Amaleq13

Welcome to the boards!!

This does not describe the Gospels. None of them actually provides a "long and detailed account of someone's life". One guy wrote a story about his belief in a Messiah named "Jesus" and two other guys later (apparently independently) rewrote that story to conform to their individual beliefs. They even added miraculous stories of his birth though they are ultimately incompatible. A fourth guy wrote a roughly similar story but with significant differences especially in the chronology aspect. Most of the "details" appear to have been obtained from Hebrew Scripture and many others appear to have been obtained from the author's imaginations.

That is when the first story is set but a guy apparently writing about this same figure a couple decades earlier than this story was written utterly fails to mention that he lived recently.

Belief in this figure named "God's Salvation Messiah" certainly had tremendous impact on an enormous number of people.

I agree. Paul gives ample testimony to the power of faith in this figure. What he doesn't give are any specific details indicating he was alive just a few years prior.

Neither of these are not understood, by the majority of scholars, to have been written by James or Jude (alleged former followers).

The majority of scholars acknowledge that Josephus has been tampered with by Christians. Many are willing to speculate on what might have been originally written but, bottom line, there really isn't enough evidence to even assume anything was there about the Jesus fellow from the Gospel stories.

Tacitus mentions "Christus" and repeats the beliefs Christians expressed about him.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that everything I've stated above is a more accurate depiction of the evidence than the previous consideratin upon which you rely, how would your sense of justification change?

Personally, I think the evidence is such a complete mess that obtaining a reliable conclusion, one way or the other, is a pipe dream. One that I thoroughly enjoy smoking but a pipe dream nonetheless.

Steven Carr

Because she is using an English saying and not saying that it was French (compare Jesus paraphrasing a well known Greek saying in Acts, but supposedly in Aramaic)


Because they apply the same standards that people apply to the Book of Mormon and the Koran?

See http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm for examples of how to do that.

Steven Carr

Nor was Cynthia a Roman soldier falling to the ground when Jesus said the magic divine words 'I am'. Perhaps Roman soldiers were given Exodus to read so that they could understand better the culture of the region they were serving in.

MechAnimal

The primary reason I don't dispute the existence of Jesus is because his existence is not what the gospel authors or the epistle authors were trying to prove. They were trying to prove that he was the Christ. That he was the Christ -- I believe -- they say over and over again, but they aren't explicity trying to prove that he existed anywhere. To them, it's a given. I would figure if he wasn't a real person that would be very important to the gospel authors and the writers of the epistles, but they don't seem to care.

I disagree. They are quite long and detailed. There are several quotes and several unique events from Jesus' life in the gospels. That to me is an example of detail. I believe that Mark wrote Mark because all the events with Peter in them are better than any of the other events with Peter in them in the other synoptics, in Matthew's gospel where the character of Matthew is described as being "away" Matthew's chronology is messed up and where the tax collector is present everything perfect. With Luke, everything's screwed up, which fits in with the fact that he was around many of the apostles who made up Jesus' seventy disciples and for that reason had gotten a lot of different opinions. The early church fathers also tell why Mark and Matthew wrote their gospels. Mark, although reluctant, wrote his at the request of the church in Rome. That would explain why his is so poorly written and why it's so short and has less detail than the other two. Matthew's is very long and detailed, which would fit with him being one of the twelve, and the church fathers say that the Christians requested him to write one because they didn't have anything to go by. So there's even a history behind why they wrote what they wrote. Luke has even got a name attatched to his -- Theophilus -- and even writes about his personal experience in writing the gospel. John's gospel is very long and detailed, something I could only expect from an eye-witness, and his authorship is heavily supported by the church fathers.
How do they "appear" to be taken from the authors' imaginations?
The church father Hippolytus, in his "Appendix", mentions the seventy disciples, a large number of which are mentioned by Paul in his letters and in Acts, and are described as being Christians.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm
Links? I have no reason not to believe in their authorship. James' letter appears to be written by someone with high moral standards, ie, James the "Just". Jude is too short to allow me to believe that it was made up for the high purpose of serving someone's own ends.
The crucifixion of Christ, something that Pilate wasn't supposed to allow to happen since, technically, Jesus hadn't done anything illegal, fits right into that part of his historians since the surrounding events describe other bad things that Pilate had done.

Are you implying that "Christus" is not referring to Jesus?

Assuming that it were more accurate, of course I would.
I think the evidence of his existence is overwhelming.

Vorkosigan

See Kirby's site on the letter of James.

I do not understand the line about "serving someone's own ends." The early Christians made up many letters and texts about Jesus and the other figures of the Church, and they were directed at early believers, in the disputes between the various factions within and without the Church. No deliberate malicious fraud need be adduced; it could well have been all pious.

Do events like The Transfiguration and the Temptation of Jesus look like history to you? They don't to most scholars!

Vorkosigan
Vorkosigan

Gregg

Mech,

This reply is not meant to be sarcastic or insulting in any way. However, I want to say that while your explanation for why you accept Jesus’ existence appears to make sense (especially to a casual observer), it is based on some false assumptions and an uninformed, simplistic view of the gospels (as well as other NT writings).

Scholars who spend vast amounts of time analyzing writing styles and methods have established pretty much beyond doubt that the gospels are not independent accounts of the same events, nor are their similarities due to their all being based on the same oral traditions. Rather, Matthew, Luke, and John copied a great deal of their material (as well as much of their narrative structure) from Mark. Mark itself is not written as a biography—a chronological account of events in the life of a historical person—but as fiction, making use of fiction devices such as groupings, repetitions, foreshadowing, and the like.

Furthermore, practically every element of the passion account can be reconstructed from passages in the Jewish scriptures. If you don’t believe the events really happened that way in order to “fulfill prophecy,� then you have to at least consider the possibility that there was no historical crucifixion; instead, Christianity could have started with belief in a being who was crucified/resurrected in a spiritual dimension (like other dying/rising savior gods of the era). Sometime later, “Mark� decided to meet certain needs of his Christian community by bringing his savior god to Earth, placing him within a semi-historical setting. To flesh out his account of the passion, he drew passages from the Jewish scriptures.

Why would Mark have written about a divine, invisible savior god as if “he� were a man who had lived on Earth within the last hundred years, using existing locations and some known historical figures, like Pilate? Well, first, it doesn’t seem so strange when you consider the times. Stories about Greek or Roman gods intervening in the lives of real historical people and real historical events were well known. (And anyway, we still have historical fiction, where made-up people are portrayed as interacting with historical figures.) Imparting ideas and messages both simple and complex via memorable stories was a time-honored teaching tool.

“Mark� may have been trying to give a holistic view of what his community believed—teachings, wisdom, doctrine, history accumulated over several decades—as well as address questions, problems, challenges, etc. that people in his community were having. A well-written, exciting narrative would hold the attention of an audience, and probably get a lot more across, than thousand dull, dry, scholarly-type historical and theological treatises would.

Obviously, it worked, since even people who didn’t agree with Mark theologically were willing to adapt his narrative for their own purposes. Other gospels were written, began circulating, and after another half century or so had passed, the idea that these stories were actually biographies of a real person took root and slowly began to spread.

MechAnimal

Or, the gospels and the letters could have been made up by the original actual apostles themselves, for the same reasons. I don't understand why that's so hard to believe.

No, they don't look like history to me. But I'm not talking about the miracles, all I'm talking about is whether or not Jesus existed, and from what I've seen it's pretty clear that he did.

Matthew and Luke has much more material than Mark and their chronological order is much different, indicating that they had other sources altogether. The miracles are fiction but the rest is not. The entire idea to fictionize any part of Jesus' life, viz, the miracles, was inspired by the life of Jesus himself.

That's just nothing but overkill to disprove the existence of Jesus. I can't imagine someone going to that length to prove the existence of someone who didn't even exist. What was the point of creating this entire religion, anyway, if Jesus didn't exist? What was the inspiration? What was the driving force that created all this fanatasicm and the desire to lie this much and create these forgeries? What's the motivation?

Well, I guess that proves the existence of Jesus even more, making the accounts even less mythical. Thanks.
If you want to read some gospels that aren't authentic, I suggest you check out the Nag Hammadi library.

Again, I'm going to repeat my reasons for believing in the existence of Jesus (not the miracles):

Paul's letters, indicating that there was a vast group of apostles who believed he existed
Acts, indicating the same thing (which I forgot to mention earlier)
The four gospels
The letters of James, Jude and John
Flavius Josephus' account of Pilate crucifying Jesus

There isn't a shred of evidence that indicates that he didn't exist. With all that I have stated in mind, I am fully confident that I am correct in believing that he was a historical person, and that perhaps his bones are still out there somewhere buried in the earth.

Amaleq13

I agree. The Gospels are about faith in Christ and not about providing a history lesson. That's why I find it strange you would rely on them for a historical conclusion.

Even a Jesus who was, from our modern viewpoint, entirely mythical would have been firmly believed "real" by the authors of these texts and letters.

They cover, at best three years of his alleged life. IIRC, the Fourth Gospel condenses his entire ministry into a single year. That is neither long nor detailed. They are actually quite short, relative to the entire lifespan of the alleged individual, and provide only those "details" relevant to the beliefs of the authors.

You seem to be accepting Papias' mention of a guy named "Mark" writing down the memories of Peter as though there is evidence connecting it to the Gospel attributed to that name. There isn't any such evidence and the earliest evidence connecting the existing Gospel with that name is no earlier than the latter half of the 2nd century. The vast majority of scholars consider the first Gospel to have been originally anonymous and even the Catholic Study Bible doubts the tradition.

"Petrine influence should not be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources -- miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion -- so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." --Catholic Study Bible, pg67 of the NT section.

They go on to identify "Mark's own day" as, according to modern scholarship, somewhere shortly after 70ce.

If a source like this has doubts, how can you have such apparent certainty?

What is the specific basis for your judgment that the events with Peter in them are "better"?

"Messed up" and "perfect" relative to what reliable information?

Again, "screwed up" relative to what reliable information?

Papias is our earliest reference (very late 1st century at the earliest) and he identifies his sources as either disciples of the apostles or disciples of the disciples of the apostles. He also claims that Judas was killed after he grew so bloated that a chariot could not pass him without squishing him. That is not what I consider to be a reliable source of information.

He also contradicts the others often enough that they are collectively called "The Synoptics" leaving the Fourth out of the club. For example, he implicitly denies that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he fails to argue against the complaint that the Messiah could not come from Nazareth. He also places the Temple disruption scene at the beginning of Jesus' ministry while the others place it at the end.

I know of many examples of much longer and more detailed works of fiction. The length and amount of apparent detail are hardly reliable criteria for establishing historical reliability. Again, even the Catholic Study Bible doubts that the Gospel we have was authored by an eyewitness.

And the early church fathers had no motivation to support its authorship? What is the basis for their claim made so many years after the book was written? Elaine Pagels has a book (Beyond Belief) that discusses the subject of why the Fourth Gospel was written and, given that she puts forth an apparently sound argument that it was to combat a specific "heresy", the motivation for the church fathers to back its credibility is provided.

Where else do you think the miraculous stories originate? Or do you believe that many "saints" actually rose from the dead and walked into Jerusalem when Jesus died?

I think that is only because you have not read enough scholarship on the issue. Vorkosigan has provided a specific link but I would encourage you to browse through all of Kirby's website. He has done an absolutely incredible job of collecting the texts and scholarly commentaries there. I think you will be amazed at how much of what you appear to assume is true is actually dismissed as unreliable by the majority of scholars (including Christian scholars).

I'm not implying anything. I'm simply stating a fact. Tacitus does not refer to "Jesus" and does not provide any information that could not have been obtained from a somewhat superficial knowledge of Christian beliefs.

I think you will find that everything I've stated accurately reflects the conclusions of modern scholarship. You've got some reading ahead of you if you are genuinely interested in challenging your currently held conclusions.

Amaleq13

It is not the difficult to imagine but it is evidence that establishes a conclusion. What reliable evidence leads you to this conclusion? All you've mentioned so far are the unsubstantiated claims of church fathers made decades after the alleged authorship of the texs in question. You need to read what else they asserted to be true before you accept them as reliable sources. We've already seen the problems with Papias but some others asserted the existence of the phoenix as supportive evidence for the resurrection while others asserted that there were four Gospels because there were "four zones of the world" and "four principle winds". These guys were not scholars who had conducted careful research before asserting their claims. These were men of faith who made assertions based on that faith regardless of the evidence.

On what specific evidence did you reach this conclusion?

Gregg

Because they were written too long after the events supposedly took place.

I don't find it "hard" to believe that the original actual apostles could have written the gospels. It's just that's not what the evidence shows.I disagree. There's no real evidence for this whatsoever. The ONLY contemporary non-Biblical references to Jesus are found in Josephus, and both references are highly suspect. Paul, writing well before the gospels, does not tell us a single thing about Jesus the human being.Sheer assertion. And I guess you know more about text criticism than people who have devoted their lifetimes to the field.

Yes, Mt. and Lk. drew from other sources besides Mark and changed some things around. That's common knowledge. But the influence of Mark is strong and unmistakable.A set of common misunderstandings.

1. It's not "overkill" to "disprove" the existence of Jesus. I couldn't care less if Jesus existed as a real person or not, except as a matter of historical interest. I have no emotional investment one way or the other, since his mere existence doesn't make other Christian claims about him true (i.e., miracles, resurrection, only Son of God and only Savior, etc.) It's just that to me, the evidence says he didn't.

2. No one was "going to that length" to "prove the existence of someone who didn't exist." That's not why I said the gospels were written ... you obviously didn't read my post. The early Christians firmly believed that Jesus existed ... as a divine, invisible, dying/rising, redemptive savior deity, an intermediary between God and humankind. Mark just wrote this figure into an allegorical drama, in a semi-historical setting. He wrote his gospel as a tool for teaching, encouraging, inspiring, answering questions, communicating the beliefs and doctrines and wisdom of his Christian community. Others liked his idea and copied it.

3. "What was the point of creating this religion anyway, if Jesus didn't exist..." Again, the Christians believed that Jesus existed, in the same way that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, the Vikings, Romans, Greeks, etc. believe(d) that their god(s) existed. Jesus was a dying/rising savior god, who performed his redemptive act in a heavenly setting. "Mark" wrote Jesus into an allegorical drama in which Jesus interacted with real and fictional human beings as a human being himself. Nothing odd about that, fictional/allegorical stories about gods interacting (as humanlike beings) with real and fictional human beings were commonplace.

It wasn't until the gospels became more widely read that the notion took hold that they were biographies and that Jesus had actually existed as a human being.

4. "What was the driving force that created all this fanatasicm and the desire to lie this much and create these forgeries? What's the motivation?" Once again, there's no "lying" or "creating forgeries" going on. Mark's motivations were probably quite innocent, he had no idea what he was unleashing by writing his allegorical tale. Ditto for the other gospel writers. They just saw a good idea and adapted it for their own purposes.Whatever. Beats me where you get this from anything I said.

Do you honestly believe that people can't be inspired by anything but other people? Haven't you heard of ideas, concepts? Jews and Muslims firmly believe their God exists, and are inspired even unto giving their lives for Yahweh/Allah, even though they would not dream of claiming that he ever took the form of a mere human being and walked on Earth.What's an "inauthentic" gospel? Who decides which ones are authentic and which aren't? What are the criteria?ONCE AGAIN. Nobody's denying that there were Christians who believed Jesus existed. They are just saying that HE DID NOT EXIST AS A HISTORICAL PERSONAGE. But to the Christians he was every bit as real as Yahweh was/is to the Jews, and as Al-lah would later be to Muslims. Get it?Acts was written long after the gospels. They are the source of its information. So it's not independent testimony to Jesus' existence.Do not constitute evidence, sorry.Don't say anything about a historical Jesus, any more than Paul does.Christian forgery.Not a shred of independent evidence that he did.You've presented precious little evidence.

Take a gander at www.jesuspuzzle.org for the argument for a mythical Christ.