Was Jesus for real?

[RGBVideo]

I find it amusing that some people reflexively turn to their Bibles when attempting to answer this question, even when addressing atheists or agnostics. "Yes, he did, it says in this book...".

Agree.

[Jack the Bodiless]

John 21:24

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down."

This attributes the Gospel to a disciple of Christ, an eyewitness.

There is no reason to assume that this line was in the original text.

Second-century testimony is unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to the persons that now carry their name.

If there was a second-century reference to a "collection of tales", how could any historian know whether this was one of the books that would become a "gospel" or not? The earliest copies of the actual gospels do NOT bear any author's name.

For an anonymous author to have penned a Gospel, and have it accepted as from the hand of one of the Quartet or any authoritative person, would have required them to first produce the Gospel, then present it as the work of another; they would have to concoct some story as to how it came peculiarly to be in their possession ("My grandmother knew Matthew and he gave her a copy...I don't know why she never told our family about it!"); get around the problem of why a work by such a person disappeared or was previously unknown; then get the church at large, first in his area and then throughout the Roman Empire (and would not the claimed discovery of such a document cause a sensation, and controversy?), to accept this work as genuine!"

Now, what seems more plausible?

The scenario suggested above, or accepting the titles applied to each Gospel?

You seem to be assuming that the only alternative to an authentic gospel is a deliberate forgery.

I think the most likely scenario is that the gospels originated as compilations from other documents which were themselves transcripts of stories passed down orally (this seems clear in the case of Matthew and Luke, compiled from Mark and the Q source). I doubt that any gospel was written from scratch by an author who intended to pass it off as the work of an apostle.

But, once the documents were in circulation: claiming that the copy you have was written by an apostle is an obvious seller's ploy. It has been said that there were enough pieces of the True Cross in circulation in medieval times to build a ship with: why should documents be immune to that sort of bogus claim?

How do you explain Paul's conversion if he has not met the risen Christ?

What about contemporary accounts of Christ's life?

Let's look at Paul's account in 1 Corinthians, usually dated in the early 50's.

How do you explain Mohammed, or the leader of the Heavens Gate cult?

And Paul didn't have to actually meet Jesus to learn about Christianity! Paul's knowledge of Christian beliefs is no more miraculous than MY knowledge of Christian beliefs!

But Paul's account of the "500 witnesses" is inconsistent with the gospels and Acts. Those sources, despite being written later, give far more detailed biographies of Jesus: and there is no mention of any post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to a large crowd of people. Apparently, hardly anyone except his disciples saw Jesus after his death.

[Rogan Josh]

I find the atheist attempts to dispute that Jesus even existed rather assuming. Kind of like insisting that Jack didn't write the above post - someone must have hacked into his account and written it in his name.

BTW, can someone define 'miracle' for me?

From www.dictionary.com:
An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

I wonder how many people of 30AD would have regarded an aeroplane as a miracle? I suppose Jack and Boris would claim that aeroplanes don't exist.

[Jack the Bodiless]

A somewhat flawed analogy, as nobody is claiming that this hypothetical Jesus actually wrote anything even if he DID exist.

The debate about the authorship of the gospels is pretty much settled: there is general agreement among Biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke weren't written by the apostles, and that there is no reason to believe that Mark and John WERE written by the apostles.

The debate about the existence of a historical Jesus is a separate issue. Many atheists believe that Jesus probably existed.

Personally, I think that there is no real contradiction between the "historical Jesus" advocates and the "Jesus-mythers". It is entirely possible that a real person can attract so much myth that he becomes essentially a mythical character. An example of this is the wizard Merlin: he was a real person. We even have writings from Myrddin the Bard, which makes him more "real" than Jesus.

[Alexander's Horse]

sorry Jack - you lost all credibility with me when you disclosed the Noah's ark story, lol.

[Ben Kenobi]

The debate about the authorship of the gospels is pretty much settled: there is general agreement among Biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke weren't written by the apostles, and that there is no reason to believe that Mark and John WERE written by the apostles.

General agreement?


Names, please. And of Biblical scholars, not merely skeptics. I've been kind enough to cite another source corroborating my statements, why don't you?

The debate about the existence of a historical Jesus is a separate issue. Many atheists believe that Jesus probably existed.

True, but Boris brought this point up earlier.

It is entirely possible that a real person can attract so much myth that he becomes essentially a mythical character.

True, but not in 20 years.

There is no reason to assume that this line was in the original text.

Did I claim that it was?
Read my statement again.

If there was a second-century reference to a "collection of tales",

Perhaps so, but the reference in the second century was not to a collection of tales, but to the Gospels, as an accurate testimony of the life of Christ.

I doubt that any gospel was written from scratch by an author who intended to pass it off as the work of an apostle.

And I agree with you here. Luke and Mark, as non-eye witnesses have to rely on eye-witness testimony for many of their Gospel accounts.

It has been said that there were enough pieces of the True Cross in circulation in medieval times to build a ship with: why should documents be immune to that sort of bogus claim?

So essentially, the Bible has been forged by Christians in order to sell more books? Doubtful, considering the numbers of manuscripts available before the printing press. Not a lot of money in books before then.

And Paul didn't have to actually meet Jesus to learn about Christianity! Paul's knowledge of Christian beliefs is no more miraculous than MY knowledge of Christian beliefs!

You contradict yourself with your earlier questions... Paul did claim to have met the risen Christ, if true, this is a miraculous claim.

How do you explain Mohammed, or the leader of the Heavens Gate cult?

Answer my question first. Do you have another explanation for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, from a prosperous Pharisee to a calloused Christian?

Mohammed was never opposed to Muslims, he did not persecute Muslims before founding his religion, as opposed to Saul. The same for the founder of the Heaven's Gate cult. Neither one was persecuted for their beliefs, neither died at the hands of their enemies for their faith.

[RGBVideo]

Answer my question first. Do you have another explanation for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, from a prosperous Pharisee to a calloused Christian?

Mohammed was never opposed to Muslims, he did not persecute Muslims before founding his religion, as opposed to Saul. The same for the founder of the Heaven's Gate cult. Neither one was persecuted for their beliefs, neither died at the hands of their enemies for their faith

Is that actually supposed to prove something?

[Ben Kenobi]

tuomerahu:

I'm trying to point out differences between Paul and between Jack's examples.

Muhammed can be said to start a religion for his own benefit because he prospered greatly by starting Islam.

It's another thing for someone to convert from one religion to another, as in the case of Paul, from a religion of plenty to one of suffering and pain.

Besides, I asked my question first, which Jack answered with another question.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Answer my question first. Do you have another explanation for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, from a prosperous Pharisee to a calloused Christian?

Because perhaps Paul was:

A) Hallucinating
B) Dreaming
C) Lying

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

The only evidence that Paul was a Pharisee was his own claim and that of Acts, which is written by his devoted friend Luke, which Paul no doubt narrated to Luke in large part. Acts also claims Paul was a student of Gamaliel, which is extremely unlikely:

As for Paul's alleged period of studies under Gamaliel, this would have had to be in adulthood, for Gamaliel was a teacher of advanced studies, not a teacher of children. He would accept as a pupil only someone well grounded and regarded as suitable for the rabbinate. The question, then, is where and how Paul received this thorough grounding, if at all. As pointed out above and argued fully below, there are strong reasons to think that Paul never was a pupil of Gamaliel.

This is but a small part of the problems. Another problem is that Paul claims in his letters that, as a devoted Pharisee, he persecuted the Christians. Yet in Acts, Gamaliel and the Pharisees are sympathetic towards the Christians and protect them...

One theory is that Paul is a great fraud who co-opted a then-minor sect worshipping a Messianic figure from long before the time Jesus supposedly lived and fabricated much of Christian doctrine for the purposes of his own self-aggrandizement. The first evangelist, indeed!

This theory is somewhat substantiated by contemporary corraborating evidence, namely the writings of the Ebionites, an early Christian sect which claimed Paul was an opportunistic gentile-convert-to-Saducee who became the toady of the High Priest in Jerusalem and, when disappointed with advancement, decided to found his own religion.

[Jack the Bodiless]

The debate about the authorship of the gospels is pretty much settled: there is general agreement among Biblical scholars that Matthew and Luke weren't written by the apostles, and that there is no reason to believe that Mark and John WERE written by the apostles.



General agreement?


Names, please. And of Biblical scholars, not merely skeptics. I've been kind enough to cite another source corroborating my statements, why don't you?

From www.earlychristianwritings.com (note that each page contains plenty of links to supporting articles):

Gospel of Mark (written 65-80 AD)

Nineham states the following on the provenance of the Gospel of Mark (Saint Mark, pp. 42-43): "of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members (see e.g. 7:3f., 11:13, 12:42), and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith (cf. 8:34-38, 10:38f., 13:9-13); all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position."

Reginald Fuller states the following on the provenance of Mark (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 107): "Irenaeus' statement (see above) that Mk was written in Rome has been widely accepted by modern scholars (e.g. Streeter). Attempts have been made to support it by internal evidence (e.g. Latinisms like 'denarius', 'legion'). Such Latinisms, however, are the vocabulary of military occupation and speak as much for Palestinian provenance as for Rome. The connection Mark-Peter-Rome looks like second-century guessword based on 1 Pet 5:13. Remove the Petrine connection, and the question of provenance becomes wide open. Mk is a Hellenistic gospel. Its language is Gk, and, as we shall see, its traditions, especially in their christology, contain Hellenistic elements, which Mk qualifies in a Pauline direction. Yet its traditions are also in close touch with Palestinian tradition, not only with earlier tradition as in the miracle stories (Jesus as the eschatological prophet), but in such recent material as parts of the Little Apocalypse. We are drawn to suggest Antioch as the most likely place of origin."

So nobody really knows when, where, or by whom, Mark was written.

Gospel of Matthew (written 80-100 AD)

It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.

Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):


This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.
J. C. Fenton argues (The Gospel of Saint Matthew, p. 12):


It is usually thought that Mark's Gospel was written about A.D. 65 and that the author of it was neither one of the apostles nor an eyewitness of the majority of the events recorded in his Gospel. Matthew was therefore dependent on the writing of such a man for the production of his book. What Matthew has done, in fact, is to produce a second and enlarged edition of Mark. Moreover, the changes which he makes in Mark's way of telling the story are not those corrections which an eyewitness might make in the account of one who was not an eyewitness. Thus, whereas in Mark's Gospel we may be only one remove from eyewitnesses, in Matthew's Gospel we are at one remove further still.
Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):


But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.

So Matthew is essentially worthless. Hardly surprising, it also has more errors and contradictions than any other NT book.

Gospel of Luke (written 80-130 AD)

It is sometimes put forward by conservative authors that the Gospel of Luke may be as early as 62 CE because Acts does not narrate the martyrdom of Paul. However, it is to be noted that Acts 20:25, 36-38 hints that the author knew of Paul's death. Moreover, the notes in the Catholic NAB state: "Although the ending of Acts may seem to be abrupt, Luke has now completed his story with the establishment of Paul and the proclamation of Christianity in Rome. Paul's confident and unhindered proclamation of the gospel in Rome forms the climax to the story whose outline was provided in Acts 1, 8: 'You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. . . and to the ends of the earth.'" Furthermore, the dependence of Luke upon the Gospel of Mark rules out such an early dating for Luke-Acts. Finally, the author seems to be aware of the events of the Jewish revolt c. 70 CE. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus warns, "the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will case up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side" (Lk 19:43). Because Josephus says that Jerusalem was completely surrounded and that earthworks were erected in order to lay siege to the city, the Gospel of Luke clearly refers to the siege of 70 CE.

Luke, like Matthew, is a derivative work (from Mark and Q), not a primary source.

Gospel of John (written 90-120 AD)

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):


The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.
There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.

So, by general agreement, we're left with no eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus.

It is entirely possible that a real person can attract so much myth that he becomes essentially a mythical character.

True, but not in 20 years.

The only source as early as that is Paul, who gives only sketchy outlines of the life and deeds of Jesus. The only really significant "mythic" deed of Jesus mentioned by Paul is the resurrection, a myth that could easily develop within days of the death of Jesus. It's quite common for devoted followers of a revered leader to go into denial immediately after that leader's death, and to convince themselves that he cheated death and is still alive.

There is also the possibility that Paul invented the resurrection story, of course.

If there was a second-century reference to a "collection of tales",

Perhaps so, but the reference in the second century was not to a collection of tales, but to the Gospels, as an accurate testimony of the life of Christ.

The doctrine that "there are four authentic gospels" is from the late second century (Irenaeous, 180 AD). Before then, there's basically a mess of documents of uncertain authorship and many claims that various ones were written by various Biblical characters.

It has been said that there were enough pieces of the True Cross in circulation in medieval times to build a ship with: why should documents be immune to that sort of bogus claim?

So essentially, the Bible has been forged by Christians in order to sell more books? Doubtful, considering the numbers of manuscripts available before the printing press. Not a lot of money in books before then.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I am not claiming that the gospels were written by people who considered themselves to be forgers. I am pointing out that, once the books had been written (by authors referring to unknown sources now lost), and were in circulation, the fradulent claims of their authorship would begin.

It takes a lot of effort to write a forgery. It takes no effort at all to buy an anonymous document (or one written by a known but insignificant author) for peanuts and then sell it for ten times that much, as the eyewitness testimony of a disciple.

And Paul didn't have to actually meet Jesus to learn about Christianity! Paul's knowledge of Christian beliefs is no more miraculous than MY knowledge of Christian beliefs!

You contradict yourself with your earlier questions... Paul did claim to have met the risen Christ, if true, this is a miraculous claim.

Where is the contradiction? I'm saying that Paul was lying or hallucinating, and his knowledge of Christian beliefs wasn't miraculous.

How do you explain Mohammed, or the leader of the Heavens Gate cult?

Answer my question first. Do you have another explanation for the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, from a prosperous Pharisee to a calloused Christian?

Prove that Paul was a prosperous Pharisee. This could be a part of Paul's showmanship. Not having been present when Jesus was around, he desperately needed to get some "Jesus-cred". Hence the miraculous conversion, which also allows him to include himself among those who "actually met Jesus".

[Jon Miller]

ha ha ha, nice job Jack

among points of fallacy in the dating

the daters are assuming that Jesus could not have foreknowledge (or prophecy) of the events of AD 70

therefore, they use what was written as a phrophecy of Jesus, as a method of dating (Assuming that the writers just wrote it in)

isn't this assuming your argument?

it is poor form to say something is false because you assume it to be false

while I do admit that some theologians think that way, not all do

as far as the Gospels, they fairly obviously speak to different audeinces (I am not at all sure that Mathew was written by a disciple), Mathew for example is obviously aimed at Jews based upon what is included in it (and it does not have more contradictions than the rest)

the beloved disciple had to be John if you read the book, it describes the Beloved Disciple in places where John was described to be in the other books, also, John does not mention the desciple John, instead just mentions the Beloved Disciple doing everything that John ws descirbed to have done

you seem to just assume that the Bible is wrong

admit that your unbeleive is by faith and move on

you just appear sad with the venom of your attacks ('There is also the possibility that Paul invented the resurrection story, of course.')

if you are just going to say it is all made up, why bother appearing to have an argument?

Jon Miller

[Jack the Bodiless]

ha ha ha, nice job Jack

among points of fallacy in the dating

the daters are assuming that Jesus could not have foreknowledge (or prophecy) of the events of AD 70

therefore, they use what was written as a phrophecy of Jesus, as a method of dating (Assuming that the writers just wrote it in)

isn't this assuming your argument?

it is poor form to say something is false because you assume it to be false

The most reasonable assumption is that the mention of events in AD 70 are written after the event. Note, however, that it's still possible to argue that other parts of the gospels were written before that date, even without invoking the supernatural.

But there's no evidence that they were. Claims that the gospels were written before this date appear to be without foundation. It's what some Christians would like to believe (especially as they can then claim "prophecy").

This ploy has been used elsewhere. The Book of Daniel "prophesies" events that occurred centuries BEFORE it was written.

as far as the Gospels, they fairly obviously speak to different audeinces (I am not at all sure that Mathew was written by a disciple), Mathew for example is obviously aimed at Jews based upon what is included in it (and it does not have more contradictions than the rest)

"Matthew" was not a native Hebrew speaker, and he makes numerous errors when quoting from the Old Testament (in attempts to make Jesus fulfil OT prophecies). Matthew has the largest section of any NT book in the SAB's False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes section.

the beloved disciple had to be John if you read the book, it describes the Beloved Disciple in places where John was described to be in the other books, also, John does not mention the desciple John, instead just mentions the Beloved Disciple doing everything that John ws descirbed to have done.

In the version we have, perhaps. But scholars claim evidence that the gospel of John has been heavily redacted (revised). We don't actually know what any gospel originally said. There are even versions of the gospel of Mark that don't mention the resurrection!

you seem to just assume that the Bible is wrong

admit that your unbeleive is by faith and move on

you just appear sad with the venom of your attacks ('There is also the possibility that Paul invented the resurrection story, of course.')

if you are just going to say it is all made up, why bother appearing to have an argument?

Much of the Bible is definitely wrong. But my intention here is to correct some rather optimistic claims by Christians, some of whom seem unaware of just how unreliable various Christian source documents are.

As for Paul: even the Bible reveals some of Paul's disagreements with the Jerusalem church. It does seem evident that he was at least prepared to put his own "spin" on Christianity. That's why the modern form of Christianity is often called "Paulianity".

[Jon Miller]

often called by who?

and how is the skeptics Bible any more of a valid source than a creationist site?

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

that site is complete crap

I can point out errors from the beginning (the first 'mistake')

God said that Adam would surely die if he ate the fruit

and well, he did didn't he?

so it is truth

God did not say he would die that instant

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

error number 119 (in Mathew) is not an error

according to my beliefs (And the beleifs of many other Christians)

all the people of the earth will be raised before Christ;s Second Coming, and so the high preist would see it

Jon Miller