Can gospel claims be debunked?

Amittai · Sep 8, 2020

and from CloudyDay2:

"There is nothing inherent to a miraculous claim that makes debunking impossible ... I think if we cannot debunk gospel claims then we might have reason to keep an open mind about them ... seem to want Jesus to appear in our laboratories to be examined by scientists ... but apparently that isn't how he does things ... possible that there just isn't enough information for skeptics to make a case against the gospels ... no debunking of the gospels would be as strong as some would like ... Christians at least have made an effort on their side with the "who dies for a lie" argument. I don't think that argument is persuasive"

Churches have essentially forgotten both how to genuinely evangelise and to teach their own existing members. My hunch is, miracles weren't primarily for what they are usually alleged to be for.

Amittai · Sep 8, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
This is a bit off-topic, but I suspect the myth of a great flood might have been inspired by seeing fish fossils on mountains.

There were several extra big encroachments affecting a number of nations, but the alleged remains are definitely not "it" - it definitely would have been dismantled. If sea comes up swiftly, it goes down part way shortly after. Part of the North Sea, Sunda Sea, the bit south of New Guinea, some west of India and the Gulf were land within the fairly recent history of mankind: Stephen Oppenheimer and numerous others have analysed circumstantial detail in various stories against a range of sciences. (Peter James separately shed light on the composite composition of "Atlantis" phenomena that have come down to us.)

Adam & Eve were not the first man and woman but the first to still be remembered. Successive representative "falls" denote frictions between hunters / farmers, or over metallic weapons. In some traditions Nimrod was a "brigand against" the deity of Aratta. Scenarios were pegs to hang the meaning on, which was supposed to be taught alongside.

Back to the NT again, the stories don't make sense unless the meaning in the message is being presented, I'd like to see chucrhes pay more attention to this and stop badgering the public (motivated by fear mongering perhaps) meantime.

cvanwey · Sep 8, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Christians at least have made an effort on their side with the "who dies for a lie" argument. I don't think that argument is persuasive, but where are the skeptical debunking arguments of that type?

Believers will state most of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, and that the disciples would not die for a lie. Hence, the resurrection believer will assert that this is strong evidence in support of a resurrection. Since they were all martyred, dying for claimed truth in a resurrection, this further validates and supports the position that a resurrection took place.

First and foremost, no skeptic, obtaining any knowledge about this subject matter, would most likely suggest that the disciples were lying. If the disciples did exist, which surrounded a claimed Jesus, it's safe to conclude they believed. Which would be the defining reason why they were labeled disciples to begin with.

However, people die for beliefs all the time; regardless of fact or fiction to the claimed belief.

Below are some primary counter observations, as to why the believer should no longer use the 'martyr defense' for claimed truth in attempting to support a resurrection claim:

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.

(2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non conformists?

Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the new Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.

(3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and sparce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/) Please note this link no longer exists, but I saved it

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

d) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

coffee4u · Sep 8, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Another issue I have wondered about is the fact that Mt. Ararat is capped by a glacier that flows slowly downhill. It seems to me that Noah's Ark would have ridden the glacier down the mountain over thousands of years.

This is a bit off-topic, but I suspect the myth of a great flood might have been inspired by seeing fish fossils on mountains.

It is now, it wasn't then. The ice age came after the flood The Genesis Flood Caused the Ice Age
And the global flood was no myth, its scripture. It was written about because God instructed Moses to write about it.

cloudyday2 · Sep 8, 2020

cvanwey said:
Believers will state most of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, and that the disciples would not die for a lie. Hence, the resurrection believer will assert that this is strong evidence in support of a resurrection. Since they were all martyred, dying for claimed truth in a resurrection, this further validates and supports the position that a resurrection took place.

First and foremost, no skeptic, obtaining any knowledge about this subject matter, would most likely suggest that the disciples were lying. If the disciples did exist, which surrounded a claimed Jesus, it's safe to conclude they believed. Which would be the defining reason why they were labeled disciples to begin with.

However, people die for beliefs all the time; regardless of fact or fiction to the claimed belief.

Below are some primary counter observations, as to why the believer should no longer use the 'martyr defense' for claimed truth in attempting to support a resurrection claim:

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.

(2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non conformists?

Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the new Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.

(3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and sparce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/) Please note this link no longer exists, but I saved it

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

d) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

As I mentioned, the "who dies for a lie" argument isn't very persuasive to me, but I brought it up because I think skeptics should develop their own arguments of that type. What you did is shoot-down the "who dies for a lie" argument, but I think skeptics should develop their own arguments that Christians can attempt to shoot-down.

For example, how about this skeptical argument: "why were early Christians so confused?" There were so many Christian sects and the variety was far greater than today even if the numbers of sects were far less. How could so much difference of opinion exist on basic theological questions if Jesus was resurrected and had presumably taught the purpose of his crucifixion and resurrection both before the crucifixion and afterwards? That would be one possible argument that could be developed more fully so that Christians could shoot-it-down.

cloudyday2 · Sep 8, 2020

JohnClay said:
I think there is a good case that at least one of the genealogies was not historical

The Genealogies of Jesus

Here are the Old Testament prophecies they fulfil:

The Messiah would be a descendent of Abraham, King David, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel

For the genealogies after David they fulfil the prophecies but otherwise every single name is different... including having different fathers for each Shealtiel and different sons for each Zerubbabel... well both also involve Joseph but some Christians think Mary is actually involved...

So I think they were invented to "prove" than Jesus was the Messiah based on it "fulfilling" the Old Testament prophecies. That explains why they both have that in common and nothing else.

It's puzzling to me that these genealogies would differ so much. I can understand differences in the gospels that lead to different theologies. For example, a sect that is opposed to women in leadership might change the gospel subtly to support their view. But a list of names in a genealogy doesn't matter very much theologically, so why don't Matthew and Luke have the same genealogy (perhaps with some minor scribal errors)?

JohnClay · Sep 8, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
It's puzzling to me that these genealogies would differ so much. I can understand differences in the gospels that lead to different theologies. For example, a sect that is opposed to women in leadership might change the gospel subtly to support their view. But a list of names in a genealogy doesn't matter very much theologically, so why don't Matthew and Luke have the same genealogy (perhaps with some minor scribal errors)?

Well the theory that both only shared information about the OT prophecies explains why that is the only thing they have in common. Then to make it historical they each got some other names from somewhere.

a list of names in a genealogy doesn't matter very much theologically

Actually it is "proof" that Jesus was the Messiah - by fulfilling the prophecies.... that is very important theologically.

coffee4u · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
It's puzzling to me that these genealogies would differ so much. I can understand differences in the gospels that lead to different theologies. For example, a sect that is opposed to women in leadership might change the gospel subtly to support their view. But a list of names in a genealogy doesn't matter very much theologically, so why don't Matthew and Luke have the same genealogy (perhaps with some minor scribal errors)?

Jewish genealogies can be confusing. Some were based on biological descent others on legal decent, sometimes both would be combined.
In luke, it says that Jesus was a son of Joseph (Joseph was his legal father) who was of Eli. But Eli was not Joseph's biological father either, but his maternal grandfather, his nearest legal male ancestor. Son of can also mean son-in-law. Women's names weren't normally used at all but instead, her husband's name could be used.

JohnClay · Sep 9, 2020

coffee4u said:
Jewish genealogies can be confusing. Some were based on biological descent others on legal decent, sometimes both would be combined.
In luke, it says that Jesus was a son of Joseph (Joseph was his legal father) who was of Eli. But Eli was not Joseph's biological father either, but his maternal grandfather, his nearest legal male ancestor. Son of can also mean son-in-law. Women's names weren't normally used at all but instead, her husband's name could be used.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia
Eli doesn't seem to be mentioned in the gospels... Wikipedia says that Eli was the father of Mary. Though some believe that Luke talks about Mary being in the genealogies, for some people it is instead the case in Matthew.
There are many different theories that try and explain how the two genealogies can both be true while talking about Joseph and Jesus (and Mary?).
There are still the problems of them conflicting with the son of David, father of Shealtiel and son of Zerubbabel...
The Genealogies of Jesus

cloudyday2 · Sep 9, 2020

JohnClay said:
Well the theory that both only shared information about the OT prophecies explains why that is the only thing they have in common. Then to make it historical they each got some other names from somewhere.

Actually it is "proof" that Jesus was the Messiah - by fulfilling the prophecies.... that is very important theologically.

Why change that genealogy or imagine a different genealogy when the first one already served the theological purpose?

My theory is that somebody thought it was inappropriate for the ancestors of Jesus to include people like Solomon who were idolaters so an updated genealogy found a path through the key people while missing the bad people.

JohnClay · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Why change that genealogy or imagine a different genealogy when the first one already served the theological purpose?

It seems that the author of Matthew didn't have access to a lot of the contents of Luke and vice-versa. So neither had access to the genealogies of the other. But they both knew of the OT prophecies of some of the Messiah's ancestors (David, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) - and they both agree with that.

My theory is that somebody thought it was inappropriate for the ancestors of Jesus to include people like Solomon who were idolaters so an updated genealogy found a path through the key people while missing the bad people.

That doesn't explain why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel have different fathers and sons in each genealogy. You seem to think that the genealogies must be historical but having at least one of them being invented makes more sense. (if you are open to the idea that writers could invent things). On the topic of inventing things - do you believe that the ages in Genesis (900+) were invented or not?

2PhiloVoid · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Why change that genealogy or imagine a different genealogy when the first one already served the theological purpose?

My theory is that somebody thought it was inappropriate for the ancestors of Jesus to include people like Solomon who were idolaters so an updated genealogy found a path through the key people while missing the bad people.

cvanwey said:
Believers will state most of the disciples were killed for their beliefs, and that the disciples would not die for a lie. Hence, the resurrection believer will assert that this is strong evidence in support of a resurrection. Since they were all martyred, dying for claimed truth in a resurrection, this further validates and supports the position that a resurrection took place.

First and foremost, no skeptic, obtaining any knowledge about this subject matter, would most likely suggest that the disciples were lying. If the disciples did exist, which surrounded a claimed Jesus, it's safe to conclude they believed. Which would be the defining reason why they were labeled disciples to begin with.

However, people die for beliefs all the time; regardless of fact or fiction to the claimed belief.

Below are some primary counter observations, as to why the believer should no longer use the 'martyr defense' for claimed truth in attempting to support a resurrection claim:

(1) Many people martyr and die for beliefs all the time; a) the many recipients in Abu Ghraib, in Iraq, in the early 2000's, b) Islamic believers for their cause (Sirat al-Mustaqeem and Shuhada from the Quran), c) the Hindu Arjuna - whom claimed Krishna informed him to perform martyrdom for the cause; just to name a few.

(2) How do you know the claimed martyred victim did not recant the second they were captured, but were still killed anyways, because during this time period, claims or professed belief in 'false gods' was often punishable by death? Many preached, or voiced their beliefs publicly, or even did not preach publicly at all, but were still harvested for punishment if others were somehow aware of their differing religious position. The claimed disciples would have been blacklisted, as they were already identified as Jesus followers. But who's to say they did not attempt to retract their internal beliefs verbally, to save their skin, but it was already too late, because the law was to kill all non conformists?

Even the Bible condemns belief in competing gods, as passages suggest death for alternate god claims. Ironically, these moral prescriptions are sighted in the Old Testament. The same text the Orthodox Jews address today, which deny Jesus as a messiah. For all intents and purposes, civilization was simply adhering to Old Testament law, as the new Testament was not written yet. At the time, differing belief to mainstream and accepted worship in the 'wrong god' may result in execution. No reliable documentation for any claims to these individual's death exist regardless, in any true capacity.

(3) No reliable source even discloses 'how' any of the said disciples died; not really much even in the Bible itself. Non-partisan sources, like National Geographic, even states the following, due to the underwhelming and sparce available claimed sources (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/killing-jesus/articles/how-did-the-apostles-die/) Please note this link no longer exists, but I saved it

'Jesus’ death on the cross, as described in the New Testament, has become one of the most famous events. But what happened to the 12 disciples who were his closest followers? Not as much information has survived about their fates, but here is what’s available from various sources, including the a) New Testament itself, b) apocryphal texts, c) early Christian historians, d) legends and lore.'

a) Using the New Testament, to prove the New Testament, is just as circular as using the Quran to validate their claimed Islamic martyrs located in Chapter 3, Verse 169 (and) Chapter 46, Verse 14.

b) Apocryphal means - '(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.' - Oxford Dictionary

c) A Christian historian will be bias towards their belief, just like a Muslim historian would be towards their beliefs.

d) Legends and lore is most likely the main culprit, as with many growing tales over time. The New Testament Bible was written decades after such claimed events, by way of oral tradition and/or claimed inspiration from god. Repeated story telling leads to fabrication, addition, subtraction, tales, and manipulation. Claims to authors receiving inspiration from god, especially from the anonymous authored sources, rely upon nothing other than faith to be true.

If willingness to die for belief is the meter stick for it's truth, then the clear winners are radical Islamic extremists.

Oh.......that's rich! :ahah:

cloudyday2 · Sep 9, 2020

JohnClay said:
It seems that the author of Matthew didn't have access to a lot of the contents of Luke and vice-versa. So neither had access to the genealogies of the other. But they both knew of the OT prophecies of some of the Messiah's ancestors (David, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel) - and they both agree with that.

That doesn't explain why Shealtiel and Zerubbabel have different fathers and sons in each genealogy. You seem to think that the genealogies must be historical but having at least one of them being invented makes more sense. (if you are open to the idea that writers could invent things). On the topic of inventing things - do you believe that the ages in Genesis (900+) were invented or not?

No, I don't think either of the genealogies is necessarily historical, but the claimed genealogy of Jesus showing him as descendant of King David was probably in existence even before Jesus was conceived. I suspect that "Nazarene" was not the city of Jesus but a sect focused on the "branch of David" ("branch" sounds like "Nazarene" in Hebrew). So when Jesus began his ministry there was a genealogy that legitimized his attempt to become the Messiah. An analogy would be if a person runs for the office of US President he is assumed to be an American from birth otherwise his campaign is doomed to fail before it starts. So Jesus had to prove his genealogy in some way to his earliest supporters in the Nazarene sect before he started his ministry.

Now, why are there two genealogies? Whether the genealogy was somewhat true or totally fictional, it existed from the very beginning as part of the Jesus story. The genealogy was not part of the earliest gospels, but it existed in the oral tradition of Jesus' family and earliest followers. Why do we have two of them now?

My theory is that somebody felt that the ancestry of Jesus should be as pure as Jesus himself so the bad kings of Judah needed to be bypassed (including Solomon).

JohnClay · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
No, I don't think either of the genealogies is necessarily historical, but the claimed genealogy of Jesus showing him as descendant of King David was probably in existence even before Jesus was conceived.

Actually in John, Jesus wasn't thought thought to be a descendant of King David:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John.

Now, why are there two genealogies?

Because there were two stories/books that were telling the story of Jesus that knew about the OT prophecies and wanted to each "prove" that Jesus descended from those people.

Whether the genealogy was somewhat true or totally fictional, it existed from the very beginning as part of the Jesus story.

No, see the John 7:41-42 passage.

The genealogy was not part of the earliest gospels, but it existed in the oral tradition of Jesus' family and earliest followers. Why do we have two of them now?

That is an unreasonable assumption... I don't think ordinary people like Joseph would have a oral tradition of their full genealogy. And if he did then both gospels would agree with it.

My theory is that somebody felt that the ancestry of Jesus should be as pure as Jesus himself so the bad kings of Judah needed to be bypassed (including Solomon).

And other parts could be invented or based on rumours. BTW Solomon wrote books in the Bible and built the temple so I don't think he is that bad...

klutedavid · Sep 9, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
What I would rather has nothing to do with it. One cannot debunk a miracle. If I can't find evidence for it and complain about it, all the apologist must do is say, "it's a miracle. Of course, you can't find evidence for it." (This is what @cvanwey means by unfalsifiable.)

I will never be able to absolutely debunk anything like a resurrection. But I have criteria that must be met before I could even begin to consider (re-consider, actually, since I once was a believer) belief:

Demonstrate that there is spiritual realm.

Demonstrate that beings inhabit that realm.

Demonstrate that at least one of them is a god.

Demonstrate that it is your god.

Demonstrate that this god had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.

Demonstrate that the events in the Bible were meant to be taken as written.

Demonstrate that there is a supernatural:

This is somewhat problematic since, I think, by definition anything that is testable, measurable, and otherwise verifiable would be natural. Thus, I think, this criteria cannot be technically met. However, if there is a god, surely some kind of phenomenon might exist, that everyone could tell exists, that physicists could say doesn't conform to physics as we know it.
Seriously, levitate my chair with me in it at a time and place of my choosing in front of scientists who might measure it and in front of magicians who could detect tricks that scientists might not anticipate (see James Randi) ... and then I could potentially concede that a carpenter from 2000 years ago multiplied loaves and fishes.

Demonstrate that that god wants of me what believers say it wants of me.

Until such criteria are met, I consider the Bible effectively debunked.

You may have refuted yourself.

Demonstrate that there is a supernatural:

This is somewhat problematic since, I think, by definition anything that is testable, measurable, and otherwise verifiable would be natural. Thus, I think, this criteria cannot be technically met. However, if there is a god, surely some kind of phenomenon might exist, that everyone could tell exists, that physicists could say doesn't conform to physics as we know it.

As soon as you mentioned the word, 'natural', you initiated a paradox. Modern Cosmology admits that the universe is approximately 95% dark energy and dark matter.

This dark energy cannot be tested, measured, or even verified. Which of course means that we cannot refer to this universe as a, 'natural', universe.

At this time, the chips are firmly resting on the square that says; probably a supernatural universe. That is by definition incidentally.

cloudyday2 · Sep 9, 2020

JohnClay said:
That is an unreasonable assumption... I don't think ordinary people like Joseph would have a oral tradition of their full genealogy. And if he did then both gospels would agree with it.

Actually I don't remember which archaeologist said this (maybe William Dever), but in the Middle East even today it is not uncommon to find people such as Bedouins who do not know their own birthday or their own age but they can recite their own genealogy back many generations. There is no guarantee that these remembered genealogies are accurate, but they are important to the those people just as knowing your birthday is important to modern Western people.

cvanwey · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
As I mentioned, the "who dies for a lie" argument isn't very persuasive to me, but I brought it up because I think skeptics should develop their own arguments of that type. What you did is shoot-down the "who dies for a lie" argument, but I think skeptics should develop their own arguments that Christians can attempt to shoot-down.

For example, how about this skeptical argument: "why were early Christians so confused?" There were so many Christian sects and the variety was far greater than today even if the numbers of sects were far less. How could so much difference of opinion exist on basic theological questions if Jesus was resurrected and had presumably taught the purpose of his crucifixion and resurrection both before the crucifixion and afterwards? That would be one possible argument that could be developed more fully so that Christians could shoot-it-down.

I think a better tactic, might be to state... "I don't believe you. Prove your assertion?"

JohnClay · Sep 9, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Actually I don't remember which archaeologist said this (maybe William Dever), but in the Middle East even today it is not uncommon to find people such as Bedouins who do not know their own birthday or their own age but they can recite their own genealogy back many generations. There is no guarantee that these remembered genealogies are accurate, but they are important to the those people just as knowing your birthday is important to modern Western people.

But how many people have two different oral versions of their genealogies.... and they know them without any gaps? Occam's razor involves the idea that at least one was invented - that explains why they don't agree in a very simple way.

cloudyday2 · Sep 9, 2020

JohnClay said:
But how many people have two different oral versions of their genealogies.... and they know them without any gaps? Occam's razor involves the idea that at least one was invented - that explains why they don't agree in a very simple way.

I totally agree that one is invented and maybe both of them are invented, but I suspect there was an original genealogy when Jesus began his ministry that claimed descent from King David. Jesus was crucified for claiming to be "King of the Jews" and part of that claim must have been a genealogy.

Now imagine you are composing or editing one of the gospels and some of the extended family of Jesus (such as the grandson of Jude) are still alive who know the genealogy claimed by Jesus. Why would you invent a different genealogy rather than simply asking somebody who remembers the original genealogy? Unless the family of Jesus was dead or too far away to ask, and that might give some clues about when and where that invented genealogy was written. But even if you can't ask then grandson of Jude about the genealogy, why wouldn't you copy the genealogy from the other gospel? One of the two genealogies had to be written first, so why didn't the second author copy from the first author? Was the second author unaware of the first author's genealogy, or did he believe it was wrong for some reason?

Also, your observation about the gospel of John is interesting (that Jesus was accused of being unqualified to be the Messiah because he was from Galilee). I think the gospels went through phases of editing, so there are parts of Matthew and Luke that might have been added after parts of John.

So I'm just brainstorming. I don't know the answers, but it is fun to try to solve the puzzles.

cloudyday2 · Sep 9, 2020

cvanwey said:
I think a better tactic, might be to state... "I don't believe you. Prove your assertion?"

I suppose it depends on a person's goal. For me it isn't enough to know who Jesus was not - I want to know who Jesus was. Partly it is curiosity and partly it is to be certain that I haven't unfairly dismissed Christianity simply because orthodox Christianity doesn't seem possible. In other words, I am looking for some unorthodox understanding of Christianity that might work - just in case it is true. I'm a person who checks a door to be certain I locked it and then checks it again a few minutes later to be doubly certain LOL

Can gospel claims be debunked?

baggage apostate

baggage apostate

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Generic Theist

Married Mouth-Breather

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Generic Theist

Married Mouth-Breather

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Generic Theist

Generic Theist

Similar threads