry for butting in;I could not resist the temptation

[Myles]

Rather than argue with revolvr, can I suggest that anyone interested should google luckhoo leaflets.

One of Luckhoo's leaflets explains why millions of Muslims are going to hell, the famous lake of fire. Some of the points he makes are intriguiging , to say the least, e.g.

Jesus died and rose from the grave. Mohammed is still in his grave

Mohammed is not a prophet because he is not mentioned in the Bible.

Muslims revere Jesus above Mohammed because Mohammed was only a man

There's a lot more of the same.

Whatever his reputation as a barrister, his "testimony" is no better than that of a street-corner preacher.

[Revolvr]

Rather than argue with revolvr, can I suggest that anyone interested should google luckhoo leaflets.

One of Luckhoo's leaflets explains why millions of Muslims are going to hell, the famous lake of fire. Some of the points he makes are intriguiging , to say the least, e.g.

Jesus died and rose from the grave. Mohammed is still in his grave

Mohammed is not a prophet because he is not mentioned in the Bible.

Muslims revere Jesus above Mohammed because Mohammed was only a man

There's a lot more of the same.

Whatever his reputation as a barrister, his "testimony" is no better than that of a street-corner preacher.

You have taken some things out of context. But I agree Luckhoo's writings on Islam are intriguing. He knows full well Muslims revere Muhammad over Jesus, but there are some interesting contradictions in the Qur'an regarding this. I'll take those ideas to a separate thread.

[spidergoat]

History: A bronze-age desert dweller with a philosophical bent pissed off the Romans and the Jews, and was executed according to law.

Myth: He rose from the dead because he was devine, and therefore all the secondhand stories about God should be believed.


There is no historical proof of Jesus rising from the dead, only the secondhand reports of peolpe believing this happened so fervently, that they died for it. Even if he was seen living after he was supposed to have died, that doesn't prove anything about God, or the validity of Jesus' teachings.

[Saquist]

Unfortunately that is not how rational debates or even science begins.

Drivel.

If you say so.
The standard of evidence maintained in the American court system, which is more rigid than the scientific method establishes vilification of first person's testimony as unjust. The engaging of "leading" and "harassment" through speculative deduction because of a lack of directly opposiing factual data is a line of reasoning that is struck and sustained from action and record. The reason for this is the predetermined standing of innocence which is inhereted by a witness or defendant. It is a status quo which can only be altered or overturned by a weight of evience. If they're were a weight of evidence against the witness these tactics would thus not be necessary to employ.


As to what the scriptures present themselves as, to which you say nothing. Your are incorrect. The scriptures make numerous statements as to "history" of "generations." The Gospels are firmly seated upon that history by the continued use and refrence of information from the Hebrew scriptures. At no point does it turn aside from a historical station.

wrong:
"Oooh - did you know that gravity works differently on only one planet in the Universe - called Zlarbarg IV. This is truth. You must prove me wrong!"
It gets pathetic, doesn't it.

That's not how it works my friend. There is no claim...no theory. Just testimony. They are not interchangable terms. And I think that is where you are going wrong. You seek to define the scriptures as a scientific claim or theory. There is no process being put forth, there is no tangible data to be examined. So for clarification. The Greek and Hebrew scriptures are testimony to events not theoretical claims to the workings of an observable and definable process. As such a scientific forum is an impropper cruicible due it's inability to observe the original enviroment and it's reliance on speculation and supposition that are at times necessary to begin an investigative process...again due to the lack of evidence.




What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

The striking of an event from diliberation begins with any direct opposition to testimony by an unbias outside source. Incredulousness to the occurence of an event does not establish anything factual concerning it's quality or condition of honesty.

For example: Concerning a theory. Lets call this instead testimony.
A man says he travelled to the bottom of the Marianas trench. Returning, he tells his colleagues that time slowed down.

That's testimony to an event.
Being incredulous of his testimony does not prove anything. Incredulity is a state of belief and nothing more. This would seem to strike the "Graph of Incredible events" from the lucubration of the available data.

Well you might find middle ground within yourself, but it won’t be found here.

Aye, I'm getting that sensation.
I don't think this community is capable of "fair hearing" proceedings from what I'm witnessing right now.


In the first century we have:


Cornelius Tacitus,
Flavius Josephus,
Pliny the Younger,
Suetonius,
Mara Bar-Serapion,
Lucan of Samosata,
The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)


All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Some mention other early martyrs and corroborate some events in the New Testament. This is where we get most of our historical information about times around the first century AD. As someone else said, all of these have to be forgeries. Somehow early Christians, knowing they would later create fictional Gospels, had to get to these writings and forge them without anyone noticing. A vast conspiracy over 200 years in the making.

There are also other early non-canonical Christian writing and heretical works from the first century. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

Oh I'm familiar with the Sanhedrin...
If you do construct a thread on this topic...I must admit I would be doing more listening and research than engagement. My center of study is engineering and intrest in quantum physics. I look forward to it.

[Myles]

Reference: Post 34

A man who claims time has slowed down may be disbelieved, in which case he will be asked for evidence. He can provide it by repeating the experiment and getting others to do so. His credibilitry rests on the outcome of a demonstration. No great difficulty there.

In a court of law a witness testifies( offers evidence ) which is then examined. His testimony must be suported by facts if it is to be admitted in evidence. The witness is making a claim and the nature of the examination places the burden of proof on him. This is how all rational discussions are conducted for reasons which are self-evident.

[Cris]

Even in Biblical Times People Asserted Christ Never Existed.

The whole purpose of the brief 2nd book of John is to admonish followers not to listen to the many people who were telling them the simple truth that Jesus never existed. The Catholic Bible dates the 2nd book of John to 90 A.D. Thus apparently it was a big problem only a few decades after the alleged time of Jesus. Read now the words of this book:

2 John 1:7-11 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

Thus, soon after Jesus allegedly existed, were so many people claiming that he didn't exist. And rather than approach these unbelievers in a rational manner and present them with overwhelming evidence that Jesus really had existed just a short time ago, and all the miraculous things said to have happened really did happen, the writer instead admonishes his readers to stay away from these people. "Do not take him into your house or welcome him." The writer stigmatizes these people as "the deceiver" and "the antichrist" who do "wicked work," and further stigmatizes anyone who should listen to them.

Thus, even very early on, whenever 2 John was written, which the Catholic Bible dates as being 90 A.D., there was a big problem of many people saying Jesus never existed. And the author's chosen way to refute these claims was by administering admonition and fear into the hearts of the believers.

The only way to maintain a falsehood is to stigmatize the truth to such an extent that it is heresy to even listen to it.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd4a.html

[SnakeLord]

The striking of an event from diliberation begins with any direct opposition to testimony by an unbias outside source. Incredulousness to the occurence of an event does not establish anything factual concerning it's quality or condition of honesty....

Alas I still fail to see any connection of this to my post. Kindly go back to my post and read it through. Thanks.

[Saquist]

Hold on...
Okay...
Ironicly I didn't see the relevancy of your point of increduility.
I attempted to address this and your graph in a manner explaining that such is not propper judicial process even if science regularly makes use of skepticism to prove against subject points.

[Cris]

Revolvr,

In the first century we have:

Cornelius Tacitus,
Flavius Josephus,
Pliny the Younger,
Suetonius,
Mara Bar-Serapion,
Lucan of Samosata,
The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)

All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ.Well, no. You are simply repeating Christian propaganda.

If you look objectively, all of these references, except Josephus, are simply hearsay accounts. The statements assigned to Josephus who did exist during the alleged time of Jesus did not appear in written form until around the 4th century when Christianity was being established formerly, (e.g. the Nicene Creed) and the Christians desperately needed some evidence to support their new religion. These statements were inserts way after Josephus was dead. It has been suggested that one of the Church fathers, Eusebius, probably did this, although that cannot be confirmed, but Eusebius did state it was perfectly OK to make false statements if that would further the Christian cause.

So really the only possible direct independent historical support for the existence of Jesus is several controversial statements that are widely held as forgeries. This is hardly credible or convincing to demonstrate the existence of potentially the most important figure in the history of mankind.

[Cris]

Saquist,

Not only do the Gospels contain reliable accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection but so does the apostle Paul’s first canonical letter to Christians in ancient Corinth. He wrote: “I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely.” They were custodians of historical facts regarding the life of Jesus.Except that Paul never met the alleged Jesus so this is pure created fiction, either original or copied from elsewhere.

[Myles]

Reference: Post 38

The proper judicial process requires that evidence be citically examined to establish the facts. No supporting facts, evidence dismissed

[Revolvr]

And the author's chosen way to refute these claims was by administering admonition and fear into the hearts of the believers.


When one starts with the belief Jesus did not exist, one then needs to speculate about how this conspiracy took place. All of this is pure speculation based on the initial presupposition. However if you actually bother to read the Bible, John is not talking about people who say Jesus never existed. He is talking about people who believe Jesus is not the Christ. Nothing unusual here that even raises an eyebrow. This speculation, or more accurately wishful thinking, eventually becomes rather fantastic when the whole conspiracy is put together.

Of course there were many who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Paul admonishes people to seek out and talk to people who DID meet Christ after the resurrection, more than 500 people who Paul said were still alive when he wrote. This demolishes the speculation, whoever’s it is.

Saquist,

You can see now my prophesy from my first post was perfectly correct. The anti-Christian crowd knows they have to show not just some inconsistencies in the Bible, but show Jesus did not even exist. It must all be a giant conspiracy.

[Revolvr]

Revolvr,

Well, no. You are simply repeating Christian propaganda.

If you look objectively, all of these references, except Josephus, are simply hearsay accounts. The statements assigned to Josephus who did exist during the alleged time of Jesus did not appear in written form until around the 4th century when Christianity was being established formerly, (e.g. the Nicene Creed) and the Christians desperately needed some evidence to support their new religion. These statements were inserts way after Josephus was dead. It has been suggested that one of the Church fathers, Eusebius, probably did this, although that cannot be confirmed, but Eusebius did state it was perfectly OK to make false statements if that would further the Christian cause.


This is really silly conspiracy grot. A religion, rapidly growing from the first to the fourth century to become the dominant religion, then suddenly in the fourth century someone says Oh, we have no evidence! Lets fabricate some! Without evidence these Christians wouldn't have existed in the first place!

I think some people in the 20th century desperately need to fabricate a lack of evidence.

[Myles]

This is really silly conspiracy grot. A religion, rapidly growing from the first to the fourth century to become the dominant religion, then suddenly in the fourth century someone says Oh, we have no evidence! Lets fabricate some! Without evidence these Christians wouldn't have existed in the first place!

I think some people in the 20th century desperately need to fabricate a lack of evidence.

Astrology predates Christianity but millions of people still believe in it. Does that make it true ?

There was a time when everyone believed the earth was flat. Were they right ?

The fact that a lot of people believe something does not guarantee its truth

[Revolvr]

Saquist,

Except that Paul never met the alleged Jesus so this is pure created fiction, either original or copied from elsewhere.

Paul was not only a skeptic but a persecutor of the early Christians. This was prior to experiencing a post-resurrection appearance. Paul's experience caused him to immediately change from a nasty persecutor of Christianity to one of its most aggressive advocates. He claimed that this change came only after personally interacting with the resurrected Christ, and he willingly suffered and died for his testimony.

Paul did not willingly die for a fictional story.

[SnakeLord]

Okay...
Ironicly I didn't see the relevancy of your point of increduility.
I attempted to address this and your graph in a manner explaining that such is not propper judicial process even if science regularly makes use of skepticism to prove against subject points.

Perhaps you are confused, but my post had nothing to do with incredulity. Let me put this in words you'll hopefully understand.

The graph shows that as time progresses more and more extraordinary claims are added to the same story. This is quite typical for story telling over time - chinese whispers, creative addition etc. In this instance one would be best served looking at the earliest copy for the most accurate, (if claiming it is a true story).

What I am asking you is why you should believe the later stories, (that have clear additions that the earlier ones did not), should be considered accurate.

[Revolvr]

Astrology predates Christianity but millions of people still believe in it. Does that make it true ?

There was a time when everyone believed the earth was flat. Were they right ?

The fact that a lot of people believe something does not guarantee its truth

these comparisons are without merit. The hypothesis is the story of Jesus is fictional, without evidence. But Christianity grew at an astonishing rate, even under severe persecution. This could not happen without strong evidence, first hand reports and even miracles. One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.

[SnakeLord]

One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.

That has been done throughout history and continues to be done by people that believe in what you would consider false gods and false scriptures. Are you saying allah is real?

[spidergoat]

No one who became a Christian during this inflationary period actually witnessed any of the events described in the bible. I agree that martyrdom influenced many people, but that doesn't really say anything about the essential truth of things like miracles.

[Cris]

revolvr,

Paul was not only a skeptic but a persecutor of the early Christians. This was prior to experiencing a post-resurrection appearance. Paul's experience caused him to immediately change from a nasty persecutor of Christianity to one of its most aggressive advocates. He claimed that this change came only after personally interacting with the resurrected Christ, and he willingly suffered and died for his testimony.

Paul did not willingly die for a fictional story.The point is that he never lived in the area where the alleged Jesus was meant to have lived, i.e. his letters are not eye-witness accounts of a man who is claimed to be a god.

That he changed his mind about the Christian idea is irrelevant to his being a reliable authority on the existence of the alleged Jesus. He isn't.

Many people die for ideals. Many died in WWII to protect the concept of freedom or for what they thought was right, on both sides. I can clearly see how dying for the idea "that love your neighbor" is a great philoshopy could occur, especially if there was a convinction that death was a magical gateway to a utopian paradise. None of which offers any evidence that the focus of the idea, actually existed.

[Cris]

Revolvr,

This is really silly conspiracy grot. A religion, rapidly growing from the first to the fourth century to become the dominant religion, then suddenly in the fourth century someone says Oh, we have no evidence! Lets fabricate some! Without evidence these Christians wouldn't have existed in the first place!The Nicene Creed and its establishmenet was a critical moment in the history of Christianity. It created and defined the formal nature of Christianity and created the concepts of the trinity since without that the claim that Jesus was a deity conflicted with the assertion that was only one god. This creed formally defined Christainity and its would have been clearly of value if the authors could actually have shown some real evdeince for their claims.

You need to also realize that without Constantine deciding to favor Christianity that the religion would likely have died out. It was Constantine who initiated the creed be written, and evidence would have been really usseful - hence the Josephus forgeries. These forgeries were not realized until quite recently so the fraud worked quite nicely for over 1000 years.

[Revolvr]

That has been done throughout history and continues to be done by people that believe in what you would consider false gods and false scriptures. Are you saying allah is real?

I'm glad you brought up Muhammad (pbuh). This is another good example of a charismatic leader (in this case, a military leader) for whom people would fight for and die for. If Muhammad (pbuh) had not existed and it was all a fictional hoax, would anyone follow him to death? Would Islam even exist today? No, of course not! Likewise with Jesus - he had to be real or Christianity would never have taken off.

But this thread is arguing the historical Jesus, not the validity of Islam. We can take that to another thread.

[SnakeLord]

I'm glad you brought up Muhammad (pbuh).

Strange... I didn't. Is allah real?

[Revolvr]

Strange... I didn't. Is allah real?

The reality of Allah is irrelevant to this thread. The reality of Muhammad is.

[Myles]

these comparisons are without merit. The hypothesis is the story of Jesus is fictional, without evidence. But Christianity grew at an astonishing rate, even under severe persecution. This could not happen without strong evidence, first hand reports and even miracles. One must have a very powerful belief, down to the depths of the soul, to willingly submit to persecution and die for it.

Have you heard of the Albigensian Crusades ? Over 1,000,000 Cathars , regarded as heretics by the Vatican , were slaughtered.

Most of the Cathars were dualists. They believed in two gods, a bad one who made the world and a good one who created heaven. As a result they were not worldly people. When attempts at conversion failed, the Pope ( Innocent III ? ) launched a crusade against them. So here you have an example of people dying for their faith.

Notably, the last 220 of them left their refuge when surrounded, and walked into pyres that had been prepared for them. What was said to be the largest human bonfire in history happened during this period. I can't remember the number of people involved.

I have been to Carcassonne , among other places, in Southern France where this shameful business took place. So the notion of people dying for their faith is not confined to a handful of early Christians.

In the light of what you have previously said, I would expect you to give credence to dualism on the basis that many people died for their belief in it, as you seem to regard dying for a belief his as some sort of litmus test for the veracity of that belief. Do you now agree with dualism ?

[Revolvr]

Have you heard of the Albigensian Crusades ? Over 1,000,000 Cathars , regarded as heretics by the Vatican , were slaughtered.

Most of the Cathars were dualists. They believed in two gods, a bad one who made the world and a good one who created heaven. As a result they were not worldly people. When attempts at conversion failed, the Pope ( Innocent III ? ) launched a crusade against them. So here you have an example of people dying for their faith.

Notably, the last 220 of them left their refuge when surrounded, and walked into pyres that had been prepared for them. What was said to be the largest human bonfire in history happened during this period. I can't remember the number of people involved.

I have been to Carcassonne , among other places, in Southern France where this shameful business took place. So the notion of people dying for their faith is not confined to a handful of early Christians.

In the light of what you have previously said, I would expect you to give credence to dualism on the basis that many people died for their belief in it, as you seem to regard dying for a belief his as some sort of litmus test for the veracity of that belief. Do you now agree with dualism ?

The Cathars were only dualistic in that they put Satan on par with God. They also believed in the divinity of Jesus and the New Testament. So I'm not sure what your point is. So they died for their version of Jesus too.

We are arguing the historical accuracy of Jesus and whether or not Jesus even existed and if the Gospels were fictional. The veracity of their fight only goes to the power of Jesus. One could argue they were fighting for their land as well. But that doesn't advance your argument either.

There is no credible evidence Jesus is made up. The preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise. Without His miracles and the miracles of the early evangelists, and the power and logic of His message, Christianity could not have grown so rapidly under near impossible circumstances. This would never happen with a fictional hoax made hundreds of years later. Thousands saw Jesus after His death on the cross; those people were converted instantly, even those who previously persecuted the Christians. And we haven't gotten to the verified prophesy from the Old Testament. No other religion has this.

All of this makes for powerful arguments for Jesus. It is proof? No. But people who are intellectually honest and have an open mind often find themselves believing. The intellectual machinations required to deny this must presuppose Jesus cannot exist and the Bible cannot be true, thus are highly biased and are often forced to be dishonest.

[Myles]

The Cathars were only dualistic in that they put Satan on par with God. They also believed in the divinity of Jesus and the New Testament. So I'm not sure what your point is. So they died for their version of Jesus too.

We are arguing the historical accuracy of Jesus and whether or not Jesus even existed and if the Gospels were fictional. The veracity of their fight only goes to the power of Jesus. One could argue they were fighting for their land as well. But that doesn't advance your argument either.

There is no credible evidence Jesus is made up. The preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise. Without His miracles and the miracles of the early evangelists, and the power and logic of His message, Christianity could not have grown so rapidly under near impossible circumstances. This would never happen with a fictional hoax made hundreds of years later. Thousands saw Jesus after His death on the cross; those people were converted instantly, even those who previously persecuted the Christians. And we haven't gotten to the verified prophesy from the Old Testament. No other religion has this.

All of this makes for powerful arguments for Jesus. It is proof? No. But people who are intellectually honest and have an open mind often find themselves believing. The intellectual machinations required to deny this must presuppose Jesus cannot exist and the Bible cannot be true, thus are highly biased and are often forced to be dishonest.

The point I was getting at is that people will die for their beliefs irrespective of what that believe The Cathars were going against the prevaling orthodoxy so it was not simply a question of dying for Jesus; it was a question of their version of the message of the Bible. You used the example of people dying for their beliefs to support your view that the gospels must be true. The thread is about the gospels, not just about Jesus. As you are not a dualist, you must regard the Cathars version of the Bible's message as wrong. So it follows that dying for one's beliefs says nothing about the veracity of one's beliefs.

[Saquist]

Saquist,

Except that Paul never met the alleged Jesus so this is pure created fiction, either original or copied from elsewhere.

Exception does not validate speculation.
There is also no evidence available to feed that speculation that events did not occur as he testifies they occured.

You see the difficulty that a justice system provides in discounting testimony? You may proppose it's fiction and asail it's validity but without true contradictory evidence you might as well say such conclusions for closing arguements. It's a matter of implicity not explicity at this point.

[Saquist]

Perhaps you are confused, but my post had nothing to do with incredulity. Let me put this in words you'll hopefully understand.

The graph shows that as time progresses more and more extraordinary claims are added to the same story. This is quite typical for story telling over time - chinese whispers, creative addition etc. In this instance one would be best served looking at the earliest copy for the most accurate, (if claiming it is a true story).

What I am asking you is why you should believe the later stories, (that have clear additions that the earlier ones did not), should be considered accurate.

Lets see if I may summarize.
You provided a graph which shows a progression of extraordinary events in the Gospels. By providing this you hope to illustrate what you perceive as exagerations to an original story.

I then countered your statements indirectly by identifing your premise as sustained by a definition of incredulity...the root word of which is incredible, which means you found the later accounts ever increasing in unbelievability.

I am saying that is a system of belief. There are no judicial standards that may govern a system of belief. Isolating what is unbelievable to one person will not necessarily translate vertibatim to another person's perception. This is not a hard and fast method of determining anything but your own perception.

Thus this is really inadmissable. This is not factual but it is perceptional.

[Dinosaur]

It seems almost obvious that the gospels are partly historical, partly myths, and partly deliberate fabrication.

Far more interesting is the the question of religious writings from that era that were not included in the Bible, many of which have been lost.

[iceaura]

Paul did not willingly die for a fictional story. He wouldn't have been the first, or the last.

Thus this is really inadmissable. This is not factual but it is perceptional. So you gonna answer the question ? Why should we take as factually accurate accounts that resemble, in key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making ?

Notice how even in this thread the number of people who saw Jesus alive after he supposedly died on the cross is growing. The last claim was "thousands".

And that when the early resurrectionist missionaries challenged doubters to simply ask one of those who had seen this, the physical difficulty of that would have been serious - another country, strangers, no common language. There is no record of anyone doing so - traveling to the place and verifying the eyewitnesses' existence and plausibility first hand. It's a classic cult pitch - the revelations of the Angel Moroni written on the gold tablets were attested to by witnesses as well, and doubters of Mormon claims challenged to simply ask them.

One more critical number is of those who saw him dead - who verified that he was dead when removed from the cross. That is not many, and they are not around when these resurrection stories are being promulgated.

Yes Christianity grew, and almost certianly from some base in charismatic teachings. But many, if not most, of the early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection, nor were they presented with such elaborate accounts of miracles So the gradual accumulation of legendary feats around Jesus cannot be given legitimacy by invoking support from early Christians. They have to stand on evidence and circumstance.

[Saquist]

I'm afraid the perception of "key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making" is circumstantial compared with the evidence of record and agreement the writers of the gospel keep to.

Again your post lends to the incredibility of the event. Which I understand. Yet how does this establish any factual standard. It does not. And for every bit of circumstantial information there is just as much or more reason to take it at face value. Yet...even that is a system of belief as well.

The question is why spend so much time on circumstantial evidence. Perhaps you and some of the others don't understand or have never participated in a court setting. The American Jury system is set up to find objective individuals to make verdicts against defendant.

The Gospel is your defendant. They're charged with the crime of fictional posing as truth.

The "Juror" before you says it's obviously part myth and fabrication yet offers no proof -perceptional
The Snakelord "Juror" offers a chart of Incredulity as evidence -perceptional
The Sarkus "Juror" says it's okay to convict because the defendant hasn't shown proof it exist or truthful - outrageously perceptional.
The Bluemoose "Juror" undecided flirts with speculation. -speculation
The Spidergoat "Juror" looks to the attorney rather than focusing on the evidence - combative
The Pandemoni "Juror" speculates as to the writers identies. -speculation
The Revolvr "Juror" considers the support of the writings. - objective
The Wiz4rd "Juror" convicts - prejudicial
The Nova900 "Juror" offers counterpoints to the defense's case. - possible fence rider
The Cris "Juror" offers strong speculative counterpoints -speculation


You would convict based on perception, speculation and circumstantial evidence? I find this fascinating from a so called scientific comunity. That's the bad news. The good news is none of the statements can be determined as hostile however strongly incredulous.

[iceaura]

I'm afraid the perception of "key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making" is circumstantial compared with the evidence of record and agreement the writers of the gospel keep to. It is not "compared with" - it is exactly the evidence of record and agreement among the writers of the Bible.

This evidence of record and agreement matches known patterns of invention and legend making. It matches in its form, its trend through time, and its origins: the Bible is a deliberately compiled work, with the Gospels included - a subset of the writings available - chosen for consistency, and by coincidence or design matched for persuasiveness in a context of competing legends.

And this circumstance is not countered by any argument of weight. We know that many - perhaps most - early Believers did not rest their belief on these stories, may not have even heard of them. The people closest to the action, as it were, seem most likely to have rested their faith elsewhere. These stories came later.

[SnakeLord]

The reality of Allah is irrelevant to this thread. The reality of Muhammad is.

Myles spelt it out for you, but it isn't irrelevant given your claim that nobody would willingly die for a fictional being - unless you assert that allah is real.

You provided a graph which shows a progression of extraordinary events in the Gospels. By providing this you hope to illustrate what you perceive as exagerations to an original story.

The idea was to show you that things have been added as time goes by. You really cannot dispute that. I'm asking you to tell me why you think these things have been added and which, if any, of those versions are therefore inaccurate, (as they differ in what did or didn't happen). I'm not asking for a great deal from you.

I then countered your statements indirectly by identifing your premise as sustained by a definition of incredulity...the root word of which is incredible, which means you found the later accounts ever increasing in unbelievability.

It isn't about whether something is believable or not, it is about things being added, which they have, and why you think this has happened.

Any time today..

[Revolvr]

The point I was getting at is that people will die for their beliefs irrespective of what that believe The Cathars were going against the prevaling orthodoxy ..

You are not making your point Myles. The Cathars dies for their belief in Jesus. Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy. Thanks for making my point.

You want to make the point that people will allow themselves to be persecuted and to be murdered for any ol' belief. Would you? Try again.

[Revolvr]

Myles spelt it out for you, but it isn't irrelevant given your claim that nobody would willingly die for a fictional being - unless you assert that allah is real.


We are talking about physical seen beings who can make such an impression people will die for them. Jesus compares to Muhammad. God compares to Allah. Your example furthers my point. Thanks.

Regarding your chart you like to bring up so often. Please provide a source for the chart and data. One cannot analyze some interpretation of data without understanding the motives and biases of the person creating the chart. Until we understand the pedigree, the chart is inadmissible.

[nova900]

Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy.

History would seem to indicate this was true but unfortunately it was the orthodox side that won out.After all ,it always helps to have the Roman Empire on your side.
So..therefore all the content we see in the Gospels today ultimately had to have the seal of approval of the orthodox elements.
Fundamentalists who say they reject the orthodox church or organized religion and say they base their belief system strictly on the gospels are being hypocritical.

[Revolvr]

You would convict based on perception, speculation and circumstantial evidence? I find this fascinating from a so called scientific comunity. That's the bad news. The good news is none of the statements can be determined as hostile however strongly incredulous.

Yes they would. They have to.

Let me give you some additional insight into what they are doing. Have you ever read David Hume (1711-1776)? He is well known for an essay on miracles and used the following logic:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

Likewise, the atheists view is:
A) I know a priori God and Jesus do not exist
Therefore 1) and 2).

In order for 1) and 2) to be true we MUST speculate on the existing evidence and why it is unreliable. Therefore, it MUST be a giant conspiracy of altered texts, forged documents, lies and deceit.

And there is no evidence I could show that can break through this barrier.

Now we must agree with Hume that if Jesus or miracles did not or never happened, well they never happened and there is no evidence for it. But we know they never happened because we know all the positive reports are false. Since all of the positive reports are false, we know they never happened.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

So how does one get out of this circular reasoning? I see two ways:

[1]
Jesus, or miracles are matters of perception and therefore investigable. They exist, if they do, in the realm of matters of fact. To laugh out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are, is prejudicial. Notional concept A) is not valid in court. We can take a non-prejudicial legal view and weigh the evidence in a legal court, not a scientific court.

[2]
We can also assume that our understanding of the laws of nature, which lead to A) is not as firm and unalterable as we think it is. We do not know everything about nature. We in fact, know very little. To think we know everything is presumptuous. Therefore A) is not known to be true with any degree of certainty.


Saquist, you tend to look at the legal view [1], which is why I brought up the works of legal scholars like Simon Greenleaf. I believe, like Greenleaf, that the preponderance of evidence supports the Bible. Tactic [2] is hard to take on a science forum as most people here think we know everything.

You can see that the Hume argument leads to long threads where one person presents evidence of forgeries or other falsehoods. Another identifies why those arguments are themselves false and often disingenuous. Round and round we go. You’ll note too the believers in A) tend to get defiant and combative after a while.

-- Rev

[Revolvr]

History would seem to indicate this was true but unfortunately it was the orthodox side that won out.After all ,it always helps to have the Roman Empire on your side.
So..therefore all the content we see in the Gospels today ultimately had to have the seal of approval of the orthodox elements.
Fundamentalists who say they reject the orthodox church or organized religion and say they base their belief system strictly on the gospels are being hypocritical.

Sorry. Not true. What we consider orthodoxy was canonized in the third century. Catholicism developed after that, adding much that is not in the Bible and creating a large power structure around it that did not belong. The crusade against the Cathars occurred around 1200. I could also make a fair argument this crusade was more about power and land than beliefs. But that's another thread.

The Protestant Reformation, leading to the Renaissance, occurred around 1500. Personally I agree the Cathars were heretical; I do not for example put Satan on the same level as God as a separate deity and I find no evidence to support this. Protestant beliefs are much closer to the nascent Christian beliefs than Catholicism. Fortunately these days we do not go on crusades against people for odd ball beliefs.

But this digresses quite a bit from this thread.

[Sarkus]

If you want to look at this in a more modern legal evidentiary sense, it’s been done. And much better than I could do here.
If you say so.
The standard of evidence maintained in the American court system, which is more rigid than the scientific method establishes vilification of first person's testimony as unjust.

Just so you two are aware - what constitutes evidence in the legal system is NOT the same as that required for formal debate.
And this IS NOT a legal matter... but one of rationality and formal debate and following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (this is a SCIENCE FORUM after all).

Would the claim that the Bible is historically accurate withstand a battering in a court of law? Yes - most probably.
But then so could any unsupported claim if there is not necessarily sufficient evidence to reject it.


In a western court - one is generally considered innocent until proven guilty.
i.e. one makes a claim (e.g. "I didn't do it") and the prosecution must break down that assertion - and failure to do so means the claim legally stands.

In SCIENCE - and formal debate - ANY CLAIM must be supported by evidence - or it holds no ground at all beyond confidence statement.


If you can not appreciate the difference then in such forums as this you will for ever have people requiring you to support your claim.

If you DO appreciate the difference - change your tone, change your approach and SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


And remember - THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW!!!!


So - if you want us to accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of words - PROVIDE THE SUPPORT.

[nova900]

Sorry. Not true. What we consider orthodoxy was canonized in the third century. .

By "we" I assume you mean Christians.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the definition of orthodox:

orthodox - adhering to what is commonly accepted; "an orthodox view of the world"
conservative - resistant to change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as most empires tend to be conservative in nature the Romans were no different.In the first and second centuries various Christian sects conflicted with each other and the more conservative ones(orthodox) are going to be the ones the authorities in power of the region at the time are going to support so therefore my point still stands:

The Gospels as we know them today were given the final seal of approval by conservative,orthodox forces.

[Myles]

You are not making your point Myles. The Cathars dies for their belief in Jesus. Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy. Thanks for making my point.

You want to make the point that people will allow themselves to be persecuted and to be murdered for any ol' belief. Would you? Try again.

I did my best but you can't see what I am driving at. The Cathars were persecuted as heretics for not accepting the idea of one all-powerful god and the Trinity, which was the prevaling orthodoxy.

You previously suggested that people would not die for a belief that was not true, in consequence of which the gospels must be true. It follows from this style of reasoning that dying for a belief guarantees the veracity of that belief, something I am contesting.

I offered the Cathars as an example of many people dying for a belief which differed from the prevaling orthodox one. It was not about Jesus, however much you would like to think so; it was because they were dualists. How you can infer that they were put to death for believing in Jesus is beyond me.

So we now have a situation where two lots of people died for different beliefs. Your way of looking at things means they were both right. There is nothing more I can usefully say.

[SnakeLord]

We are talking about physical seen beings who can make such an impression people will die for them.

Incorrect. It is the existence or non-existence of that being that is under question. You say he's real because people died for him, (which is the same for many beings you would determine as fictional), and then try and support that by claiming he's a real being. :bugeye:

Please provide a source for the chart and data.

Scripture.

Until we understand the pedigree, the chart is inadmissible

Not really or everything ever mentioned with regards to religious faith is inadmissible. The good thing with the chart is that it is falsifiable.

[Revolvr]

I did my best but you can't see what I am driving at. The Cathars were persecuted as heretics for not accepting the idea of one all-powerful god and the Trinity, which was the prevaling orthodoxy.

You previously suggested that people would not die for a belief that was not true, in consequence of which the gospels must be true. It follows from this style of reasoning that dying for a belief guarantees the veracity of that belief, something I am contesting.

I offered the Cathars as an example of many people dying for a belief which differed from the prevaling orthodox one. It was not about Jesus, however much you would like to think so; it was because they were dualists. How you can infer that they were put to death for believing in Jesus is beyond me.

So we now have a situation where two lots of people die for different beliefs. Your way of looking at things means they were both right. There is nothing more I can usefully say.

You aren't quite getting what I am saying.

Your hypothesis is that Jesus did not exist and the stories about him are fictional. I am simply saying that if these people knew it to be fictional (the writers of the New Testament), they would not have allowed themselves to be persecuted and killed for it. There is no gain. That to me is powerful argument that they did not believe it was fictional. They saw what they saw, experienced what they experienced. It was not a hoax.

[Revolvr]

Scripture.



That doesn't cut it. I want to see the data used, the assumptions made, and how the numbers were created. Any scientist would ask for that. Is there some reason you don't want to provide the source?

[Myles]

You aren't quite getting what I am saying.

Your hypothesis is that Jesus did not exist and the stories about him are fictional. I am simply saying that if these people knew it to be fictional (the writers of the New Testament), they would not have allowed themselves to be persecuted and killed for it. There is no gain. That to me is powerful argument that they did not believe it was fictional. They saw what they saw, experienced what they experienced. It was not a hoax.

Can you tell me where I have said that Jesus did not exist ? You are putting words in my mouth to ssuit your own ends. That is despicable.

Footnote: Earlier, you made the point that the Albigensian crusades were not just about heresy. Well, I agree. A lot of what went on was about power and land grabbing. But that does not vitiate the fact the people died for their beliefs. That is my whole point.

[SnakeLord]

That doesn't cut it. I want to see the data used, the assumptions made, and how the numbers were created. Any scientist would ask for that. Is there some reason you don't want to provide the source?

I did provide the source: the bible. Why is it suddenly not good enough for you? How dare you sit there and talk of science while not once having shown anything even remotely resembling science in any of your 243 posts.

You use the bible to argue that a being featured within it exists. I use that very same book to show inconsistency and additions and all of a sudden the bible can't be used? Pfft.

[Myles]

Yes they would. They have to.

Let me give you some additional insight into what they are doing. Have you ever read David Hume (1711-1776)? He is well known for an essay on miracles and used the following logic:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

Likewise, the atheists view is:
A) I know a priori God and Jesus do not exist
Therefore 1) and 2).

In order for 1) and 2) to be true we MUST speculate on the existing evidence and why it is unreliable. Therefore, it MUST be a giant conspiracy of altered texts, forged documents, lies and deceit.

And there is no evidence I could show that can break through this barrier.

Now we must agree with Hume that if Jesus or miracles did not or never happened, well they never happened and there is no evidence for it. But we know they never happened because we know all the positive reports are false. Since all of the positive reports are false, we know they never happened.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

So how does one get out of this circular reasoning? I see two ways:

[1]
Jesus, or miracles are matters of perception and therefore investigable. They exist, if they do, in the realm of matters of fact. To laugh out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are, is prejudicial. Notional concept A) is not valid in court. We can take a non-prejudicial legal view and weigh the evidence in a legal court, not a scientific court.

[2]
We can also assume that our understanding of the laws of nature, which lead to A) is not as firm and unalterable as we think it is. We do not know everything about nature. We in fact, know very little. To think we know everything is presumptuous. Therefore A) is not known to be true with any degree of certainty.


Saquist, you tend to look at the legal view [1], which is why I brought up the works of legal scholars like Simon Greenleaf. I believe, like Greenleaf, that the preponderance of evidence supports the Bible. Tactic [2] is hard to take on a science forum as most people here think we know everything.

You can see that the Hume argument leads to long threads where one person presents evidence of forgeries or other falsehoods. Another identifies why those arguments are themselves false and often disingenuous. Round and round we go. You’ll note too the believers in A) tend to get defiant and combative after a while.

-- Rev

You seem to get your information from biased sources or interpret what you read ,to suit you beliefs. You accused me of denying the existence of Jesus when I have never done so. There may or may not have been such a person but I am not prepared to accept the claims made for him.

Can you now please tell me the source of the syllogism you attribute to David Hume . Was it his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding or from someone's interpretation of what Hume is supposed to have said ? I can tell you now you will find no such syllogism in Hume's writings. How do I know ? I have copies of his works which I have studied, Can you say as much ?

[Saquist]

The idea was to show you that things have been added as time goes by. You really cannot dispute that. I'm asking you to tell me why you think these things have been added and which, if any, of those versions are therefore inaccurate, (as they differ in what did or didn't happen). I'm not asking for a great deal from you.

Snakelord your statement is conclusive but the evidence is far from definite. The variable invovled are unknowable.




It isn't about whether something is believable or not, it is about things being added, which they have, and why you think this has happened.

Any time today..

To conclude that there were willful additions to the account is speculation.
To conclude that the anomolies of their accounts are caused by perception and omission is speculation.

Do you not see.

The difference is one is strongly supported by probability and recurrence. The other speculation would require us to isolate motive and location in the exaggeration of the story.

The theory that a legend status was applied to the retelling does not transition at all through the recopying of the text through the next 1,500 years. This theory would have us indulge in the speculation that the writers abandoned the rabbinic method of oral precision that the Jews were renowned for and then readopted that precision for the copies. Yet even the Christian Greek scriptures copied in some cases by unproffesional copiest aswell as the highly skilled maintained a chain of integrity.

This theory needs support.
It needs to identify the collapse of oral tradition
It needs to identify the abandonment of precision.
It requires the sudden reassembly of both in a very very short time frame with out lapse of adherence to that precision.

The theory would require us to leap over scholars such as Adin Steinsaltz who explains:

"Each teacher had his own method and phrased his oral rulings in his own singular fashion...It was no longer sufficient to be acquainted with the teachings of one's own mentor, and the student was obliged to acquaint himself with the work of other scholars...These students were forced to memorize vast quantities of material because of the 'explosion of knowledge."

He established that the transition from oral to verbal was an almost seemless necessity. In the second century C.E., the Jewish rebellion against Rome, headed by Bar Kokhba, led to the intense persecution of rabbinic scholars. Akiba, a foremost rabbi, who had supported Bar Kokhba, as well as many leading scholars were put to death. They feared that this renewed persection could endanger the very exisitence of their oral law. They had believed that traditions were best passed on by word of mouth from master to dissciple, but these circumstances led to an increased effort to create an organized structure to preserve the teachings lest they be forgotten forever.

Thirty some-odd years later during Jesus' ministry after the Mishnah was created and given authority like no other book, save the Torah. He remarks this as a new age in Judaism began here, a tradition of oral precision passed cleanly and neatly to that to a written tradition in the looming shadow of what would be Jerusalems destruction at the hands of the Romans.

This was an act of desperation. This was an atmosphere of brooding contention, a threat that the bible writers grew up within, as they rebelled against Roman occupation. A threat that was made clear by the prophecies of Jesus as he cautioned them from the "end of this system of things." It was a threat they even inquired of the Messiah. Everyone was aware and yet this theory of a lapse from oral tradition amiss the measures the rabbi had implemented is some how to be fit in ....how?

What support is their for this speculation aside from the circumstantial evidence from which it was concocted from? That evidence would have to hurdle some high obsticales in pattern and events at the era of their writing.

I'm not prepared to give such a theory credence in the face of such concerted efforts when perceptional factors account for the dicrepancies far more eloquently with out abrading the sitatuation and climate factors to suit its position in the puzzle. Quite Frankly neither should you Snakelord. Scholasticly we've got to do much better than presenting manicured and mishapen theories that more fit our agenda than they do the surrounding facts.

My appolgies but I feel strongly about maintaining a ridged factual approach to history and events rather than inventing theory systems of circumstantial evidence. They often lead to wrong conclusions and it happens to occur far too frequently when it comes to the bible. I believe it invovles the skeptisicm and incredilit