Didymus

Indisputably? There's much dispute over the dating of the gospels. Most scholars, but not all, date them to late first - early second century.

Of the four major accounts ("sayings gospels" like Thomas are not accounts), two, Matthew and Luke, are directly dependent on Mark. Another, John, is also dependent, but to a lesser degree. Thus, only one independent gospel, Mark, is given historical credence by anybody. As far as we know, in the first century, the "historical" Jesus was overlooked by everyone but Mark! So it was MARK'S GOSPEL that was taken note of, not a man who matched his description of Jesus.

Isn't it interesting that of the scores of gospels in circulation during the first three centuries CE, only four are believed to be accurate? Gospels make up an odd genre that is primarily fictional, with only a handful of examples believed to be factual.

The most compelling question is not why we should rule out the historicity of the gospels, but why we should accept it.

What impels you to read the gospels as historically based works? They cannot be traced back to "eyewitness accounts." No gospel author mentions his sources or states that he interviewed eyewitnesses, or anyone who had interviewed eyewitnesses. And there is no external historical evidence to support the gospel narratives.

Powerful message or not, the fact that the stories were embraced by so many gentiles tells us nothing about their veracity. The stories about Buddha, Mohammed and the Hindu gods were also embraced by millions.

Note also that Jews of Jerusalem, the people in the best position to sort fact from fiction, rejected the gospel accounts. How do you account for that?

Didymus

RUmike

I hope you're not implying that historically reliable information about Jesus can't be found in Matt and Luke simply because portions of their gospels are derived from Mark. There is plenty of material in Q, M, and L which has a legitimate claim to authenticity.

jjramsey

This is a straw man, since the four canonical Gospels are not considered to be accurate by the bulk of biblical scholars these days.

Chris Weimer

Earliest Christian Traditions, pt. 1
Earliest Christian Traditions, pt. 2

Much better. It's an arguable position, and it says exactly where you're coming from. Now, which early writings are you referring to that deifies Christ?

Well, sort of. It depends on what you're arguing. Attributing divine characteristics to Jesus is very different than actually deifying him. Moses also has divine attributes, as does Metatron, Melchizedek, the heavenly hosts, the spirit of the Lord, etc... Actual people very often have divine attributes, but rather few, with the exceptions of kingly lines, are actually deified.

The question which must be answered is whether the earliest Christians thought he was a God, and does that necessarily invalidate his existence. My answer is no to both of those questions.

The answer to the first is mentioned above with the links, and the second is verified by Antinous, although, as I mentioned way back when here, I think he is a rare case. I would like to revisit the issue the thread derailed into.

Don't be so negative. We're both open-minded people, and I trust that both of us can make a reasonable debate with at least some closure.

Doug Shaver

I could win that money myself if it were a legitimate offer, but if you read Hovind's terms carefully, the rigging is blatantly obvious.

Doug Shaver

Obviously not in any big way.

Assuming a historical Jesus, though, it had to get started with some Jews. Drop that assumption and it could well have had a gentile origin for which the documentary evidence is lacking. Because the evidence is lacking, I would not base any theory on such an origin. It has long been recognized, though, that with or without a historical Jesus, Christianity incorporates an awful lot of ideas that were in the air long before anybody ever heard of any Jesus of Nazareth.

Doug Shaver

No, I don't think Paul believed that Christ and Yahweh were one and the same. I think he and some other Hellenized Jews found room for lesser deities besides the Big Kahuna. What they would not have had room for was the notion that a man had become one of those lesser deities.

Didymus

If you don't mind, please supply examples of "historically reliable information about Jesus" that appear in Q, Mt and Lk but that don't appear in Mark. Or that do, for that matter!

Didymus

Didymus

Which "bulk" is that? Virtually all Christians believe them to be factual. And nearly all conservative and mainstream Christian scholars consider them to be historically accurate for the most part.

Where's the straw man? Your accusation is unfair and inaccurate.

Didymus

jjramsey

The conservative scholars like N.T. Wright consider them accurate, of course. Yet I can rattle off the names of several mainstream scholars who don't: Reginald Fuller, Gerd Theissen, J. D. Crossan, E. P. Sanders, John P. Meier, or Bart Ehrman. In general, the evangelical scholars tend to see the Gospels as accurate, but those from more mainline traditions tend to be much more liberal.