Jesus: UL?

Great Debates
1

The question I hear a lot is “The tomb was empty, what’s the best explanation?” They explain that the sleeping guards/disciples stealing scenarios aren’t likely, and therefore, the resurrection is the only option left. I counter that to disbelieve in the resurrection, it is not necessary to come up with an alternative explanation. The sheer implausibility of such a claim, in conjunction with the lack of truly extraordinary evidence is quite sufficient to justify rational disbelief.

What do I personally believe happened? I like the “urban legend” theory. Seeing Jesus killed destroyed the apostle’s faith in Jesus. The true Messiah would never be killed before he fulfilled the prophecies. And since Jesus didn’t throw off the Roman yoke, establish Yahweh’s kingdom, usher in a time of universal peace, make the lions sleep with the lambs, etc, he wasn’t who he said he was. Everyone abandons Jesus but his most loyal followers, and even they sulk and go back to fishing.

Time passes, and enter our friend Paul: he saw Jesus in a vision, so Jesus didn’t die after all! He gets together with the original apostles and revises the story of Jesus. Jesus did throw off a yoke, but that yoke was not Rome, but our sin. The kingdom he established was in heaven, not Jerusalem. His death, instead of a loss, was a gain: he died for us and he is now in heaven (I know, I saw the vision!) and we can all join him. All those other unfulfilled prophesies? Don’t worry, he’ll do all the rest when he returns!

Remember, those gospels and Acts were written nearly 50 years after Jesus died (and after most of Paul’s letters). So there was plenty of time to enter in a virgin birth, healings, miracles, and, of course, a resurrection (facets of many concurrent pagan religions). Go to http://www.snopes.com, and I’ll bet you could find a dozen urban legends you swore were true 5-10 years ago. Now, give an especially superstitious people 50 years, and viola!

But I’m told the Jews and/or Romans could’ve produced the body to quiet down those pesky Christians. Well, in the beginning, there weren’t a lot of Christians to quiet down. The gospels list maybe a few dozen people who saw Jesus return. What happened to the rest, like the multitudes who were fed 5000 loaves and fish, listened to his sermons, and cheered the Triumphal Entry? Once Jesus died, it was the end of the story for most of Jesus’ followers. It was hardly worth the Jews’ or Romans’ trouble to investigate the supernatural claims of so few. By the time Paul got the movement in full swing, there wouldn’t be much left of Jesus’ corpse to conclude anything.

Sometimes I get the “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” tri-lemma. Jesus said he was Lord. Either he was wrong and knew it, which makes him a liar. Or he was wrong and didn’t know it, which makes him a lunatic. Since our lord and savior isn’t evil or a loony, he must be telling the truth. But the “urban legend” covers that, too: he was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. Or the stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early (or later) Christians.

Then I get told that the apostles were martyred and never recanted. No one would willingly be tortured and die to protect a lie. Only two people are martyred in the book of Acts: Stephen and James, but they were killed for blasphemy, not for believing Jesus rose from the dead. Since the Jews took blasphemy seriously, I doubt an 11th-hour recanting about Jesus would’ve saved them. The Christians who were persecuted by the Romans (thrown to the lions, etc), were not eyewitnesses, but later converts who believed the story (hmm, like an urban legend?). Other than that, there is zero historical evidence any other apostles (the only eye-witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection) were martyred. A popular story has Peter being crucified upside-down, but that is from a non-canonical (read: rejected by Christians) “Gnostic Gospel of Peter”.

2

Please watch the Frontline program, “From Jesus to Christ”. Your mind will be altered.

3

I can do that with beer. Don’t need no stinkin’ TV show.

4

First off, I would dispute the claim that there was an empty tomb. Who says there was an empty tomb? The Bible? But, then, if you accept that the bible is authoritative, then you are already conceding that the resurection story is true.

First of all, we must examine how reliable the books that make up the bible are. And, in fact, they are completely unreliable.

The gospel stories were written many years after the events supposedly took place. The first gospel, Mark, was written at least 30 years after Jesus’ supposedly died, at the earliest in the mid-60’s C.E. The remaining gospels were written decades after that. John, the last gospel, is thought to have been written in the middle of the second century.

So, these are 4th and 5th hand accounts, written decades after the event, by people who had an agenda. And these are supposed to be reliable as history? Please.

5

This is my favorite site on the topic: Jesus, a historical reconstruction. No fluff. Just the facts.

6

That’s a fascinating site, Libertarian! (No, really!)

I’m just starting to read it, so I don’t know what-all historical sources the author uses and does not address. Obviously, he addresses the NT and the writings of Josephus and Origen. What I’m curious about is, does he address any of the writings of the early Christian church that didn’t make it into the NT? If not, why not? (I can certainly understand that he might reject many non-NT Christian writings for the same reason that the compilers of the NT rejected them in the first place, namely that they seemed too fanciful. That would be a perfectly reasonable answer.)

7

I meant to write:

“I don’t know what-all historical sources the author addresses and does not address.”

8

I’ve never seen a more broad consideration given to every possible source than he gives, including these:

All about “Q” . . Gospel of Thomas
Arguments for late dating

The great omission in Luke’s gospel
The missing block from Mark’s gospel

Paul and the Corinthians during the third journey
Also the entry point to his reconstructed letters

Beliefs of “Nazarene”/Christian communities in 58
Table

Daniel and Revelation
Historical & critical study

In my worthless opinion, his is the most scholarly treatment I’ve ever seen.

9

Probably a hijack, but wasn’t there also a site explaining the medical analysis of Jesus’s death by crucifixion?

10

I found this pretty interesting:

http://www.salvationbygrace.org/SermonResurrectionProof.htm

11

Here are a few more sites on Jesus:

Timeline and history of the gospels

One that makes the case that Jesus never existed

The Jesus Puzzle Another case for Jesus’ non-existence

A good site on the history of the bible and christianity

12

Guinastasia wrote:

Not only a site, but the second half of a Cecil Adams column deals with the subject – at least as far as which parts of his body Jesus would have had to have been nailed through:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_237.html

13

Thanks, Tracer! I hereby cite Cecil to settle this debate and thus effectively end this thread. From the article you linked:

Emphasis mine.

Okay folks, please keep the left lane clear for emergency traffic as you exit. Where’s Astroboy?

14

Uh …

15

[ nitpick ] The oldest fragment of parchment or papyrus that we have with any NT writing on it is a fragment of John 18 that appears to date to around 127. This makes a “middle of the second century” timeline a bit too late.
[ /nitpick ]
The majority of scholars date John to the 90s, with a few holding out for a bit later.

16

tomndebb,

Could you give me a reference to the material on the fragment from John dated to 127? That sounds very interesting, I had not heard about that.

I am no biblical scholar, but I had the idea that the consensus among the top scholars was that John was written in the 2nd century. I think Crossan, for one, thinks John was written well into the 2nd century. What leads you to believe that the consensus is mid '90s?

Thanks.

17

I have several problems with your scenario, Hubzilla, although I do think it’s an imaginative effor. I’d like to focus on the following problems, since I think they’re the ones that stand out the most.

Not true. Ancient historian Schumacher recorded that Matthew was killed in Ethiopia by a sword blow, that Mark was dragged through the streets of Alexandria until he was dead, that Matthias was stoned and beheaded, and so forth. He records the martyrdom of all the other Apostles (except the exiled John), plus those or Mark, Luke, Jude, Barnabas and Paul the Just.

“But wait!” one might say. “Schumacher was a Christian, so we HAVE TO discount his testimony!” I have several problems with that approach. First, your claim was that there is “zero historical evidence” for that claim, and this example alone demonstrates that to be false. (There are other accounts of their martyrdom as well, such as the writings of Eusebius, but that’s another story.) Second, somebody who knew the lives of these martyrs would obviously have convincing reasons to believe in Christianity. And third, no responsible historian would automatically discount these claims simply because they hail from a Christian source. That would be like rejecting any claims made about the Democratic Party, simply because they were made by a Democratic official.

Also, is there any early evidence countering these claims? If these accounts of martyrdom were mere fabrication, one might expect that at least someone would speak up and say, “Hey, wait a minute! That’s not how Matthew died!” In fact, while the Roman government was in power, there was probably no shortage of people who could refute these claims – and yet where’s the counter-evidence? (Yes, I know that the lack of counter-evidence does not by itself mean that we should accept Schumacher’s accounts. However, if one is to refute a historian’s claims, one should provide a better argument than saying, “Well, he might have been wrong.”)

INITIALLY, it might not have been worth their time. However, as the multitudes grew, it clearly would have become worthwhile. Seutonius records that Emperor Claudius was compelled to banish the Christians because of the disturbances created by their conversions. Caius Plinius Secundus (aka Pliny the Younger) records that Emperor Trajan was executing Christians who would not recant their testimonies, even under extreme torture. Cornelius Tacitus likewise records the church’s explosive growth and the fury that this invoked in the Roman leaders.

I find it hard to believe that the Roman authorities considered it a waste of time to produce the body, yet were willing to embark on long, systematic programs of torture, execution and banishment.

18

When Jesus supposedly was executed, he did not have a big following, therefore the Romans would not have given him and his cult much thought.

And, you know, if you have all of these historical references for the apostles being martyred, would it be too much to ask for a single shred of historical evidence for Jesus? Because there is not one single mention of him outside of the bible until 96 C.E., when Josephus made a passing reference to him in his history.

All of the “evidence” for Jesus is 3rd and 4th hand accounts, written by people who had the agenda of propagating his mythology. To believe any of the stuff about his resurrection is absurd.

19

First of all, as we’ve seen, John was clearly written much earlier than that.

And second, how does one leap from saying “Mark was written in the mid-60’s” to saying it is was a “4th and 5th hand account”? Even if we grant that it was penned 30 years after Christ’s death, that does not mean that it was not written by Mark – and it certainly does not necessarily make it a fourth- or fifth-hand account.

Third, Paul’s letters are typically dated much earlier than that. So even if you grant a late date for the gospel accounts, there’s still the issue of Paul’s writings.

Fourth, having an “agenda” does not automatically disqualify a historical account. By that token, we would aso have to disregard anything the Roman authorities said against Jesus, since they had an agenda as well! More importantly, if the gospel accounts are true, then it would be inconceivable for the authors to NOT believe in Christianity!

And fifth, are you seriously suggesting that only an eyewitness account can be regarded as history? Such a view of history is rather naive and, as Dr. William Lane Craig says, “positively medieval.” Do you have any idea how much of history we would have to reject, simply because the historians recording these events were not eyewitnesses?

In fact, noted historian Sir William Ramsey testifies to the reliability of Luke’s gospel. Ramsey spent 15 years trying to refute the Gospel of Luke, but in the end, he was forced to conclude that it was reliable. In his own words, “Luke is a historian of first rank, not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, but this author should be placed alongwith the very greatest historians. Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness.”

Note that this testimony comes from one of the world’s foremost archaeologists – and one who initially set out to destroy Luke’s credibility! Unlike many laymen, Sir William Ramsey understood how history is written, and that a historian’s role is to evaluate the balance of the evidence, and to discern reliable testimony from the unreliable.

Additional info can be found at

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ514.HTM

and at Dr. William Lane Craig’s virtual office.

20

Perhaps, but as the Christian church grew, they Romans clearly gave him PLENTY of thought. So much so that they felt obligated to banish, torture and murder the Christian throngs.

First of all, the New Testament writings ARE historical evidence for Jesus. One might choose to reject this evidence, as you clearly do, but such is the difference between evidence and proof positive.

Second, the mere fact that you mention Josephus shows that there IS historical evidence for Christ. Besides, in addition to Josephus, you have the writings of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and many others.

Third, Cecil already addressed your claim that there’s no evidence for Jesus’ existence.

And fourth, are you really suggesting that we should disregard Josephus’ testimony, simply because it was written a few decades after Christ’s life? Do you realize that by that standard, we must reject virtually EVERYTHING that historians believe about ancient Rome? Can you name a single historian who believes that this date of 96 C.E. renders Josephus unreliable?