How I lost my Faith; through study of Early Christian History...

[OnceUponAChristian]

...The gospels don't contain any "birth dates." Care to unpack what you mean by this statement?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

 

[jckstraw72]

no scholar with any integrity at all would claim Jesus was just a myth

 

[Epiphoskei]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

The first sentance says it all.

"It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D."

And I say it is beyond reasonable to assert that Luke does date the birth to 6 AD. See? I can make forceful statements like that too. Doesn't make them right. Your page there is based on arguments from silence, which when dealing with ancient records are worthless. The authors are forceful and sound very sure of themselves. Might I suggest they are overcompensating for somthing... lack of evidence.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

no scholar with any integrity at all would claim Jesus was just a myth

...if that is so it is only because of authority, tradition and peer pressure...if you actually read the arguments they have much to say...

As I have said before, I have only seen scorn and blanket statements in response to the myth thesis...

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

The first sentance says it all.

"It is beyond reasonable dispute that Luke dates the birth of Jesus to 6 A.D."

And I say it is beyond reasonable to assert that Luke does date the birth to 6 AD. See? I can make forceful statements like that too. Doesn't make them right. Your page there is based on arguments from silence, which when dealing with ancient records are worthless. The authors are forceful and sound very sure of themselves. Might I suggest they are overcompensating for somthing... lack of evidence.

Have you even looked at the reasons for that date?

The Jesus birth record contradiction is something that Christian apologists have been squirming about for decades....

The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I have seen the socalled refutations; they are scorn, contempt and derision and have nothing to do with scholarship and actually dealing with the points made in favour of the Jesus Myth...

Actually scholars have dealt with the points of the Jesus Myth.

The majority of scholars agree with Robert Van Voorst's statement in his Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence:
"Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the Jesus Myth] as effectively refuted."

And who are those that argue for the Jesus Myth? Its easy enough to examine their credentials. Are they actually qualified historians or Biblical scholars? No, they aren't. As this site states:
"G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically."

I think the readers of this thread can weigh the evidence for themselves. Here are a couple of good websites to check out concerning the validity of the Jesus Myth:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm


LDG

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Actually scholars have dealt with the points of the Jesus Myth.

The majority of scholars agree with Robert Van Voorst's statement in his Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence:
"Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the Jesus Myth] as effectively refuted."

And who are those that argue for the Jesus Myth? Its easy enough to examine their credentials. Are they actually qualified historians or Biblical scholars? No, they aren't. As this site states:
"G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically."

I think the readers of this thread can weigh the evidence for themselves. Here are a couple of good websites to check out concerning the validity of the Jesus Myth:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm


LDG

Robert Price is a NT scholar, whom I quoted, and fully endorses the Jesus Myth...read what I posted from him again if you haven't already...

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

http://humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/CritiquesRefut3.htm

 

[Strong in Him]

Someone invented the person of Jesus? That is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin.

But how about - like I said before - that no major religion denies the existence of Jesus? Or that his coming is prophesied in the Old Testament? Or that the Christian church exists, and has done so for nearly 2000 years, through persecution and attempts to stamp it out, with people being willing to die for their faith? Or the fact that our calendar is AD, Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. Or that thousands of people today follow Jesus, and testify that he has forgiven their sins and changed their lives. In his name, hospitals, hostels, schools etc have been founded and thousands of lives have been changed.

There are also many other writings that speak of Jesus; the Gnostic Gospels, for a start. They were not considered to be authentic and did not make it into the NT, but even they never tried to pretend that Jesus had never lived.

The fact is that if people don't want to believe in Jesus - either because they don't want to respond to his claims, or for any other reason - then they won't.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Someone invented the person of Jesus? That is so ridiculous I don't know where to begin.

But how about - like I said before - that no major religion denies the existence of Jesus? Or that his coming is prophesied in the Old Testament? Or that the Christian church exists, and has done so for nearly 2000 years, through persecution and attempts to stamp it out, with people being willing to die for their faith? Or the fact that our calendar is AD, Anno Domini, the year of our Lord. Or that thousands of people today follow Jesus, and testify that he has forgiven their sins and changed their lives. In his name, hospitals, hostels, schools etc have been founded and thousands of lives have been changed.

There are also many other writings that speak of Jesus; the Gnostic Gospels, for a start. They were not considered to be authentic and did not make it into the NT, but even they never tried to pretend that Jesus had never lived.

The fact is that if people don't want to believe in Jesus - either because they don't want to respond to his claims, or for any other reason - then they won't.

Bad arguments; Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, outstripping Christianity, but does that make its claims true? Arguments from authority, tradition and so forth hold no water. Evidence is needed. You have fallen into the trap of: I have survived cancer, hence the dogma of Christianity is true. Just substitute Islam, Hinduism or Animism for Christianity and you will see that this is a bad argument...

 

[Strong in Him]

.

 

[Strong in Him]

Bad arguments; Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, outstripping Christianity, but does that make its claims true? Arguments from authority, tradition and so forth hold no water. Evidence is needed. You have fallen into the trap of: I have survived cancer, hence the dogma of Christianity is true. Just substitute Islam, Hinduism or Animism for Christianity and you will see that this is a bad argument...

Islam and Hinduism both accept that Jesus exisited. We all just differ as to who he was - i.e a prophet or God.

You're discounting the evidence that does exist - 4 Gospels, the NT, other writings, the early church, changed lives, other religions - because it doesn't suit you. What's your answer to all these things, and those that I outlined above? That someone has thought up an elaborate lie and succeeded in conning theologians, linguists, historians and so on for nearly 2000 years? Please!! Go and tell a Muslim that Jesus was not a prophet because he never existed and see what response you get.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Robert Price is a NT scholar, whom I quoted, and fully endorses the Jesus Myth...read what I posted from him again if you haven't already...

In his book Deconstructing Jesus, Price doesn't "fully endorse" the Jesus Myth. He is "agnostic" with regard to the existence of Jesus and he also criticizes previous Jesus Myth proponents.

With regards to his scholarly take on the subject, here is how Price himself summed up his argument in the article you quoted:

I fully admit and remind the reader that all historical hypotheses are provisional and tentative. This one certainly is. And yet I do favor it.

"Provisional" and "tentative" amounts to little more than speculation. So while Price criticizes the liberal Christians for constructing their own view of Jesus, Price himself is constructing his own view of Jesus. Tu quoque.


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Bad arguments; Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, outstripping Christianity, but does that make its claims true? Arguments from authority, tradition and so forth hold no water. Evidence is needed.

You didn't actually respond to Strong in Him's arguments, you just arbitrarily dismissed them.

I've read Price's article and his admitted speculation holds no water. Evidence is needed.

LDG

 

[Epiphoskei]

Have you even looked at the reasons for that date?

The Jesus birth record contradiction is something that Christian apologists have been squirming about for decades....

The Gospel of Luke claims (2.1-2) that Jesus was born during a census that we know from the historian Josephus took place after Herod the Great died, and after his successor, Archelaus, was deposed. But Matthew claims (2.1-3) that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive--possibly two years before he died (2:7-16). Other elements of their stories also contradict each other. Since Josephus precisely dates the census to 6 A.D. and Herod's death to 4 B.C., and the sequence is indisputable, Luke and Matthew contradict each other.

Josephus dates a census to 6 AD. A census. Not neccesarraly the census. All arguments from silence, each and every one of them, in ancient history, are flimsy arguments.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Josephus dates a census to 6 AD. A census. Not neccesarraly the census. All arguments from silence, each and every one of them, in ancient history, are flimsy arguments.

Better to believe the 'arguments' of magic books filled with miracles and historical near-impossibilities; meeting on passover eve to get rid of Jesus...good one

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

You didn't actually respond to Strong in Him's arguments, you just arbitrarily dismissed them.

I've read Price's article and his admitted speculation holds no water. Evidence is needed.

LDG

Indeed; evidence is needed; agnosticism is the only rational position we can have with regards to the Nazarene; we will never know if there was one or not but given the virtually non-existent extra-bibical evidence that doesn't reek of Christian interpolation and tampering and a total lack of anything contemporaneous to the so-called Nazarene...the evidence or better put lack thereof points to lack of existence...

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

Islam and Hinduism both accept that Jesus exisited. We all just differ as to who he was - i.e a prophet or God.

You're discounting the evidence that does exist - 4 Gospels, the NT, other writings, the early church, changed lives, other religions - because it doesn't suit you. What's your answer to all these things, and those that I outlined above? That someone has thought up an elaborate lie and succeeded in conning theologians, linguists, historians and so on for nearly 2000 years? Please!! Go and tell a Muslim that Jesus was not a prophet because he never existed and see what response you get.

Islam came into existence centuries after the alleged Jesus lived; its 'holy' book is also a complete plagiarism of the Bible and Persian mythology, no wonder it doesn't question Jesus' existence...they also claim he was never crucified and died of some unknown means. The Talmud, written centuries after the 'events' of the NT claimed he was stoned to death.

Hinduism is merely repeating what the two monotheisms have been claiming with 'authority' for centuries; non-argument.

The Gospels are invented literature, made to conform to the OT, written decades after 'the events' contained therein. They are not eyewitness accounts of anything, much less history. The fact that churches have been built and established and peoples' lives have been changed have nothing to do with the (a)historicity of the NT, Jesus or any of the purported miracles attributed to the Nazarene...the facts that Mosques are erected and Hindu Temples are erected have nothing to do with the veracity of their religions. Consolation value DOES not equal truth value...

Authority, tradition and other mechanisms have more to do with the the things you have mentioned. In the last 3 decades the NT has been torn apart as a unreliable piece of invented literature by NT scholars, whilst liberal skeptic scholars quest ever for the 'human Jesus', the power of authority and tradition keeps active Jesus agnosticism/mythicism away from many scholars...I have never heard convincing arguments based on good evidence to have good reason for believing there was Jesus the Nazarene...

"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata" -J.D. Crossan

 

[Strong in Him]

I have never heard convincing arguments based on good evidence to have good reason for believing there was Jesus the Nazarene...

It depends what you mean by good evidence. You've obviously dismissed the New Testament as not providing the evidence you want. Maybe it doesn't count, in your eyes, because its "religious" and you'd rather have a written document or quote from someone pagan. I could point out that you haven't answered my points about the authorship of John's Gospel, or the sources behind Mark and Luke, or the fact that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels and therefore provide the earliest accounts of events like the Last Supper, or that Paul told the Corinthians that many people who had seen the risen Lord were still alive, and they should go and talk to them. You have produced no answers or discussion about this; just dismissed it because it's in the Bible.

You also gave us a link to a website that has a long involved discussion about the dates of Jesus' birth. But why are they arguing about the birth of a man you say never existed? I may as well pick an argument with you about the colour of the tooth fairy's wings.

Many people argue about Jesus; if he really was God, when he was born, what he taught, when he died, if he needed to die, if he got married to Mary Magdalene and so on. You can't have arguments about someone who never was. IMO, to believe that everything that happens in our churches, country and the lives of believers today; our religious heritage, culture, music, literature, writings and testimonies by theologians, historians, scientists etc etc is based on an invention, a lie or a figment of someone's imagination, requires a heck of a lot more faith than believing in the Jesus of the Gospels. If you have this faith - that no matter what people say or do or testify to, no matter what literature they produce; you know for a fact that it's all complete nonsense and much of the world's population are deluded - congratulations. You are a man of faith. You have faith that Jesus doesn't exist just as much as we have faith that he does.

 

[OnceUponAChristian]

It depends what you mean by good evidence. You've obviously dismissed the New Testament as not providing the evidence you want. Maybe it doesn't count, in your eyes, because its "religious" and you'd rather have a written document or quote from someone pagan. I could point out that you haven't answered my points about the authorship of John's Gospel, or the sources behind Mark and Luke, or the fact that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels and therefore provide the earliest accounts of events like the Last Supper, or that Paul told the Corinthians that many people who had seen the risen Lord were still alive, and they should go and talk to them. You have produced no answers or discussion about this; just dismissed it because it's in the Bible.

You also gave us a link to a website that has a long involved discussion about the dates of Jesus' birth. But why are they arguing about the birth of a man you say never existed? I may as well pick an argument with you about the colour of the tooth fairy's wings.

Many people argue about Jesus; if he really was God, when he was born, what he taught, when he died, if he needed to die, if he got married to Mary Magdalene and so on. You can't have arguments about someone who never was. IMO, to believe that everything that happens in our churches, country and the lives of believers today; our religious heritage, culture, music, literature, writings and testimonies by theologians, historians, scientists etc etc is based on an invention, a lie or a figment of someone's imagination, requires a heck of a lot more faith than believing in the Jesus of the Gospels. If you have this faith - that no matter what people say or do or testify to, no matter what literature they produce; you know for a fact that it's all complete nonsense and much of the world's population are deluded - congratulations. You are a man of faith. You have faith that Jesus doesn't exist just as much as we have faith that he does.

I am a Human Jesus agnostic. In history all we can talk about is probabilities and the evidence says he probably didn't exist.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (King James Version)

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α΄ 11:23-26 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)


23εγω γαρ παρελαβον απο του κυριου ο και παρεδωκα υμιν οτι ο κυριος ιησους εν τη νυκτι η παρεδιδετο ελαβεν αρτον
24και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
25ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι τουτο ποιειτε οσακις εαν πινητε εις την εμην αναμνησιν 26οσακις γαρ εαν εσθιητε τον αρτον τουτον και το ποτηριον πινητε τον θανατον του κυριου καταγγελλετε αχρις ου ελθη

The Greek Verb paradididomi is being here is translated as 'betrayed'; sometimes it can be used in the sense of arrest or betray but Paul, throughout his letters consistently used it in its original sense of 'deliver up';

Romans 8:32 (King James Version)

32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

ΠΡΟΣ ΡΩΜΑΙΟΥΣ 8:32 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)

32ος γε του ιδιου υιου ουκ εφεισατο αλλα υπερ ημων παντων παρεδωκεν αυτον πως ουχι και συν αυτω τα παντα ημιν χαρισεται

Ephesians 5:2 (King James Version)

2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

ΠΡΟΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΟΥΣ 5:2 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)

2και περιπατειτε εν αγαπη καθως και ο χριστος ηγαπησεν υμας και παρεδωκεν εαυτον υπερ υμων προσφοραν και θυσιαν τω θεω εις οσμην ευωδιας

Arrest and betrayal is being read into the Lord's Supper in Paul for he elsewhere uses the verb consistently in the mystic delivering sense. Most scholars see this passage as a literary, symbolic device, not an actual reference to a 'Gospel' event.

John is considered later than the synoptic Gospels. It is usually dated from 90-100 CE. That alone would make its authorship by an authentic apostle extremely doubtful; people didn't live that long back then.

"There is no scholarly consensus with regard to the identity of the author, even after centuries of debate. Scholars usually date John to c. 90 and consider it anonymous."

No one knows who wrote the Gospel of John and the fact that it is the most miraculous, fantastical and exaggerated in its details makes its historical plausibility virtually zero. The fact is, no one really knows who wrote the Gospels; all they know is the liklihood of their dates of composition: Mark ca. 70 CE, Luke, Matthew 80-100 CE, John 90-100 CE.

People who had 'seen' the risen lord; yes, visions much like Pauls vision. That is hardly evidence of anything.

It would be nice if we had some extrabiblical account of the events portrayed in the NT or some extrabiblical biographical information about the alleged Nazarene but we don't, instead all we have are superhero stories with a birth (and two different dates for that birth) and the hero then vanishes for some 20 plus years and magically reappears in the Gospels as a 30 something adult and he does all sorts of magic...sounds very historical indeed...