(Atheist Arguments from History 3#) A non-historical gospel

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

EDIT: I see there's been some confusion--I am not the one who wrote the text below. I'm just reposting the content of a popular ex-christian/atheist on instagram because I'm interested in reading the rebuttals to his writing XD Sorry for any confusion.
----
"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives
of the time..."

This is an issue that needs deep consideration by those who consider themselves Christians. It may be difficult.
.
Whether or not a “historical” (non biblical/non mythical) Jesus existed or not isn’t the point here and I’ve discussed that at nauseating lengths in other posts.
.
The purpose of the gospels was NOT to create a historical account (though the author of Luke attempts to say he did despite failing miserably). The purpose was to show a grand story and each gospel has a different purpose. Mark, for example, is also very similar to a Greek tragedy in both content and style.
.
Mark specifically uses brilliant writing structures within other writing structures to create what is honestly a literary masterpiece. Of course, historians then had no need for such writing structures- they simply wanted to write down the facts. Where do we see these writing structures? Fiction, poetry and mythical narratives.
.
The most classic example of a Roman mythical narrative is the legend of Romulus and Remus- founders of Rome. One may also want to check out the myths around Hercules/Zeus.
.
An interesting aspect is that the gospels sometimes have elements showing Jesus being superior or the pagan Gods- can walk on water (Poseidon), Turn water into wine (Dionysus), ascended into heaven (Romulus), son of God chosen by God (Hercules). There are countless examples. Yet this is precisely the games and “one-up-manship” we see played at the time with these stories- essentially saying “my god is better than your god.” Guess how many historians cared about that?...
.
I still believe a [historical] Jesus existed but I have no confidence that the gospels paint anywhere near a picture of reality of who this man was. If we’re lucky, maybe 5-10% of the words attributed to him were his own. We may even be able to catch glimpses of his character through these myths... who knows?
.
If that little amount of words of wisdom and romanticized ideas of Jesus is good enough for the Christian then who am I to judge? They’re amazing stories with much we can learn from them- but they are, in fact, myths & legend.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts
----
"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives
of the time..."

This is an issue that needs deep consideration by those who consider themselves Christians. It may be difficult.
.
Whether or not a “historical” (non biblical/non mythical) Jesus existed or not isn’t the point here and I’ve discussed that at nauseating lengths in other posts.
.
The purpose of the gospels was NOT to create a historical account (though the author of Luke attempts to say he did despite failing miserably). The purpose was to show a grand story and each gospel has a different purpose. Mark, for example, is also very similar to a Greek tragedy in both content and style.
.
Mark specifically uses brilliant writing structures within other writing structures to create what is honestly a literary masterpiece. Of course, historians then had no need for such writing structures- they simply wanted to write down the facts. Where do we see these writing structures? Fiction, poetry and mythical narratives.
.
The most classic example of a Roman mythical narrative is the legend of Romulus and Remus- founders of Rome. One may also want to check out the myths around Hercules/Zeus.
.
An interesting aspect is that the gospels sometimes have elements showing Jesus being superior or the pagan Gods- can walk on water (Poseidon), Turn water into wine (Dionysus), ascended into heaven (Romulus), son of God chosen by God (Hercules). There are countless examples. Yet this is precisely the games and “one-up-manship” we see played at the time with these stories- essentially saying “my god is better than your god.” Guess how many historians cared about that?...
.
I still believe a [historical] Jesus existed but I have no confidence that the gospels paint anywhere near a picture of reality of who this man was. If we’re lucky, maybe 5-10% of the words attributed to him were his own. We may even be able to catch glimpses of his character through these myths... who knows?
.
If that little amount of words of wisdom and romanticized ideas of Jesus is good enough for the Christian then who am I to judge? They’re amazing stories with much we can learn from them- but they are, in fact, myths & legend.

Hey Pencil,

[Edit: Ok. I've reread your post and see the context (I think--so please correct me if I'm still not seeing the whole intent here). ... With this revision, please reorient my response below as one directed to an atheist who makes the kind of assertions that you've quoted in your post. ;)]


That's all interesting, and much of it is the kind of stuff I've been studying for the last 30 years myself. But even with it being the case that the Bible isn't exactly the kind of literature that some Inerrantists have claimed for it, I think it's a bit much to downgrade the quality of the biblical writings to the level that you feel they are at the moment.

These are some big claims, and I'd have to gently challenge you as a Christian--albeit the Existentialist that I certainly am--to place your scholarly cards on the table and cite your support for these assertions. Would you do me the honor and offer a short list of the sources from which you've drawn these conclusions lately? :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

Through this writing, I think we can see the writer means that Jesus historically was in a body . . . so He could go through things we go through, so now He can feel for us and bless us with the grace which had Him doing so well . . . on this earth, during His time in history.

But this means how personally Jesus desires to share with each of us now. And there are ones who do not believe God exists or that He is personally sharing with His own children. So, they make up stuff, saying Jesus is not historical and is not now personally relating with God's children; even church people can make God look as though He is distant and impersonal . . . like perhaps they, really, are.

In the Book of Acts there are places where disciples talk about actually witnessing and walking with Jesus.

One example is where Peter stands up and says they need to appoint the replacement of Judas. The replacement needed to be someone who continued with them from the baptism of John until Jesus was taken up from them > Acts chapter one.

Also, later when Peter is preaching to Jews, he says they crucified Jesus . . . a historical statement > Acts 2:23.

And there are other writings in which I would say it is clear a historical statement is being made about Jesus.

Josephus and Tacitus were not historical witnesses of Jesus, and how they wrote about history is not the same style as how others write; so how they wrote does not decide what is true in the Gospel writings.

And if ones claim Jesus was not historical . . . they are admitting that they are not historical witnesses of Jesus and the Gospel.

But our Apostle Paul claims he actually saw Jesus resurrected, right? He is claiming to be a witness and to have actual experience of Jesus and God sharing personally with him. And he says the gospel is historical.

In the scriptures there is no plain denying that the scriptures are historical.

But, yes, historical events can be used with a metaphorical meaning. Paul does this, using the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus which is historical, but used to illustrate how we need to die and our old man buried so we may rise and walk in new life (Romans 6:4). So, the Gospel itself is historical plus used as a metaphor to represent how in us the Holy Spirit puts an end to our selfish selves and raises us spiritually to be new persons in Jesus and His way of loving > a physically historical item is used as an image to represent a spiritually historical reality of what the Holy Spirit has done and is now doing in God's people.

But, of course, Satan does not want this. Worldly people are contrary to this. The prayer spoken in history by Jesus > in John chapter 17 > is not what is on the minds of a number of ones denying that the Gospel is historical. If you read and study ones who claim the Gospel is not historical, you might notice if the writer ever brings attention to all Jesus has guaranteed in the Lord's prayer, in John chapter 17. And, by the way . . . does this have your attention?? Or, is your attention getting tricked elsewhere??

Ones might, then, distract themselves with arguing about if the gospel is historical . . . so attention is taken away from how God makes us new creatures in His way of loving so better than human selfish loving.

So . . . then . . . now > if a person claims the Gospel is not historical, what is that person's "therefore" to go with that? How does he or she therefore live? What is the person's motive?? Therefore, where is that person trying to take your attention??
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts
----
"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives
of the time..."
Josephus and other 1st century 'historians' also can be analyzed for what may be seen as historically 'not quite accurate' accounts by way of Modern historical standards. But so goes the same for much of what passes as 'history' from the ancient past, even from the 1st century. To say that we see 'nothing at all' like this in the Gospels is to overstate the nature of ancient historicized accounts that are expressed within the stylistic prose that writers of those times saw as germane and "true." To say otherwise is to press against what we can know or surmise from the fields of 1) Historiography and 2) The Philosophy of History.

This is an issue that needs deep consideration by those who consider themselves Christians. It may be difficult.
It can be difficult, but it's not impossible.
.
Whether or not a “historical” (non biblical/non mythical) Jesus existed or not isn’t the point here and I’ve discussed that at nauseating lengths in other posts.
Well, goodie. I'm sorry that this nauseates you. I guess we won't have to worry about entertaining debates between Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman.
.
The purpose of the gospels was NOT to create a historical account (though the author of Luke attempts to say he did despite failing miserably). The purpose was to show a grand story and each gospel has a different purpose. Mark, for example, is also very similar to a Greek tragedy in both content and style.
I think it's too much to say that "Luke ... failed miserably." That's inviting askance that I don't this 'you' can fully escape from. This isn't to say the the Gospel of Luke is perfect, but just to say that Luke's Gospel isn't infallible or inerrant isn't to also say that it doesn't do well in conveying the historical substance that it intends to represent in literary fashion ......
.
Mark specifically uses brilliant writing structures within other writing structures to create what is honestly a literary masterpiece. Of course, historians then had no need for such writing structures- they simply wanted to write down the facts. Where do we see these writing structures? Fiction, poetry and mythical narratives.
That's crap ... and your statement attempts to obviate the fact that no first century historian produced any 'perfectly' accurate writings in all respects or in all nuances of statement. Let's not pretend they did.
.
The most classic example of a Roman mythical narrative is the legend of Romulus and Remus- founders of Rome. One may also want to check out the myths around Hercules/Zeus.
.
An interesting aspect is that the gospels sometimes have elements showing Jesus being superior or the pagan Gods- can walk on water (Poseidon), Turn water into wine (Dionysus), ascended into heaven (Romulus), son of God chosen by God (Hercules). There are countless examples. Yet this is precisely the games and “one-up-manship” we see played at the time with these stories- essentially saying “my god is better than your god.” Guess how many historians cared about that?...
I'd guess you're answer is supposed to be "ZERO." If so, goodie. Then, we don't have to hear you gripe about "how no historians wrote about Jesus." So, now you don't get to play both sides of the historical tennis court ...
.
I still believe a [historical] Jesus existed but I have no confidence that the gospels paint anywhere near a picture of reality of who this man was. If we’re lucky, maybe 5-10% of the words attributed to him were his own. We may even be able to catch glimpses of his character through these myths... who knows?
Yeah, who knows? You don't, which should leave the door open to a several other questions in relation to our understanding of 'how many words of Jesus, and how accurate of a representation of those words, do we think we have?'

If that little amount of words of wisdom and romanticized ideas of Jesus is good enough for the Christian then who am I to judge? They’re amazing stories with much we can learn from them- but they are, in fact, myths & legend.
No, we can't say this, in fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,945
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,781.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts
Not according to Scripture: Jn 21:24; 1Pe 1:6; 1Jn 1:1.
----

"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
And?
Who made the rule on how they must read?
Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John get the memo?
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives.
And?
Guess they didn't get the memo after all.

You may view this as my "deep consideration."
 
Upvote 0

theoneandonlypencil

Partial preterist, dispensationalist molinist
Oct 11, 2019
806
678
A place
✟60,803.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@2PhiloVoid @com7fy8 @Clare73

Thank you all for your input! I just edited my post to clear up confusion, as I am not the one who wrote all of the material in the post. I only reposted it from a staunch atheist's instagram page it for learning purposes and to hear rebuttals XD I don't know what all of his sources are, but whoever mentioned Bart Erhman hit the nail on the head.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you all for your input! I just edited my post to clear up confusion, as I am not the one who wrote all of the material in the post. I only reposted it from a staunch atheist's instagram page it for learning purposes and to hear rebuttals XD I don't know what all of his sources are, but whoever mentioned Bart Erhman hit the nail on the head.

You're welcome, Pencil! Thanks for clarifying your OP. I figured this was the case after re-reading it all the way through and thinking, "This really doesn't sound like theoneandonlypencil to say all of this..."

I realized at that point most of your OP post was a quote and I had to rethink my response. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ancient histories didn't follow the typical manner that modern histories do, and citing Josephus as a counter weight is absolutely laughable. Hisories weren't told for the sake of preserving what happened but were nearly universally apologetic in nature. They were intending to prove a point, for example Josephus' history is pointedly about shaping the way Jews were perceived. To claim that because Mark has literary features and then compare it with mythological stories is simply not a realistic comparison because it wasn't set in some unspecific, timeless locale but in the recent past. On top of that, as far as historical documents go Luke has been one of the most consistent with archeaological records routinely being demonstrated to be correct when scholars doubt his historical claims. They're not straight historical records, but then whether such a genre even existed at the time is questionable.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,788
Pacific Northwest
✟728,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Christ Mythicism is popular in low-grade "skeptic" communities; but more academic and scholarly sorts aren't going to go there because nobody in serious academia takes Christ Mythicism seriously.

It can largely be traced to 19th century fringe academics whose theories were not taken anymore seriously then than they are today. In fact most of it today can be traced back to a single source, James Frazer's The Golden Bough.

Like any form of quackery, the best thing to do is to be educated enough about relavent material and bring objective fact and empirical data to the table. For example, when people claim that Jesus is just a rehash of Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, et al, point out the fact that in none of the mythology of these figures are any of the "similarities" present.

Example: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, had twelve disciples, and gave up his life as a sacrifice as a cosmic bull.

Truth: Mithras had no mother, but emerged from solid rock. Mithras had no birthday. Mithras didn't have twelve disciples, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mithraic art in which Mithras is depicted with the twelve signs of the Zodiac. And Mithras was never identified as a bull, but rather Mithras fought and killed the cosmic bull.

Example: Osiris was crucified and then was resurrected three days later.

Truth: Osiris was murdered by his brother Set who then cut his body up into pieces and scattered them up and down the Nile. Osiris' wife Isis then gathered every piece of her husband's body, but could not find his "member", she crafts a magical phallus, and the magic temporarily revives Osiris long enough that he can impregnate his wife. Osiris then died again, but was reborn as the king of the underworld. While the offspring of Osiris and Isis, Horus, eventually takes revenge on his father's killer, his uncle Set.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

EDIT: I see there's been some confusion--I am not the one who wrote the text below. I'm just reposting the content of a popular ex-christian/atheist on instagram because I'm interested in reading the rebuttals to his writing XD Sorry for any confusion.
----
"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives
of the time..."

This is an issue that needs deep consideration by those who consider themselves Christians. It may be difficult.
.
Whether or not a “historical” (non biblical/non mythical) Jesus existed or not isn’t the point here and I’ve discussed that at nauseating lengths in other posts.
.
The purpose of the gospels was NOT to create a historical account (though the author of Luke attempts to say he did despite failing miserably). The purpose was to show a grand story and each gospel has a different purpose. Mark, for example, is also very similar to a Greek tragedy in both content and style.
.
Mark specifically uses brilliant writing structures within other writing structures to create what is honestly a literary masterpiece. Of course, historians then had no need for such writing structures- they simply wanted to write down the facts. Where do we see these writing structures? Fiction, poetry and mythical narratives.
.
The most classic example of a Roman mythical narrative is the legend of Romulus and Remus- founders of Rome. One may also want to check out the myths around Hercules/Zeus.
.
An interesting aspect is that the gospels sometimes have elements showing Jesus being superior or the pagan Gods- can walk on water (Poseidon), Turn water into wine (Dionysus), ascended into heaven (Romulus), son of God chosen by God (Hercules). There are countless examples. Yet this is precisely the games and “one-up-manship” we see played at the time with these stories- essentially saying “my god is better than your god.” Guess how many historians cared about that?...
.
I still believe a [historical] Jesus existed but I have no confidence that the gospels paint anywhere near a picture of reality of who this man was. If we’re lucky, maybe 5-10% of the words attributed to him were his own. We may even be able to catch glimpses of his character through these myths... who knows?
.
If that little amount of words of wisdom and romanticized ideas of Jesus is good enough for the Christian then who am I to judge? They’re amazing stories with much we can learn from them- but they are, in fact, myths & legend.
It depends on how you define "history". The modern way, or the ancient way. No, none of the Gospels are history, as we think of it today, but they are history-they chronicle the things that happened while Jesus of Nazareth was on earth. They are written to different audiences, though. And John tells us that, if we were to record everything Jesus said and did, all the books in the world couldn't hold them. But I do believe that the words recorded, he actually spoke. The apostles were careful to get it right. They considered what he spoke to be important. But they wrote it down years later.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,593
49
The Wild West
✟461,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Decided to continue a series of posts I started last year because I really enjoyed reading the answers y'all came up with. Find the first post here: (Atheist Arguments from History: 2#) The gospels were not eyewitness accounts

EDIT: I see there's been some confusion--I am not the one who wrote the text below. I'm just reposting the content of a popular ex-christian/atheist on instagram because I'm interested in reading the rebuttals to his writing XD Sorry for any confusion.
----
"The gospels are not historical texts.
Read Josephus or Tacitus, historians
from first century Rome.
Their writings are nothing at all like
what we see in the gospels.
The genre of the gospels do, however,
line up perfectly with mythical narratives
of the time..."

This is an issue that needs deep consideration by those who consider themselves Christians. It may be difficult.
.
Whether or not a “historical” (non biblical/non mythical) Jesus existed or not isn’t the point here and I’ve discussed that at nauseating lengths in other posts.
.
The purpose of the gospels was NOT to create a historical account (though the author of Luke attempts to say he did despite failing miserably). The purpose was to show a grand story and each gospel has a different purpose. Mark, for example, is also very similar to a Greek tragedy in both content and style.
.
Mark specifically uses brilliant writing structures within other writing structures to create what is honestly a literary masterpiece. Of course, historians then had no need for such writing structures- they simply wanted to write down the facts. Where do we see these writing structures? Fiction, poetry and mythical narratives.
.
The most classic example of a Roman mythical narrative is the legend of Romulus and Remus- founders of Rome. One may also want to check out the myths around Hercules/Zeus.
.
An interesting aspect is that the gospels sometimes have elements showing Jesus being superior or the pagan Gods- can walk on water (Poseidon), Turn water into wine (Dionysus), ascended into heaven (Romulus), son of God chosen by God (Hercules). There are countless examples. Yet this is precisely the games and “one-up-manship” we see played at the time with these stories- essentially saying “my god is better than your god.” Guess how many historians cared about that?...
.
I still believe a [historical] Jesus existed but I have no confidence that the gospels paint anywhere near a picture of reality of who this man was. If we’re lucky, maybe 5-10% of the words attributed to him were his own. We may even be able to catch glimpses of his character through these myths... who knows?
.
If that little amount of words of wisdom and romanticized ideas of Jesus is good enough for the Christian then who am I to judge? They’re amazing stories with much we can learn from them- but they are, in fact, myths & legend.

I have seen this argument before, although not on CF.com, but frankly, it is so riddled with factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies. Which is not to say that Christianity does not require a leap of faith - it surely does. Rather, the specifics of the Unitarian view of the mythologized Gospel are difficult to sustain, and even relative skeptics like, say, Thomas Jefferson, tend to give the Gospels more credence than you do.

The real issue is that we have in Christianity documents which accompany the four Gospels and other documents, such as the Pauline Epistles, which do predate them but which also verify their content.
 
Upvote 0