Dave31

The Jesus Challenge

Whether one may be a Christian who believes in the biblical Jesus or a freethinking skeptic who believes in a historical Jesus, it's time for Christianity to fulfill the 'burden of proof' obligations for its claims. There is no reason for skeptics to do theists work for them attempting to disprove claims that Christianity has yet to substantiate with valid evidence that can withstand scrutiny as that would be shifting the burden. Christians & Christianity have made claims that it's time they be held accountable for - if they cannot back up their claims with valid evidence then they should stop repeating those claims:

* Where are the original Gospels in their original language written by the hand of actual eye witnesses of Jesus with the correct authorship/signature and dates on them?

* The four Gospels, altogether, as we have them today did not enter the historical or literary records until toward the end of the second century around 180CE when Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresy." Prior to that the "Gospels," "sayings" and "memoirs" were anonymous.

* Why if the Gospels are suppose to be first-hand witness testimonies are they written in the third person?

* The canonical Gospels are not considered reliable accounts of history by biblical scholars - What say you?

* The epistles of Paul were written long after Jesus supposedly lived and resurrected from the dead - why do they lack any facts about Jesus’ life?

* There are over 20 passages in the bible claiming that Jesus was famed far & wide: Mt 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55; Mk 1:28, 10:1; Lk 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25 - Why didn’t any contemporary historians (or anyone) write anything about Jesus?

* Why do Christians hold-up the writings of Josephus (37-100 CE), Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE), Tacitus (c. 56-120 CE), Suetonius (c. 69-c. 122 CE), as the very best so-called “evidence” for Jesus when even *IF* we consider their quite brief writings authentic they are far too late to be considered eye witnesses as they were all born after Jesus’ supposed death?

* Where are the court documents for the trials & crucifixion of Jesus proving a historical Jesus?

* Why didn’t Jesus/God leave behind valid, convincing evidence to alleviate Christians from persecution and ridicule and to convince the rest of the world of his existence?

* Why didn’t anyone ever describe what Jesus looked like?

* If Jesus was a “carpenter” why don’t we have anything created by his hand?

* Why isn’t there any artwork, writings or carvings by the hand of Jesus or anything to demonstrate a historical Jesus?

* Why were the Gospels originally written in Greek when Jesus supposedly spoke Aramaic?

* Why do Christians uphold the King James Version of the bible as the inerrant word of God when it contains literally thousands of errors?

* How many Christians study the bible in its original languages i.e. Hebrew and Greek?

* If Jesus lived and the bible is true then why the need for Christians destroy all the Pagan temples, writings, history and kill the Pagan Priests?

* If Christianity is the one true faith then, why isn’t the world convinced?

* The cross is the most important symbol to Christians representing eternal life - how is that any kind of a new divine revelation when the cross/ankh existed in ancient Egypt symbolizing eternal life?

* The primary passage for the Rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. Christians are gleefully awaiting Jesus’ 2nd coming & rapture etc - WHY, when Jesus said “...There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28 KJV) ? Or in Matthew 24:34 Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

Jesus is implying that he would return within the lifetime of his contemporaries, and indeed the Apostles expected Jesus to return before the passing of their generation. Isn’t that a failed prophecy? If not, then why did Jesus lead them to believe he would return before their own death? Shouldn’t he have said something?

* Where’s the genealogy of Jesus’ family tree? Where are his family today? And why didn’t anyone in Jesus’ immediate family write anything at the time about Jesus at all to pass on? We have no writings from any siblings or descendants claiming any heritage whatsoever.


Until the burden of proof has been met by Christians / Christianity, there's no reason to accept a biblical Jesus nor an historical Jesus.

show_no_mercy

* Why didn't Jesus HIMSELF write anything or had anything dictated? He was around for about 30 years before he started his ministry (50 years if you accept Irenaeus); what the hell was he doing all this time?

Ben C Smith

I belong to neither category. Am I still allowed to answer (at least some of) the questions?

Ben.

bacht

Hi Dave, ex-believer here.

The mythicist approach removes the need to prove the physical existence of Christ. A spiritual Son in heaven like Philo's Logos is a simpler launchpad.

Your point about eschatology really underscores the problem imo: believers awaiting the end of the world inadvertently became founders of a new religion. This is ironic and a little absurd.

The supernatural elements of Christianity were already in place before the NT was written. Miracles, angels, resurrection, apocalypticism etc were already established beliefs for Jews and righteous gentiles. Christ became a universal saviour and guarantor of immortality because the market was there for the message.

Dave31

I like it - good one.

Obviously yes, you're more than welcome to chime-in.

Well said bacht. I tend to lean towards the mythicist position myself.

Ben C Smith

Thank you. I hope you do not take this too hard, but a lot of your questions exhibit a certain ignorance of ancient history. I will point such things out as I go along.

The original documents are lost, as is the case of nearly all ancient documents. That the lost originals had dates and signatures on them is possible but doubtful, since many if not most ancient documents lack dates and signatures.

(This question reveals an ignorance of how ancient documents are preserved for us and what elements ancient documents contained.)

This is not a question, but rather a statement. There is indeed evidence that at least some of the gospel texts bore names before Irenaeus; that evidence might not be conclusive, but it has to be addressed in order to make the claim work.

(This question reveals an ignorance of texts that either do or may reveal gospel names before Irenaeus.)

Because it was a custom of the time (though of course not an absolute rule) to write first-person accounts in the third person. Josephus, for example, writes of himself in the third person in the Wars.

(This question reveals an ignorance of ancient literary practices.)

I personally think that they are demonstrably reliable in some details but demonstrably not in others. But is this question saying that all biblical scholars think this way? If so, the supposition is false.

(This question may reveal an ignorance of current scholarly judgment on gospel historicity.)

The epistles do not lack any facts about his life. Being occasional in nature, they lack many facts. (And how long is long? Paul apparently wrote about 20-30 years after the time in question.)

(This question reveals an ignorance of the contents of the Pauline epistles.)

Either because these passages are exaggerated, or because events significant for Galilean peasants were not significant for the kind of people who wrote ancient histories, or because what was written about Jesus has been lost to us.

(This question reveals no ignorance beyond its main point; it is a good question.)

Because much of our knowledge of antiquity depends on people other than eyewitnesses.

(This question reveals an ignorance of the methods of doing ancient history.)

If they existed, they are now lost to us.

(This question reveals an ignorance of how lucky we are to have what documents we do possess from antiquity, and of how few court documents have been preserved from antiquity.)

I do not know.

(This question reveals no ignorance beyond its main point; it is a good question.)

Anyone ever? We do have descriptions of Jesus. I regard them as wholesale inventions, but they exist. That we possess no confessedly genuine descriptions of Jesus means nothing, of course, as to his historicity or to the validity of the gospel records about him.

(This question reveals an ignorance of actual descriptions of Jesus, and possibly of how few ancients are actually described physically for us by their contemporaries.)

Get serious. Seriously.

Probably because Galilean peasants did not do a lot of artwork and because Jesus did not write (much of) anything.

(This question, like the last one, betrays an incredible ignorance about the preservation of ancient artifacts. I am truly at a loss here.)

Probably because they were written for a readership that knew Greek either better than or rather than Aramaic.

(This question reveals an ignorance of modern scholarship on the gospel authors and audiences.)

Most Christians do not do this. Only relatively few do.

(This question reveals an ignorance of beliefs current in modern Christianity.)

Not many. I do, to the best of my ability.

(This question reveals no particular ignorance beyond its main point.)

If Jesus never lived and the Bible is false then why the need for Christians to destroy pagan temples, writings, histories, and priests? Whether Jesus lived or the Bible is true has nothing to do with whether later Christians committed atrocities.

(This question may reveal an ignorance of causality and connection between events.)

I do not know.

(This question reveals no ignorance beyond its main point; it is a good question.)

The cross symbolizes many things to many Christians. The newness of its revelation (whether true or false) consists in the son of God willingly submitting to death; this idea, if true, has to have implications, and those implications go well beyond any ankh symbolism.

(This question may reveal an ignorance of ancient symbolism.)

Not all Christians believe in what is known as the rapture, if by rapture you mean a catching up of believers into heaven before the second coming; in fact, I think most Christians do not believe this. However, the issue with the second coming itself is quite legitimate.

(This question reveals an ignorance of the diversity of Christian beliefs on the rapture.)

In Matthew and Luke. (They conflict with one another, but they are there.)

I doubt he had any descendants; the rest of his family is probably where most of the rest of families descended from ancient figures are; they are mingled up in countless bloodlines across the generations.

(This question reveals an ignorance of human descent.)

Not one of these questions impinges on an historical Jesus. Not one. They all have to do with the biblical Jesus, if that much.

Ben.

Dave31

Thanks for chiming-in Ben. I did put the Jesus Challenge together quickly. Although your responses remind me of the typical conceited Christian apologist tactics of omit, dismiss and attack the skeptic with ad homs &/or distraction fallacies. Implying that I'm "ignorant" 16 times doesn't hurt my feelers however, it doesn't address the questions or comments at all either. In fact, it seems more like distraction fallacies.

But thanks for your comments. I'll just add that if the reason there exists no valid evidence for a historical Jesus today is simply because the evidence is "lost" then, why isn't there any corroborating evidence from anyone else during Jesus' time period to corroborate the story? Or is that conveniently lost as well.

Also, if this excuse of being "lost" is valid then, why do apologists give the "lost or destroyed" argument by mythicists a monumental hand-waving dismissal? The difference is, mythicists have corroborating evidence to turn to. Christianity has no valid corroborating evidence. The Jesus Challenge stands strong.

aa5874

The authors of the NT and church writers wrote not one single thing that IMPINGES on a human only Jesus.

Mark 1.1 begins immediately to describe the Jesus of the NT and the church writers, and Mark 16.6 ends with the son of God rising from the dead.

Those who propagate the historical Jesus exhibit some IGNORANCE of the Jesus that the authors of the NT and church writers described as living during the reign of Tiberius.

spin

What the hell were Apollonius of Tyana or Alexander of Aboneutichus doing all their lives? What about James the Just? Arguments from silence aren't really that convincing.


spin

Ben C Smith

It may have seemed that way to you, but, although I happen to think that it is more likely, historically speaking, that there was an HJ than that there was not, I bear no disrespect for those who hold otherwise, and I do not think the evidence is a clear lock for my position.

I am glad, because I certainly did not intend to hurt your feelings.

I think you are mistaken; most of my comments did indeed address your questions. Some only answered them outright; others added that the question itself is misguided. (For example, to suggest that Christian pogroms against pagans after the time of Constantine has anything whatsoever to do with the validity of Christian claims before Constantine is simply a non sequitur.)

Much is indeed lost. This is the case across the board for antiquity. And, again, I do not think that the evidence for an HJ is a slam dunk.

You would have to ask an apologist.

This is one of the problems I had with your list. Its items were preoccupied with the biblical Jesus only, not with the historical Jesus (which is a relatively modern concern). IOW, there was nothing on it to justify your invitation of skeptics in your introduction.

Perhaps you could start another thread listing it.

Ben.