So it seems that the only alleged evidence would be far post-mortem of his existence. The closest record was the Gospel of Mark which was written generations after Christ died.
It appears that there is actual evidence of some players in the field such as Pontius Pilate but nothing regarding the authenticity of Christ while he was allegedly alive (or within what I would consider to be an acceptable amount of time since his death).
The accounts of Herod’s reign indicate that, yes, he was a paranoid SOB (more so than is inherent to the job description). Of course, the fact that chroniclers recorded all sorts of smaller-scale Herodian crimes makes it all the more puzzling that they would overlook the Slaughter of the Innocents if there were any basis for the accusation. It’s the sort of sensational story that would be notorious (e.g. one of the best-known accusations against Richard III is his alleged order to murder the princes in the Tower) if there were in fact contemporary evidence, or even contemporary rumors, to support it.
Yeah, some of the background of the gospels correlates to the world we know existed. Pontius Pilate, Herod, Quirinius, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Egypt - all real. The trouble is that the gospels weave these together in ways we know can’t be accurate, such as Matthew putting Jesus’s birth in the reign of Herod and Luke putting it under Quirinius, and although those guys didn’t have the same jobs, their time spans didn’t overlap, so they can’t both be right.
It’s not at all what you’d expect from a contemporaneous account of his life, but exactly what you’d expect to find in a semi-literate society several decades later. The fact that the stories are told with an agenda is a big clue not to put any stock in their details - like how both Matthew and Luke wanted to place his birth in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy that was really about events 700 years earlier, and they make up equally implausible but conflicting stories to put him there.
My own guess is that if you could run a time machine in reverse, you could trace back the stories to an individual, but those stories bear little resemblance to what actually happened to him.
I waited a day to see if that was all you had. I guess it is.
I showed that your attempted reconciliation of Matthew with Luke does not even agree with what Matthew said, let alone remove his conflicts with Luke.
Nor have ITRChampion or JThunder chipped in to help you. I note that in ITRChampion’s dealings with me, he assumes that the lack of a response implies that the point is conceded.
The birth narratives are intended to establish that Jesus is literally the Son of God, rather than merely a dime-a-dozen preacher who claims to speak for God and performs easily faked “miracles,” like Peter Popoff. They are therefore arguably the most important passages of the New Testament.
And they are straight narratives. They are clearly intended to be taken exactly as given, and not as parables or metaphors. And yet, they are not only almost completely different — their one area of agreement being that the Messiah, who should have come from Bethlehem, was actually raised in Nazareth — but they are impossible to reconcile, even if you postulate a “Star of Nazareth.”
I think it’s a VERY low bar to expect a divinely inspired text to not contain blatant, glaring contradictions. A lack of contradictions would not do anything to make me believe the miraculous embellishments of magic stars and angels and virgin birth, but the presence of contradictions IMO makes it obvious to any objective person that the stories, i.e. the foundations of Christianity, are not to be believed, and therefore no rational person would believe them.
If civilization survives for another thousand years, I’ll bet that the biggest topic for historians will be how such a large percentage of a technologically advanced society could not only believe it, but could think that there was something wrong with people who didn’t, to the point where an avowed atheist has no chance whatever of even being considered for President.
As I re-read this it caused me to wonder;Why if jesus was presented to be circumcised on the 8th day in Jerusaleml and was recognized at that time to be the Messiah, why Mary and Joesph returend to Bethlehem.
First, Jesus was not presented in the Temple after 8 days; he was presented after 6 weeks. I don’t know why so many people make that mistake, but Luke 2 is clear on that point: “2:22 And when the days of [Mary’s] purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord.” The days of a mother’s purification for a male child are 33 days after the circumcision, which is 8 days after birth, for a total of 41 days (Lev 12:3-4). Give them one day for travel time, and they are in the Temple no earlier than six weeks after the birth.
Second, Luke 2 is also clear that they did not return to Bethlehem; they went home to Nazareth. “2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.”
Anybody who says they returned to Bethlehem is trying to avoid the contradiction between Matthew and Luke, but they have to contradict Luke to do it, so it’s a lost cause. And as I noted, even if they could manage that, Matthew still contradicts Luke in saying they stayed out of Jerusalem while Archelaus reigned, while Luke says they went to the Temple every Passover.
Matthew and Luke tell two different stories that contradict each other on important points, so at least one of them must be made up. And if they are willing to make up a story to establish that Jesus is the Son of God, then clearly, no sane person should believe anything they say about miracles and divine beings.
I see. Let’s remind our readers once again about what you said.
Now, if you have any evidence that conservative American Christians actually “inspired them to take Leviticus literally and enact laws calling for the death penalty for homosexuals”, I’d be happy to look at it. So far you haven’t come up with an iota of evidence. (To state the obvious, once person using the word “inspired” with regard to them in the generic sense won’t cut the mustard.)
First of all, Matthew records the massacre as only involving the male children, which changes your calculations. More importantly, I’m not aware that we have any information about the population of Bethlehem around the time when Jesus was born, so if the population was in the hundreds, what of it?
First of all, “in the coasts” is a KJV mistranslation. Better translations say “in the territory”, so basically it means in Bethlehem and its fields, which wouldn’t be a terribly large area. More importantly, your post doesn’t address the two points that I made in post #21:
In ancient Rome the authorities frequently massacred or enslaved innocent people by the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands.
More significant, though, is social class. All historians of ancient times (with the notable exception of the gospel authors) focused on the history of the wealthy and powerful. The idea that history should include the poor, lowly, and weak, didn’t really emerge until modern times. Hence it’s quite understandable that Nicolas and Josephus would ignore this particular event.
So there are two basic questions for you to answer. First, given that Roman authorities regularly massacred people in large numbers, how do you justify saying that a relatively small massacre would be the “most notorious event” of Herod’s reign? If Herod governed the way other Roman rulers governed, then he massacred hundreds or thousands of people frequently. What would make the slaughter a Bethlehem more “notorious” than these other events?
Second, given that neither Josephus nor anyone else in ancient Rome reported on events involving the peasantry, why do you say it “defies belief” that this particular event involving the peasantry wouldn’t be widely reported?
Clearly, you are determined to ignore evidence. You popped off about me making stuff up, you were wrong as hell, and you won’t admit it. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself.
I don’t understand the way debate has progressed in this thread.
Do Nativity accounts conflict? Yes; that’s because they’re fictions. That Jesus’ story was embellished with such fictions doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.
Do those who believe miracles are impossible believe that Jesus performed no miracles? Yes. It seems weird to focus on this as though it were controversial.
Is there clear historical evidence that Jesus existed? No. But that’s not unusual. Is not the Pontius Pilate Stone cited above the only evidence that Pilate existed outside the Gospels (and works likely to be derived from them)?
The evidence for historicity is circumstantial and comes from comparing what we have with what we’d expect from a hoax. One example sometimes cited for historicity is the story of Mary anointing Jesus with expensive oil. This is presented matter-of-factly in the Bible, with the disciples objecting that it conflicts with charity. Jesus dismissed their objections but not enough to make it an important metaphor. Why the story then? Most likely, because it happened.
And some Dopers ignore that a healer need not be a healer with supernatural powers.
The slaughter of the innocents is the most rank fiction, ITR. Never mind that it’s unsupported by anything outside of Matthew (and contradicted by Luke). The entire premise for Herod’s given reasons for it are patently ludicrous and ahistorical. Putting aside the obviously fictional star and the Persian sorcerors (who would have had no reason to give a shit anyway), the alleged Messianic baby would have been no threat to Herod. Why would he care?
Herod did not frequently massacre people, by the way.
It’s not a given at all that the Romans “frequently” massacred innocent people in non-combat situations. I can think of examples of large numbers of Gauls or Celts being killed in wars, or slaves being killed when they revolted. But Matthew is not talking about criminals or combatants. He is talking about innocent people in a peaceful region.
In any case, this alleged deed wasn’t done by Romans, it was done by Herod, and yes, it defies belief that his individual murders within the palace walls would be recorded, but mass murders across an entire town and its environs would not. Are you telling me that nobody would complain to the Senate if that had happened?
Because it wasn’t an intra-peasant affair; it was allegedly perpetrated by the King. Spartacus and his pals weren’t members of the aristocracy, but we know about them, because members of the aristocracy were involved with them. And the same applies to all those “frequent” cases you allege, assuming you are talking about combatants.
And as you well know, all of this is a red herring, anyway. Herod killing babies does not contradict Luke, so the fact that it is ahistorical reduces Matthew’s credibility, but it doesn’t PROVE that he is wrong.
However, the Flight to Egypt DOES contradict Luke, who says that when Joseph left Bethlehem it was not to flee to Egypt, but to go to Jerusalem and publicly display Jesus in the Temple, WHERE HOLY PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGED HIM AS THE MESSIAH, and then went his way to Nazareth, with no interference from Herod, and returned to Jerusalem every Passover after that. That directly contradicts Matthew, who says Joseph was afraid to enter Judea while Archelaus ruled there, i.e. 10 years plus however long Herod lived after the Flight, and who further says that Herod and “all Jerusalem with him” were troubled when they heard that a Messiah might have been born. You cannot reconcile that with Luke saying the only reaction to the public display of the newborn Messiah was joy.
So the important question is, since it’s GIVEN (as you like to say for your opinions) that at least one of Matthew and Luke made up the story of Jesus’ birth, why should anyone believe anything they say?
Kind of amazing how everybody, from shepherds to Herod to Temple prophets to magi from distant lands, knew all about Jesus being the Messiah when he was a newborn, but his family and neighbors questioned his sanity when he was an adult, and he had just 11 followers when he died. More than Manson, but way less than David Koresh or Jim Jones.
Correct. I believe that Jesus existed, because if there hadn’t been a real person known as Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew and Luke would not have had to make up their preposterous explanations as to why the Messiah, who had to be born in Bethlehem, was from Nazareth.
Well…I suppose one could argue that it’s supported by the Old Testament and Jesus being the new Moses and all…
Of course, I’d think it would be more rational to believe that the New Testament writer was ‘filling in the gaps’ by combing through the Old Testament. This explains the virgin bit as well.
Granted, it does take the literalness of the account off the table - but considering the ludicrous stuff in Matthew (zombie saints jumping out of graves, multiple earthquakes, etc), I’m not sure why anyone but the ardent believer would take it seriously to begin with.
I think the early writers were trying to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah many of,the Jews did not, and do not, accept that.It looks like the story was repeated for so many times it was impossible to know if there was any truth in the writings.
According to John 10, Jesus didn’t think he was any more divine than any other human, he reminded the people that he spoke to, that There fathers called God their father (quoting the Psalmist) and didn’t understand why they said he blasphemed because he called God father. Humans wrote it and humans have a tendency to make things up to sell a point!
Why did you drag that up again when I already pointed out the visit to the temple likely was long before the Magi alerted Herod?
I gave a detailed refutation of your post (see post 98 in this thread), and your reply, IN FULL, was, “Not if you don’t want it to.”
I kind of doubt that anybody but you considers a question settled, just because you’ve weighed in.
The slave revolt lead by Spartacus was so large that it threatened the entire Roman Empire and required the bulk of the Roman army to stop it. It involved hundreds of thousands of people. That’s why it got attention from later historians. It is not in any way comparable to the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem.
As for residents of Bethlehem complaining to the Senate, I doubt that anyone would, for several reasons. First, in the time period we’re talking about a nominal Senate still existed but was powerless; the Emperor was the sole authority. Second, peasants in Bethlehem would have neither the ability nor the legal standing to complain to the Senate or anyone else. The third reason, though, is really the key one which explains why we disagree on this issue. In the modern day USA the government exists to protect the rights of its people, at least in theory, and there are various bodies that serve that purpose specifically. You seem to be projecting that view of government onto ancient Rome. In Ancient Rome the government existed to conquer and subjugate as many nations as possible. Male Roman citizens had certain limited rights but the very idea of rights did not exist for the conquered peoples, including the Jews. The Roman Empire did not rule by being nice to people, but rather by using a constant level of violence to remind its subjects that they were willing to use extraordinary violence. That’s why they crucified criminals in highly public places. That’s why they had people fight each other to the death for public entertainment. That’s why they even ordered their own soldiers to kill randomly chosen members of their own units. Mass violence against both the guilty and the innocent was central to the Roman way of life. It occurred all the time, in all places within the Empire. Certainly the greatest amount of violence occurred when conquering territory or suppressing revolts, but not all of it. One obvious example is the execution of Christian martyrs. If Herod ordered a massacre of a few dozen or even a few hundred children, that would be business as usual within the Roman Empire.
Speaking only for myself, I’ve found that betting on the gospels is safer then betting on the naysayers. For example the most common attack I’ve heard is the claim that Nazareth did not exist in Jesus’ time. But Israeli archaeologists recently unearthedbuildings at Nazareth from exactly his time. That’s one incident. After a great many such incidents it starts to seem like a pattern. As for the particular issues like the timing of Herod vs. Quirinius, who knows what will come to light in years ahead? I’d not be surprised if new research shed light on the issue. Other than that, I’ve already said all I wish to say in previous threads, particularly this post.
Fundamentally I think about this subject in a different way than you do. I approach it from different philosophical premises than you do. You seem to think you’ve got a large amount of contradictions and errors to hurl against the gospels. I, on the other hand, am always amazed by how little the naysayers have to complain about in the gospels, especially considering the inordinate amount of time they devote to the topic. You keep saying that the infancy narratives are the most important part of the gospels. I disagree, no matter how many times you repeat the claim. You assume that supernatural claims inherently make the gospel narratives extremely improbable. I disagree. Frankly I think we’re so far apart here that haggling over individual factoids is not likely to resolve our differences. Especially if I judge by post #109 it seems that you’re standards for “evidence” are extremely far away from any that I’ve ever heard of, so perhaps we’re better off letting the issue lie.
Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo would have mentioned a slaughter of babies in Bethlehem. It didn’t happen. We know this because the entire given motive for such an action is nonsensical and has no relationship to Jewish expectations of the Messiah (plus the star is obvious nonsense).
I’ll take this bet.
This is not a common attack at all, actually. It’s true that the site currently identified as Nazareth appears to date no earlier than the 2nd Century, but it’s a point of relatively trivial significance, and not something much used to show the ahistoricity of the Gospels. There are far better examples for that.
I can list them all day, and you won’t be able to refute any of them. Want to make a separate thread of it?
Thatr’s not much of an argument is it? Herod died ten years before Judea was annexed as a province, dude. Nothing is going to come to light in the future to alter that. It’s ahard fact. Other than that, I’ve already said all I wish to say in previous threads, particularly this post.
[/quote]
You’ve consistently ducked all my challenges to defend the historicity of the Gospels (aside from trying to cherry pick trivial points and strawmen which you think will be easy to defend).
This is an indisputable fact. Not just contradictions, but provable ahistoricity.
Who’s complaining? The innumerable contradictions and provable fictions of the Gospels don’t bother me at all. I have no complaints.
I agree that they’re not especially important, but their contradictions and ahistorical elements are still undeniable.
[quiote]You assume that supernatural claims inherently make the gospel narratives extremely improbable.
[/quote]
Not improbable, impossible by definition.
That’s not much of a defense.