aa5874

You have introduce a name, Pericles, with no description, date of birth, place of residence, profession or any other data necessary to validate your claim. That is exactlly the same position undertaken by the unknown authors of the Gospels, they have introduce a name Jesus Christ with extra-ordinary claims with no verifiable data to support their claims. The prophecies, the virgin birth, the miraculous healings, includind raising the dead, the eyewitnesses of the miraculous acts, the words of Jesus pertaining to the miraculous events, resurrection and ascension are mosy likely to be fictitious acts.

In order to be the Christ those acts, which we now know to be impropable, must have been fulfilled. No person in the Gospels has accomplished the criteria to be called the Christ.

The Christ never existed, the Gospels are fiction.

DaBuster

Even if one concedes your assumption that the Gospels state “the title the Christ only applies to a person of whom there is prophecy, was born of a virgin, did miraculous acts, [etc.]”, all your argument proves is that no historical person deserves by this criteria to be called “the Christ.” This does not support the conclusion that the Gospel stories are fiction that refer to a fictitious entity; it may be that the Gospels are fiction based on a historical Jesus to whom miraculous acts were falsely attributed and thus, by your criteria, to whom the title “the Christ” was falsely applied.

aa5874

The contradictions in the Gospels are mind-boggling. If we look at Matthew 27:62-64 and John 20:8-9, we see more fiction.

Matt 27:62-64, 'Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, 'Afer three days I will rise again'. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away.....'.

Now, John 20:6-9, 'Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie.......Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Finally, Matthew 17:22-23, And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, 'The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again, and they were exceeding sorry.

The integrity of the Gospels have been destroyed yet again. And what is striking, it appears that the disciples of the author of John got thier knowledge of Jesus through the scriptures

aa5874

According to Josephus, there were more than one person named Jesus, also more than one person was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

The description of Matthew's Jesus is different in key areas to Luke's Jesus. Based on these differences, namely, genealogy (Matthew ch1 and Luke ch3), time of birth (matthew ch2 and Luke ch2) and the last words before death as recorded by Matthew ch27, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? and Luke ch23, ' Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit', it appears to me that more that one person was thought to be the Christ.

The unknown authors of the Gospels warned of numerous persons claiming to be the Christ, see Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8.
To paraphrase, 'Many shall come in my name, claming to be the Christ and shall deceive many'.

Now anyone who claims to be the Christ is a deceiver and it is obvious that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were deceived. The Gospels are fictitious.

DaBuster

I don’t disagree with your final sentence (“The Gospels are fictitious.”), though it seems very likely that these fictions are based on a historical Jesus. However, in the whole “deceiver” line of thinking that led up to that conclusion, you seem to want to have it both ways -- you dismiss the Gospels as total fiction, yet you cite the authority of those same Gospels to say that the Gospel authors “were deceived.”

Also, your earlier conclusion that “more that one person was thought to be the Christ” because there are disagreements between the Gospels is tenuous at best. The gospel writers wrote in different times and places, and the differences between their gospels are much more easily explained as attempts to interpret the life of a single Jesus in a way that fit with their individual beliefs. This applies regardless of whether you subscribe to either the MJ theory or the HJ theory –- in other words, whether or not Jesus was mythical or historical, the gospel writers all believed they were writing about the same individual.

Mr. Jaggers

Contrary to the popular saying, it is God (and not the devil) that is in the details; for it is in the little things that we learn the truth. At the trial of Jesus, Pontius Pilate asks: “What is truth?” Interestingly, Christ does not answer the question; and in his silence, there is more truth than written in all of the gospels.

aa5874

Let me try to clarify my position. I have concluded that the Gospels are fictitious and you agree. Now, if a character in a book is fictitious, the name of the character is irrelevant, because if , let's say, Matthew and Luke stories were identical in every way, except one used the name Jesus and the other Jeremiah, we will still conclude the stories are fictitious, because of certain information written in the books.
However, there are a deviations between Matthew's and Luke's accounts, although the stories of themselves remain fictitious, their characters have different genealogies, time of birth, lived as a child in different places, made different statements on the cross both to the thieves and immediately before death. This clearly indicates a different fictitious character with the name Jesus.

DaBuster, if I were to claim that you were involved in 100 events, but upon investigation only 5 of them can be attributed to you, the other 95 were done by others, including me, were the 100 events based on you, me or others?

The Gospels used the same name, Jesus, but upon investigation it is found that they are not identical in terms of genealogy, chronolgy and biography.

The success of the Gospels lies in the mis-conception that a name repeated by more than one person, although fictitious, refers to the same character.

DaBuster

This is an example of circular reasoning – you are starting with your conclusion (“if a character in a book is fictitious”) to support your conclusion that the character is fictitious. Also, your example does nothing to support your conclusion. If “Matthew and Luke were identical in every way” except for the name of the main character, the only conclusion that can be made from that information is that one is simply a copy of the other; it says nothing about whether the story is fictional or real.


You seem to place special emphasis on the differences in the birth stories to support your conclusion. However, these differences more likely mean that, by the time the Gospel stories were written (probably anywhere from 40 to 70 years after Jesus’ death), there was little to no information in the oral tradition about Jesus’ life before his ministry. Significantly, Mark, widely acknowledged to be the earliest of the gospels, says nothing about Jesus’ life before his baptism by John the Baptist. In the later gospels of Matthew and Luke, the most likely explanation for the differences is that the authors independently attempted to give Jesus a birth story and genealogy befitting a man they believed was the messiah, and they borrowed heavily from scripture in an attempt to provide further “proof” that he was indeed the anointed one. However, the character in both stories remains the same.

All indications are that the synoptic authors borrowed from one another, though there is disagreement about who borrowed from whom, the existence of possible common sources such as Q, etc. Thus, at the very least, the synpotics are talking about the same character, be he mythical or real. John’s gospel certainly has some significant differences from the synoptics, yet it adheres to the same basic outline, and very likely derives from the same traditions.

Are there fictional elements in the Gospels? Absolutely. However, admitting this does not support the conclusion that the character of Jesus himself is a complete fiction, nor the conclusion that each gospel depicts a different character. Regardless of whether you believe Jesus to be fictional or real, the gospels’ depictions of Jesus are simply variations on the same source character.

aa5874

If Matthew and Luke were identical, except for the name of the main character, the only conclusion would not be that one is simply a copy of the other, both may have been copied from another unknown source. And that unknown soucre may have copied from multiple sources.

That is erroneous, I have stated on numerous posts key differences between Matthew's and Luke's Jesus, let me repeat some of them now to avoid any more confusion.

• The genealogy of Jesus is contradictory in Matthew and Luke.(Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38)

• The appearance of the angel Gabriel is contradictory in Matthew and Luke.(Matthew 1:18-21 and Luke 1:26-38)

• The time of birth of Jesus is contradictory in Mathew and Luke.( Matthew 2:1-11 and Luke 2:1-7)

• The place where Jesus lived as a child is contradictory in Matthew and Luke.(Matthew 2:12-23 and Luke 2: 21-39)

• The events surrounding his birth is contradictory in Matthew and Luke.(Matthew 2:12-15 and Luke 2:8-20)

• The words spoken by and to the theives on the cross are contradictory in Matthew and Luke.(Matthew 27:38-44 and Luke 23:32-43)

• The last words ot Jesus before his death are contradictory in Matthew and Luke. (Matthew 27: 46-50 and Luke 23:46)

• Both Matthew and Luke claimed that Jesus said that there will be many that will be falsely called the Christ and deceive many.( Matthew 25:5 and Luke 21:8)

The facts listed aboved are some of the reasons why I came to the conclusion that the authors of Matthew and Luke described two different characters

You have not showed me how you came to your conclusion. Your claims have not been supported by any data. You have just arbitrarily made statements and claim that they are the most likely outcome. I was expecting some data , some information that I could look at to compare with those I have given you.

You conclude, ' However, the character in both stories remain the same'. But this is bizarre, you have setup your own 'likely outcome' and have come to your own likely solution.

I repeat, Matthew, Mark and Luke may have been copied from an unknown source and Mark may have just used the least of the unknown source.

Again, you have come to a conclusion without any supporting verifiable information or data. If you already agree the Gospels are fiction, the authors are unknown, the source of their information are unknown. the authors credibilty cannot be verified, the acts, words and chronology of the the character named Jesus appear to be fictitious and no-one was qualified to be called the Christ, through what means did you come to your conclusions?

I await some credible data, I have been looking for verifiable information to show that the character Jesus is not fictitious.

You appear to be confused by the word 'fiction'. In my OP, I stated that I have a book which the author claims is fiction and there is a disclaimer which reads, 'The characters and events in this book are fictitious. Any similarity to known persons, living or dead, is coincidental '.

DaBuster

You’ve got me there – that is indeed another possibility. However, regardless of whether they copied each other, or copied other sources ad nauseum, your comment about “exact copies” still does nothing to support your original argument, which is still an example of circular reasoning.

This is hardly a “bizarre” conclusion. Much has been written on the topic of MJ vs HJ by people a lot more knowledgeable than me, both in print and on this forum. Based on what I understand about both positions, my argument that the gospels, though they contain fictional elements, ultimately are based on an HJ is a fairly middle-of-the-road opinion from an HJ perspective, while your view that the gospels are complete fiction seems to be pretty standard for those who advocate a MJ. However, in all that I’ve read by both camps, as far as I can recall you are the only one to suggest that the gospels are not only fictional, but also that their references to Jesus refer to two (or more) “different characters”. Since this theory is somewhat less than common (OK, since you’ve already brandished the word, let’s just say that it’s bizarre), the burden of proof is on you.

Now, maybe I’m just being ignorant and simply don’t understand your “different character” theory, so perhaps we could discuss a more recent example that is somewhat less fraught with religious baggage. Consider the case of the original Sherlock Holmes stories, which were written by Arthur Conan Doyle. I think we can agree that Doyle’s stories are fiction and that Holmes is a fictional character (assuming, of course, that you’re not one of those HH -- historical Holmes -- nut-cases). Since Doyle passed from the scene, many other authors have written stories that have included Holmes as a character. These stories are also fiction, and the depiction of Holmes in these later stories has not always agreed with the Holmes originally described by Doyle. There has even been a movie called “Young Sherlock Holmes” that provides details about Holmes youth that Doyle never addressed; in fact, the movie contends that Dr Watson and Holmes met in boarding school, which directly contradicts Doyle’s own description of their first meeting in "A Study In Scarlet".

Now, all of these later stories about Holmes arguably represent attempts to depict the same character originally described by Doyle. Since there are deviations from Doyle’s original depiction of Holmes in these later stories, would you conclude that these later writers are each referring to a “different Holmes”? And, would your answer change if you had no knowledge of the existence of Doyle’s original stories?