Resolved: Jesus did not exist

[septimus]

Responding to …

@ITR_champion

You’ve mentioned the instances in the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew; … Other than that, you haven’t given me any examples of obvious fabrications or errors, so I can’t tell you how I feel about them.

… Diogenes writes

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I can give you plenty. I’ll do them one at a time. Let’s start with the contradiction in the dating of Jesus’ birth. Why do Matthew and Luke have their nativities ten years apart? Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great or was he born ten years after Herod died during the census of Quirinus? Which is it?

I’d certainly consider the nativity dates to be parts of the “infancy narratives”, so wonder if Diogenes’ browser skipped a message or something.

In Diogenes’ model, does he think a biographer would have accompanied Jesus and pestered him about birth details?? Some people would instead suppose that this kind of inconsistency supports historicity … after all, it’s easy for liars to get their stories straight.

(BTW, I clicked on the link to Cecil’s articles and found Our Leader’s articles on Bible dates and authorship useful. “Cecil” doesn’t seem to approve of the Exodus=Hyksos equation. I asked Diogenes about this before and got a response where the ratio of pontification to citation was infinite! I consider the question still open, but if Diogenes wants to take another shot, please consider a response with only URL’s. … URL’s to archaeological fact, not more pontification!)

[septimus]

@razncain

At the very minimum there is at least a 10 year difference here.

The death-year of the Buddha is traditionally 544 BC (easy to remember as my country of residence uses Buddhist calendar) but some scholars instead make his death 5th-century BC, and some even 4th-century BC! Yet, AFAIK, all of these scholars accept that he was an historic person. Dating estimates of Lao-Tzu are even more dispersed than those of Buddha. IIRC, there are several important medieval kings whose birth-years are unrecorded.

[monavis]

@ITR_champion

Hey, I’m a Christian and more old school than Little Plastic Ninja, so I’ll answer. I believe that the Gospels are accurate. Not completely perfect to the last word. They contain obvious mistakes, though I find that the mistakes most commonly cited as evidence against them are often not mistakes, but there are mistakes. For instance mark 2:25-6 incorrectly lists Abiathar as the high priest when David at the bread in the Temple. And to these mistakes I reply, so what? Would that cause me to re-evaluate what I believe about Jesus, any more than I should re-evaluate George Washington upon learning that the cherry tree story is false? These mistakes well known through Christian history and mentioned and addressed by figures like Aquinas and Martin Luther; one can hardly expect them to be viewed as a bombshell these days.

I find Bible scholarship to be useful for a number of reasons. It has helped us to sort out several passages that weren’t in the original drafts of the gospels. It has helped us to understand the context of the gospels and thus get a better grasp of what Jesus and the Apostles truly meant. However, Bible scholarship has its limits, because to take part in it at major universities these days you are required to consider the manuscripts we have only from certain perspectives approved of in the academic community, and not consider the teachings of the Holy Spirit, Church tradition, or personal revelation. Hence I see Bible scholarship as useful but not the be-all and end-all of what I’ll believe concerning Jesus Christ.

Now on the issue of the scholarship itself, what I’ve read would convince me that the gospels are largely trustworthy, even absent personal revelation or any other source. So what have I read? The books that most shaped my view would be New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, The Case for Christ, The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels, and several of Dr. Bruce Metzger’s books on the text and the formation of the New Testament Canon. I am, of course, willing to read any argument from the other side. The one that’s most frequently recommended to me is Dr. Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. I read it and it did more to reinforce my beliefs about the gospels than knock them down, since Ehrman demonstrates that only a very few words and phrases in the entire New Testament are in doubt in a meaningful way, and takes it for granted that outside those minor areas there is an accurate record of what Jesus said and did. If you have some other book that makes the case against Gospel reliability, I’d be happy to read it. On this board, however, my arguments have consisted mostly of endless back-and-forth with Diogenes the Cynic, and he virtually never provides cites to back up what he says. Moreover his arguments consist mostly of (1) repeating himself ad nauseum (2) starting posts with the words “I guarantee” as if a guarantee from an anonymous internet user meant anything (3) dismissing any source that he doesn’t agree with as an “idiot”, “crackpot”, “moron”, “woo books”, “bullshit”, etc… Hence he doesn’t convince me of his viewpoint very often.

On the dating of the Gospels, I lean towards them being written by 70 A.D., possibly excepting John. On the authorship, I believe that the attributed authors were associated with them. Whether they wrote directly or their oral reports were organized and embellished upon by others, I have no stance on. This page has a nice summary of the main reasons why I believe this. As it points out, Bible-bashers have a severe double standard for their approach to ancient texts. They’re willing to insist that the Gospels aren’t a source for the historical existence of Jesus because the Gospels were written 30-40 years after Jesus died, yet for other historical individuals such as the Buddha or Xenophanes they’ll happily accept texts, or even small fragments of writing, from centuries after the fact as proof that the person existed. Why the double standard?

I believe most Historians think there was a real man named Jesus, but there were many writings about Him, his life and his followers, many contradictory,it wasn’t until Constantine that the Bishops were called to gather and decide which writings to accept and which to reject, so it is a matter of who or what one wants to believe.

I find it strange that the writings of Thomas,Phillip.Judus who were Apostles of Jesus,were rejected,but accepted the wrtings of Mark and Luke who were not apostles!

We have no way of knowing if the monks who copied the writings were picking and choosing what to translate ,or if it was accurate. A great deal looks to me as I read it as an after thought by the early RCC. For instance the making of Peter head of the Church, and stating Jesus made him head! Since it was Constantine who was head of the Roman Empire at the time the church was organized it wouldn’t be too far fetched!

Christianity was very divied at first and of course the Gnostics also had a different slant on things! some of the old manuscripts were found hundreds of years later, and some that was considered to be heresy, was just rejected.

[ITR_champion]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I can give you plenty. I’ll do them one at a time. Let’s start with the contradiction in the dating of Jesus’ birth. Why do Matthew and Luke have their nativities ten years apart? Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod the Great or was he born ten years after Herod died during the census of Quirinus? Which is it?

What septimus said. Please read my posts and pay attention to what I actually say.

[Meatros]

@septimus

In Diogenes’ model, does he think a biographer would have accompanied Jesus and pestered him about birth details?? Some people would instead suppose that this kind of inconsistency supports historicity … after all, it’s easy for liars to get their stories straight.

While I do acknowledge that ITR was asking for stuff outside of the infancy narratives, I don’t exactly know what to make of this explanation. Liars, if working together, might get their story straight. Liars who are not working together would probably not get their story straight (why would they?). Shoot, police interrogations are based on catching liars with discrepancies - when the liars ARE working together. So I don’t think it’s a point in favor of authenticity.

If we assume that the two gospels were written by two different groups of people with two different motives and based them both on Mark, then each of them would have different stories, depending on what they found particularly important.

[JThunder]

@monavis

I find it strange that the writings of Thomas,Phillip.Judus who were Apostles of Jesus,were rejected,but accepted the wrtings of Mark and Luke who were not apostles!

You shouldn’t be surprised. The so-called “gospels” in question have the names of Thomas and company attached to them, but historians agree that there’s no reason to accept that these people were the actual authors. Additionally, no credible historian would say that we should only accept the writings of people who were in the immediate company of any particular historical personage. If they did, then they’d have to throw out virtually every ancient historical source, not to mention most modern ones.

[Meatros]

@JThunder

You shouldn’t be surprised. The so-called “gospels” in question have the names of Thomas and company attached to them, but historians agree that there’s no reason to accept that these people were the actual authors. Additionally, no credible historian would say that we should only accept the writings of people who were in the immediate company of any particular historical personage. If they did, then they’d have to throw out virtually every ancient historical source, not to mention most modern ones.

This may have already been covered, but is there reason to believe that the people (mark, mathew, luke, john) are the actual authors of the modern bible either? From what I can tell, it’s simply tradition.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

I think that the objection regarding Quirinius is, frankly, a bit petty. There are any number of reasons why it could have been Quirinius, or why the original Greek text should be interpreted as referring to a time that predated his term. There is also some ambiguity in how the term for “governor” should be translated. (cite). This is the sort of matter in which skeptics tend to be overly dogmatic in saying, “No, it can’t be! Not possible! No way at all!” – and that’s generally not a good stance to take when dealing with matters of ancient history for which we have incomplete information.

These are both completely bogus objections. The Greek implies no earlier census, nor does it imply another meaning besides “Governor,” nor would it even matter if it did. Judea did not get annexed as part of the Syrian province until 6 CE. Prior to that time, it was a client kingdom, not subject to census or tax. Herod died in 4 BCE. His kingdom was divided among his sons. One of his sons, Antipas, got Galilee, another son got Judea. That son proved to be so incompent and brurtal that he was removed by the romans, and Judea was annexed as part of the province of Syria. The Syrian Govrnor, Quirinius, was then tasked with imposing a census. It was the first census., There were none before Quirinius. There was never a Roman census while Herod was king.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@septimus

Responding to …
… Diogenes writes

I’d certainly consider the nativity dates to be parts of the “infancy narratives”, so wonder if Diogenes’ browser skipped a message or something.

I certainly missed it if you explained the contradiction.

In Diogenes’ model, does he think a biographer would have accompanied Jesus and pestered him about birth details??

No, I would suppose that they would make things up, or try to infer them from whatever vague indications they could gather.

(BTW, I clicked on the link to Cecil’s articles and found Our Leader’s articles on Bible dates and authorship useful. “Cecil” doesn’t seem to approve of the Exodus=Hyksos equation. I asked Diogenes about this before and got a response where the ratio of pontification to citation was infinite! I consider the question still open, but if Diogenes wants to take another shot, please consider a response with only URL’s. … URL’s to archaeological fact, not more pontification!)

[/quote]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I di not believe that the Exodus = Hyksos. I believe that the myth is probably base on a garbled memory of it, though, as does the consensus of modern scholarship. I’m not sure what this has to do with this thread, though.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@ITR_champion

What septimus said. Please read my posts and pay attention to what I actually say.

I have read your posts. Neither of you has explained this particular contradiction. Was Jesus born during the reign of Herod or was he born ten years later during the census of Quirinius? Which it it? It can’t be both. Matthew and Luke cannot both be right. At least one of them is wrong. Which is it?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JThunder

You shouldn’t be surprised. The so-called “gospels” in question have the names of Thomas and company attached to them, but historians agree that there’s no reason to accept that these people were the actual authors. Additionally, no credible historian would say that we should only accept the writings of people who were in the immediate company of any particular historical personage. If they did, then they’d have to throw out virtually every ancient historical source, not to mention most modern ones.

All four of the canaonical Gospel authorship traditions are spurious as well, though. None of them were written by apostles or people who knew apostles.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You guys want an error outside of the nativities? I’ve got a butt load of those too? Why does the author ofJohn think that Christians were expelled from synagogues while Jesus was still alive? Why does Mark have a bunch of pigs jump off a cliff in Gerasa into the Sea of Galilee when Gerasa was 30 miles away from that lake and had three rivers in between them?

Why does Mark think that it was “blasphemy” under Jewish law to claim to be the Messiah?

I can go on for quite a while with these.

If you’re interested, here’s a detailed piece I once wrote called “Shredding the Gospels” which contains a decent summary of my critiques (though I should update it). The page I’m linking to also contains a link to a rebuttal by an apologist named John McClymont (not that I think it’s a particularly strong one, but I’m prepared to address any and all of his objections if anyone thinks they’re strong).

[Skammer]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No. Mark is adoptionist all the way through. He has the dove descend on Jesus at his baptism, and then has Jesus lamenting God’s abandonment of him on the cross. Mark does not have any language, direct or indirect, indicating that he thought Jesus was God.

My NT professor at college always pointed to Mark 14:61-64, especially verse 62 where Jesus responds to the question of whether he is the Messiah by stating “I am.” (cf. Exodus 3:14)

But more to the point:

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Basically, they both needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem (the Messianic expectation since David was born there), and both knew that Jesus was said to have been from Galilee.

If Jesus was ahistorical, who was said to have come from Galilee before the Gospels were written?

[Skammer]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Why does Mark think that it was “blasphemy” under Jewish law to claim to be the Messiah?

Since this is directly related to the cite I just used - it’s blasphemy not because Jesus claims to be the Messiah, but because he is equating himself with God.

[Kinthalis]

@Skammer

My NT professor at college always pointed to Mark 14:61-64, especially verse 62 where Jesus responds to the question of whether he is the Messiah by stating “I am.” (cf. Exodus 3:14)

I’m fairly certain that Messiah does NOT equal God, or son of God.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

My NT professor at college always pointed to Mark 14:61-64, especially verse 62 where Jesus responds to the question of whether he is the Messiah by stating “I am.” (cf. Exodus 3:14)

He says it in Greek, which is not the Tetragrammaton, and the Messiah, in Jewish expectation, was not God anyway.

If Jesus was ahistorical, who was said to have come from Galilee before the Gospels were written?

I never said Jesus himself was ahistorical, just that the nativity stories are. I’m not a mythicist personally. I think Jesus probably existed, but that the writers of the gospels didn’t know much about his real biography and had to improvise.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

Since this is directly related to the cite I just used - it’s blasphemy not because Jesus claims to be the Messiah, but because he is equating himself with God.

The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God.

[Skammer]

@Kinthalis

I’m fairly certain that Messiah does NOT equal God, or son of God.

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

He says it in Greek, which is not the Tetragrammaton, and the Messiah, in Jewish expectation, was not God anyway.

Sorry, you both missed my point so I was not clear. I know the Messiah was not expected to be God. Yet, the high priest tears his clothes and accuses Jesus of blasphemy. Apparently, the priest also understood Jesus claiming to be God (or at least equal to God) apart from being the Messiah.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Kinthalis

I’m fairly certain that Messiah does NOT equal God, or son of God.

Not in Judaism anyway.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Skammer

Sorry, you both missed my point so I was not clear. I know the Messiah was not expected to be God. Yet, the high priest tears his clothes and accuses Jesus of blasphemy. Not because he claimed to be the Messiah, obviously. Apparently, the priest also understood Jesus claiming to be God (or at least equal to God) apart from being the Messiah.

But he didn’t claim to be God. Yes, Mark has Jesus say Eimi (“I am”) in Greek. That does not amount to a claim to be God. It’s only the NAME if it’s said in Hebrew, and even then, saying the name, in and of itself, is not blasphemy (you have to curse the name) and is not a claim to Godhood.