Jesus of History and Myth

[Erik Nelson]

At this point, I was hoping my position would be crystal clear...

It's one thing to report of mundane events. It's one thing to believe or doubt the reporting of mundane events in antiquity or modern history (i.e) people living, fighting, conquering, preaching, and dying. It's ANOTHER THING to expect people to believe in the supernatural. And when they doubt, are told in the claimed authoritative book, that if they don't, they will most likely rot in hell. And to boot, provide scant, little, or almost no evidence to substantiate the supernatural (but a few anecdotal accounts, where 'mental gymnastics' might be needed). And the only later refuge I get here from apologists is to have 'faith', apply some cognitive dissonance, blindly believe ALL of it because the Bible may have gotten some stuff correct, tell me that I'm over critical - while at very the same time the one telling me as such also does not believe Alexander is the son of Zeus for the same reasons I do not believe as such...

You know, stuff like that

Alexander's mother Olympia claimed Zeus affected her pregnancy

same as Genesis 6:1-4, if you can't deny the one, neither the other?

similar to Christ also

broadly consistent pattern of reports spanning thousands of years

supernatural because God in heaven manipulates events on earth means we don't understand how the events were caused, not that they violated the laws of physics

 

[cvanwey]

why are there so many different biographies of famous people? They all agree but each offers a different perspective and a different set of details no single account is 100.000 percent complete

Yes, what you state is certainly true. However, this was not my point

If God was the inspiring author of all scripture, as stated in more than one verse in the Bible, why give differing details to differing selected 'ghost writers'? (rhetorical)

You are presented with a dichotomy:

A: God gave His instruction and the authors still implemented with their own thoughts, to spite Yahweh's direct instruction - (i.e. deviations). Rendering the statement that all scripture is 'God inspired' false.

B: People simply wrote of their own accord, stating or even thinking their writings were from a divine source, (by way of writing of the circulating oral tradition in existence at the time, writing from their own personal perceived testimony, or scribing writings in which were in existence as instructed by leadership/authority), rendering the statement of all scripture being 'God inspired' still false.

Paper parchment velam, ancient writing materials only last a few decades, except under the most extreme desert conditions

and the accounts don't deviate certainly not significantly. Different accounts offer different sets of details, they all mesh together and overlap nicely

You have again answered with general true statements. Unfortunately again, they do not address my points

If God's chosen vessel was text, why not preserve them? Why allow for them to be destroyed forever? These are not the run-o-da-mill ordinary human writings, these are direct words from God. Makes no sense really

And in reference to your other statement about how all writings 'overlap', please read the presented dichotomy above.

You complaining about humans, having free will? But as it says in judges, People go their own way doing what is right in their own individual eyes? Even Though I understand that that is not scripturally sound Christianity. See my next answer.

No, this was not my point. The asserted messages from God are not clear, as He apparently allowed for scripture to be vague, instead of clear. Hence, the multiple denominations, subsets, wars/fighting/debates over general content, etc.... God appears to be the direct providing author of confusion.

It's not about free will in the sense you are indicating. All such parties truly think their interpretation is correct, by way of their epistemology. It is not something they choose per say. They all genuinely 'think' they are right, and their opponent is wrong. So theoretically, God is watching infighting, killing, and slaughter, over the misunderstanding of God's unclear messages (because humans genuinely have a problem with interpretation) This does not appear to be a sound way of communication, and only begs the likes of the philosophers, such as Epicurus (paraphrased - whom presents the argument, ('if God is unwilling to intervene where there exists a genuine 'wrong', why is God 'good.', etc......).

But it would more-so make sense if we are instead just dealing with human writings, which only state they are God inspired, but are not. Then ALL of the above instantly makes perfect sense.

If such is the case, which is more likely, then the Bible is no better then the Qur'an, or any other book of stated asserted truth, stating to be from a higher power.

That's not the claim, the claim is the church as a whole is guided righteously. The church is a social entity. Where 2 are gathered in Jesus's name there he is? No single individual can claim anything.

In my estimation, for the example reasons above, this would be false; unless God admits blunder on some level.

How do you know that? Mark 16 verse 8 cannot possibly be. The original ending because it's not complete. It ends in mid stride in mid thought. There must've been something after that.

And yet, that's where such manuscripts END; even according to the bias and favoring Christian position who found as such. It again goes back to the fundamental question.

If God's intent was to provide truth to humans, by way of text, why allow for such lost original records, ambiguity in the text, and deviation? Again, if God is the sole author, and humans are mere ghost writers, it would not make sense.

Lets use basic logic. Why would an author write the woman said nothing to no one. And in the very next verse, do a 180? Regardless of the provided answer, it appears very human in error... Again, if all such writings were human inspired, and not divine inspired, all scenarios and situation make perfect sense, and also fall into place perfectly.

No, not convenient it's because the previous Emperor Diocletian Killed all of the church leaders destroyed all of the church buildings and destroyed all of the complete copies of the Bible. The only thing to survive Dioclesian's purges and Persecutions were the tens of thousands of fragments from which Humpty Dumpty, was put back together again, after the Christians. Emerged victorious under Constantine. Not something the early church voted for

You would prefer Diocletian and the Pagan Empire and gladiatorial bloodsports And widespread slavery in serfdom?

Again, my point was missed. Constantine is part of the reason Christianity flourished. He made it legal. Before this, Christianity was a cult, like many others before and since. My point is that there is a chance Christianity may have virtually faded into the sunset, like many others, had it not been for the Roman Empire's influence, via Constantine and the church/theocracy. (i.e) The allowance and encouragement/orders of scribes to write of such, rendering subsequent manuscripts by the thousands there-after.

Yes, Christianity has been in steep decline over the past 500 years. It apparently remains strongest in the agent Greco Roman world. It would be interesting to find out why. But I don't see what that proves.

My point here is very concise and specific....

If you were to pole the entire world about another truth claim (outside religion), you may not see distinctive lines of demarcation, from one region to the next. You would see random scatterings of one answer, verses another; not instead being dictated specifically by the indoctrination of that specific region's spiritual beliefs.

So now go to India, which is still predominantely NOT Christian, and ask them why Hinduism IS correct. At the end of the day, the reasons may parallel yours, via how your were brought up, intuition, the authoritative writings, etc.... So how does one distinguish the difference?

 

[Erik Nelson]

Yes, what you state is certainly true. However, this was not my point

If God was the inspiring author of all scripture, as stated in more than one verse in the Bible, why give differing details to differing selected 'ghost writers'? (rhetorical)

You are presented with a dichotomy:

A: God gave His instruction and the authors still implemented with their own thoughts, to spite Yahweh's direct instruction - (i.e. deviations). Rendering the statement that all scripture is 'God inspired' false.

B: People simply wrote of their own accord, stating or even thinking their writings were from a divine source, (by way of writing of the circulating oral tradition in existence at the time, writing from their own personal perceived testimony, or scribing writings in which were in existence as instructed by leadership/authority), rendering the statement of all scripture being 'God inspired' still false.

"Cold Case Christianity" by Wallace

the four gospels are four separate eye witness accounts, offering variant perspectives, which still fit together coherently

If God's chosen vessel was text, why not preserve them? Why allow for them to be destroyed forever? These are not the run-o-da-mill ordinary human writings, these are direct words from God. Makes no sense really

how exactly do you know of Jesus Christ and his gospel, if his story was destroyed forever?

The asserted messages from God are not clear, as He apparently allowed for scripture to be vague, instead of clear. Hence, the multiple denominations, subsets, wars/fighting/debates over general content, etc.... God appears to be the direct providing author of confusion.

the orthodox church or RCC have maintained a consistent account for two thousand years

so has rabbinical Judaism. their Masoretic text convinces them that Jesus was a heretic. the NT overwhelmingly cites the LXX, as at the council of Jerusalem in 50ad, whereat saint James quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX. the Masoretic version has an incompatible wording, which if it was true, would invalidate James' ruling in favor of the gentile mission

so it is extremely illogical for gentiles to claim the "correct" Christianity can be based on an incompatible document that shows Jesus was a heretic, and which invalidates the extension of the gospel to gentiles in the first place

can't blame the ancient Apostolic Churches for such confusion

theoretically, God is watching infighting, killing, and slaughter, over the misunderstanding of God's unclear messages (because humans genuinely have a problem with interpretation) This does not appear to be a sound way of communication, and only begs the likes of the philosophers, such as Epicurus (paraphrased - whom presents the argument, ('if God is unwilling to intervene where there exists a genuine 'wrong', why is God 'good.', etc......).

Christians attribute conflicts amongst mankind are the result of diabolical deception deriving from the "The Adversary"

God supplied the antidote 2000 years, according to the ancient apostolic Churches

If God's intent was to provide truth to humans, by way of text, why allow for such lost original records, ambiguity in the text, and deviation? Again, if God is the sole author, and humans are mere ghost writers, it would not make sense.

you are not being fair and balanced

you are ASSUMING the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is true... even after you just maligned "500 denominations causing conflict" (?!)

Ancient Apostolic Churches allege truth resides in the Scriptures, IN THE CONTEXT of Church tradition and traditional interpretations of the same

Lets use basic logic.

yes please

Why would an author write the woman said nothing to no one. And in the very next verse, do a 180?

one hypothesis is that the original ending has been lost (like Paul's lost letter to the Laodiceans), or it was never completed (same as Luke-Acts)

Regardless of the provided answer, it appears very human in error

human induced error -- Diocletian almost stamped out the Church

miraculous anything or anyone survived

Constantine is part of the reason Christianity flourished. He made it legal. Before this, Christianity was a cult, like many others before and since. My point is that there is a chance Christianity may have virtually faded into the sunset, like many others, had it not been for the Roman Empire's influence, via Constantine and the church/theocracy. (i.e) The allowance and encouragement/orders of scribes to write of such, rendering subsequent manuscripts by the thousands there-after.

Constantine rescued the church, yes

but not from passively fading away, rather from being actively suppressed

 

[Chesterton]

Verses purporting to show that his life was foretold by the prophets are all post-facto fictions. Even the gospels differ on the chronology of his life and ministry.

Sorry, late to the thread. Haven't read it, but this part of the OP seems odd. Are you saying the gospels are fictions which don't agree with each other?

 

[JackRT]

Sorry, late to the thread. Haven't read it, but this part of the OP seems odd. Are you saying the gospels are fictions which don't agree with each other?

Not fiction really but the gospels seem to be interpretive narratives written generations later by sincere people trying to make sense of the life and teaching of Jesus. They did this by employing the Hebrew/Jewish literary technique of haggadic midrash by which events of the past were incorporated into the new story.

 

[Chesterton]

Not fiction really but the gospels seem to be interpretive narratives written generations later by sincere people trying to make sense of the life and teaching of Jesus. That did this by employing the Hebrew/Jewish literary technique of haggadic midrash by which events of the past were incorporated into the new story.

I don't think sincere people would make stuff.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think sincere people would make stuff.

The false teachers in society, and in pagan religions, deny Jesus.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Not fiction really but the gospels seem to be interpretive narratives written generations later by sincere people trying to make sense of the life and teaching of Jesus. That did this by employing the Hebrew/Jewish literary technique of haggadic midrash by which events of the past were incorporated into the new story.

Cold Case Christianity by Wallace refutes all of the skepticisms brought up in this thread

all of them

seriously

if it's possible to debunk the Gospels -- accurate but disparate eye witness accounts -- it's not with Bruce Metzger, either in his own words or the same paraphrased

 

[Erik Nelson]

The false teachers in society, and in pagan religions, deny Jesus.

Your words arguably apply. To more than a few individuals. Who appear to engage in motivated reasoning? Also known as rationalization.

They know before hand the conclusion they want to reach. And they seek for the best. Or least bad. Arguments that they can make. 2. Approximately justify. their. desired Conclusion.

For example, Not a few individuals appear to believe. That religion is an inherent evil. Stifling science. And social progress. And so they don't care. If wondrous events ever occur. They think they are judging a tree by its fruits. And anything goes to justify. Chopping down the tree of religion. So even if they have to bend facts or ignore information and Cogent lines of reasoning. They still advance their desired conclusion because they are so convinced of its merit.

The result is that they do Deceive "for a cause". They think that deception and error is justified "in certain circumstances." They think that deception and error... Is good

multiply that by 7,000,000,000? (It sometimes seems) And you have the whole human species, thinking that deception and error is justified in certain circumstances "For the right cause".

Bottom line being...

That "Deception is good"

(According to Wallace. Aristotle. Long long ago observed. That if your system of philosophy winds up telling you. That heinous crimes are justified. You made a mistake somewhere... "Judge a tree by its fruits".)

 

[JackRT]

I don't think sincere people would make stuff.

It is difficult for a modern Christian to understand how people in the past thought, particularly when they know next to nothing about the context of their literary traditions.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Not fiction really but the gospels seem to be interpretive narratives written generations later by sincere people trying to make sense of the life and teaching of Jesus. That did this by employing the Hebrew/Jewish literary technique of haggadic midrash by which events of the past were incorporated into the new story.

This.

 

[Erik Nelson]

3 Responses to the Deadly Atheist Meme Even Christians Get Wrong – Rational Faith

the above is helpful to the discussion in pinpointing the Atheist assumption of "no evidence"

Wallace COLD CASE CHRISTIANITY demonstrates all of the circumstantial evidence, and refutes all of the mainstream skepticisms

the only allegations not covered therein are the Hugh Schonfeld "Passover Plot" & "substitution hypothesis" -- surprised atheists don't pick up on these more

 

[cvanwey]

"Cold Case Christianity" by Wallace

the four gospels are four separate eye witness accounts, offering variant perspectives, which still fit together coherently

'Coherently' is a relative term. Yes, all accounts speak of the same topic. So yes, in this respect, they are all 'coherent'. But this is setting the bar pretty dang low, when revering such work as God's message, don't you think?

However, your response did not address my point however. Nor, did you clarify what camp you fall within?

A) God is the unified author, and all scribes of scripture were directed by this unified provider (Yahweh), but somehow provided conflicting details from one author to the next ?

B) Many wrote from their own accord, which deviate, which means other passages stating all scripture is 'God inspired' is false?

Which answer would you like be in conflict with, A) or B)?.?.?

how exactly do you know of Jesus Christ and his gospel, if his story was destroyed forever?

The same way I know of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc... Human told tales, writings, etc...

Can you please answer my question now?

Why is the original text not preserved, if this was God's chosen vessel? Why allow for later scribes to piece bits together, interject, add, omit, gather such texts? Why rely upon humans to perform something in which they clearly blundered?

the orthodox church or RCC have maintained a consistent account for two thousand years

so has rabbinical Judaism. their Masoretic text convinces them that Jesus was a heretic. the NT overwhelmingly cites the LXX, as at the council of Jerusalem in 50ad, whereat saint James quoted Amos 9:11-12 from the LXX. the Masoretic version has an incompatible wording, which if it was true, would invalidate James' ruling in favor of the gentile mission

so it is extremely illogical for gentiles to claim the "correct" Christianity can be based on an incompatible document that shows Jesus was a heretic, and which invalidates the extension of the gospel to gentiles in the first place

can't blame the ancient Apostolic Churches for such confusion

Let's try again:

The asserted messages from God are not clear, as He apparently allowed for scripture to be vague, instead of clear. Hence, the multiple denominations, subsets, wars/fighting/debates over general content, etc.... God appears to be the direct providing author of confusion.

Christians attribute conflicts amongst mankind are the result of diabolical deception deriving from the "The Adversary"

God supplied the antidote 2000 years, according to the ancient apostolic Churches

Yahweh sending a clone of himself down to earth 2,000 years ago, for people to believe in later, with no later evidence, or to instead burn forever, hardly sounds like a logical solution.

What has He done since?

Please try again:

'Theoretically, God is watching infighting, killing, and slaughter, over the misunderstanding of God's unclear messages (because humans genuinely have a problem with interpretation) This does not appear to be a sound way of communication, and only begs the likes of the philosophers, such as Epicurus (paraphrased - whom presents the argument, ('if God is unwilling to intervene where there exists a genuine 'wrong', why is God 'good.', etc......).'

you are not being fair and balanced

you are ASSUMING the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is true... even after you just maligned "500 denominations causing conflict" (?!)

Ancient Apostolic Churches allege truth resides in the Scriptures, IN THE CONTEXT of Church tradition and traditional interpretations of the same

This again did not address my point...

And of course it is not 'fair and balanced'. The claim is that God speaks to a select few. Otherwise, God would speak to everyone whom asks equally and consistently.

one hypothesis is that the original ending has been lost (like Paul's lost letter to the Laodiceans), or it was never completed (same as Luke-Acts)

This is severe wishful thinking. But most likely not the case for Mark 16:8.

Constantine rescued the church, yes

but not from passively fading away, rather from being actively suppressed

You know this because....? Before Constantine, Christianity was a cult, like others circulating. Constantine made it law, Roman law. Writings were then encouraged. This is the beginning reason why we have many manuscripts now.

 

[Chesterton]

It is difficult for a modern Christian to understand how people in the past thought, particularly when they know next to nothing about the context of their literary traditions.

All men have known it's wrong to lie. It's hammered home in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

 

[Chesterton]

This.

What do you mean "this"? That was such a vague reply he didn't even say anything, did he? What did he say?

 

[JackRT]

All men have known it's wrong to lie. It's hammered home in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

Haggadic Midrash was the traditional way the Jews and early Christians told their sacred stories. They saw no lie in this whatsoever. Perhaps an example will help illustrate my point.

In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea (yes, I did not say Red Sea) to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

 

[Chesterton]

Haggadic Midrash was the traditional way the Jews and early Christians told their sacred stories. They saw no lie in this whatsoever. Perhaps an example will help illustrate my point.

In Exodus 14 we read that Moses parted the waters of the Reed Sea (yes, I did not say Red Sea) to lead the Hebrew people out of Egypt. In Joshua 3, we read that Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River to lead the Hebrew people into the promised land. Did this event actually happen exactly as described? I suspect not. Certainly the river was crossed but the "parting of the waters" has it's most important meaning as a literary device linking Joshua to Moses. God's plan was being carried forward. This midrash of the parting of waters was used again in the Old Testament in 2 Kings 2 when the waters of the Jordan were parted by both the prophet Elijah and the prophet Elisha. This midrash is carried into the New Testament in Mark 1 when at the baptism of Jesus the heavens were parted to permit the descent of the Holy Spirit and God's words of benediction. The meaning is obvious…Jesus becomes the new Moses leading his people from an old life to a new. But Jesus is also portrayed as greater than Moses. For Moses, God only parted waters, but for Jesus, the very heavens were parted. When read for meaning, the historical accuracy of the event assumes little importance. It is when we of the twenty-first century read these stories without knowing their literary background that the mistake is made of assuming that the stories are historically true exactly as written.

So what about Jesus walking on water? If it didn't happen, what did it symbolize, or what's the significance?

 

[JackRT]

So what about Jesus walking on water? If it didn't happen, what did it symbolize, or what's the significance?

I have not yet gotten around to an exhaustive study of the miracles stories. Hey! I'm only 75, what do you expect? But off the top of my head let me ask if you discard the miracle stories in pagan literature?

 

[mindlight]

I think there are obvious examples of how legends grow around historical figures. I suspect that this also occurred around a historical Jesus. Verses purporting to show that his life was foretold by the prophets are all post-facto fictions. Even the gospels differ on the chronology of his life and ministry.

All that said, the stories are powerful and penetrate to the core of our consciences, setting an example of love and bringing to us the unique idea that God cares intimately for humanity.

Since the bible texts and fragments thereof can be affirmed as earlier than the various critiques and distorted accounts of Jesus's prophetic fulfilment. It seems the myths were written after the facts had been clearly presented by the evangelists.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Here is an example of a myth that sprang up about George Washington only 62 years after his death:

FACT CHECK: George Washington's Vision