steph s.

how have you answered this objection? how is stating that matthew 21 has jesus riding two donkeys taking it out of context?

Iasion

Greetings,

How about some early writers who specifically DISAGREE with Christian claims :

2 John warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

A CHRISTIAN writer who admits some Christians do not agree Jesus came in the flesh.


Marcion, a 2nd C. Christian, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

“Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour ... [who] independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.”

An early CHRISTIAN who denied Jesus was physical.


Polycarp's epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :

"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"

An early CHRISTIAN writer who admits some do not agree Jesus cam in the flesh.


Basilides, in 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :

"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"


Minucius Felix, a mid 2nd century CHRISTIAN, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations :

"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -


Tatian, in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:

“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”


Dionysius of Corinth, in late 2nd century,

claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord ".


Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :

"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"


Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :

"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."


Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :

"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”


Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :

"The fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness."
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice "


So,
many early writers, Christian and not, expressed various doubts about the Gospel stories.

Evidence which speaks against your beliefs.


Iasion

Diogenes the Cynic

Which one of the copies that we have agrees with the original text? How do you know?

I really don't think you're understanding this very well. Of the manuscript copies we have NO TWO ARE ALIKE. They contain DIFFERENCES. Thousands of them. How do you know which one is the most accurate copy of the original?

pharoah

There is zero archeological evidence that Jesus ever lived.
There is scant and controversial historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.
There is zero archeological and historical evidence to substantiate any event in the life of Jesus.
There is zero archeological and historical evidence to substantiate the death and resurrection of Jesus.
The only source that we do have is so steeped with legendary accounts that can be proven to be wrong that it's nigh impossible to sift facts from fiction.

There were dozens of first-century Jewish sects, cults and would-be messiahs. Why would you expect the Talmud to refute all of them? You can't argue that the failure of the Talmud to retute Claim X is evidence for the validity of Claim X. Surely you can see how bizzarre this is.

The only source that we have for an ascension is the author of Luke/Acts, and he contradicts himself. Did Jesus ascend the same day (Luke 24) or 40 days later (Acts 1)? Sure you can argue that he ascended, then descended and reascended, but that's not what the writer claims.

Perhaps you meant the 500 brethren that Paul mentions? Whether it was 500 or 5000, why does Acts assert that there were only 120 people present on the day of pentecost? What happened to the rest of the believers?

Maybe so, but you haven't presented any evidence for it yet.

We know no such thing.

Actually, much of the OT invalidates Jesus. One particular chapter is Ezekiel 18, which is in direct contradiction to the doctrine of atonement. There is no historical or archeological evidence to support a single event or the existence of a single person in the OT before the time of the kings. However there is a ton of evidence that directly contradicts certain stories such as the creation, the flood, and the exodus.

We know for a fact that Luke's claims about the census are false. So much for his accuracy.

In his prologues to Luke and Acts, Luke claims to have investigated the known facts about life of Jesus thoroughly and to have written everything down. Yet the gospel of John contains many significant claims about the words and deeds of Jesus that Luke never mentions. Can you resolve this dilemna?

This is complete nonsense. The reason that we brand the stories of Zeus and Odin mythology is not because we have disproven their existence; it's because of their supernatural content. if we applied the same criteria to the bible that we apply to the other supernatural claims, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

steph s.

one allegiance, i realise you’re no longer replying to irrelevant remarks that dispute the foundation of your argument, but for posterity:

there is no way 100% accuracy will be reached in history, because of the nature of the evidence, and historians know that. sources are never truly complete, whether because their authors were careless, devious, saw no need to tell the full story, or all these and more. we can’t assume we know all the factors behind an event just from reading an account of it.

biblical criticism takes a more reasonable attitude towards the new testament as source materials than the kind of apologetics books that have popularised the ideas you're posting. these are written by an author from a faith standpoint trying to convince others that it is all true, using selected quotes by other authors who also seem to think it is all true.

there’s nothing half-hearted about admitting defeat if, in this case, the evidence is too shaky to give an accurate picture. if procopius happened to write a long explanation of why his accounts differed so much, and we discovered it now, it might help our understanding of justinian a lot. until then, yes, we’ll never know the exact truth, and that’s just a statement of fact.

you can't hijack history by taking something you already agree with (the christian faith), producing a list of arguments in its favour which have been refuted time and time again, and still say “you have to take history as it is”.

TomboyMom

And where did you get the evidence for this evidence? What is the evidence that: Jesus existed; he was killed; he had a tomb; the tomb was empty? Is there any evidence for any of this outside of the bible, which was invented/collated from 40-several years after Jesus died by a lot of people who never laid eyes on him?

TomboyMom

I'm only going to say this once, so I'm going to use a large colored font in the hopes that neither I nor anyone else in this thread will have to repeat it. According to the consensus of objective modern scholarship, both Christian and non,

The authors of the gospels were not eye-witnesses to the events described in the gospels. The "disciples" if any, did not write anything. There are no eye-witness accounts anywhere in the New Testament.

show_no_mercy

How did illiterate aramaic speaking jews learn to read (Matthew especially quotes from the LXX) and write in greek???????

TomboyMom

No, it has not been proven. The majority, but by no means the consensus, of modern scholarship believes that there was a man named Yeshua who lived in Israel, preached and was executed. Many other scholars dispute this, and there is much lively debate on the subject. The biblical character of Jesus, OTOH, has no extra-biblical evidence in support of his existence.

TomboyMom

NO, actually the only biblical works written before 55 CE are by Paul, who never met Jesus.