Jesus of History and Myth

[cvanwey]

Oh, so you're coming to your conclusions by applying the scientific method to God's word... I bet He gets a chuckle out of that.

No, you have missed my point completely. As stated, one time reported events are not falsifiable. You cannot verify or test them later for accuracy. But luckily, there exists stated and claimed events, from the Bible, that we can later test, because such evidence, or lack there-of in some cases, might be left behind to verify as such. And when some test results contradict stated and claimed scripture, from a Book of claimed 'God given truth', it only becomes natural to then become skeptical of the claims which we cannot verify, like the rising dead

 

[cvanwey]

the cumulative preponderance of the written evidence supports Church tradition, that Mary Magdalen first visited the empty tomb, and was the first to inform the other Christians of the fact

why are you nitpicking so much? The other apostles found out, and they all admitted that they first learned of the empty tomb from Mary Magdalen...

what is your alternative theory of what happened? If you have a better theory, let's hear it. Otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it

you're ignoring the preponderance of evidence to nitpick one ambiguous phrase, that subsequent accounts all clarified, consistently

on top of which you are not supplying a plausible alternative theory of events

if we nitpicked classical secular authors this much, we would not be able to acknowledge any of human history as ever having occurred

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

 

[cvanwey]

not automatically false either though

Neither is ANY other anecdotal claim then I guess

 

[inquiring mind]

No, you have missed my point completely. As stated, one time reported events are not falsifiable. You cannot verify or test them later for accuracy. But luckily, there exists stated and claimed events, from the Bible, that we can later test, because such evidence, or lack there-of in some cases, might be left behind to verify as such. And when some test results contradict stated and claimed scripture, from a Book of claimed 'God given truth', it only becomes natural to then become skeptical of the claims which we cannot verify, like the rising dead

There are scriptures you can verify as the truth, and there are scriptures you can determine are false through tests. How did I miss your point?

 

[Erik Nelson]

People claim whatever they want. Heck, I can go into any church, of any denomination or belief, and hear 'truth'; which may very well conflict with the opposing church right next door even. Heck, down the road from my house, there exists a Mormon church, which resides right next door to a Hindu temple, and further down that very same road there is a Seven Day Adventist church.

But you still have not addressed my points:

1. If God is inspiring all accounts, why inspire inconsistency from one author to the next? Seems more logical that all accounts would parallel in details. Johns's account would be the same as Mark's.

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

2. If the Word is God's chosen vessel for truth, why allow the originals to vanish, and all subsequent copies to deviate?

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

3. If the Word is God's chosen method, why allow for a multitude of interpretations, allowing infighting and war for centuries, over the right/wrong of translated text?

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.

4. If truth is objective, and the church is 'God guided', then why does even the church's stance on certain positions deviate over time. Isn't absolute truth never changing?
5. So anyone whom works in a church is now 'God inspired'?

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.

Mark 16:8 was the original ending, where the woman/women say nothing to no one. The later church writers had to write of an 'addition'. Otherwise, there would exist too much inconsistency. I'm sure you are aware, we have thousands of manuscripts.

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.

- Prior to Constantine, Christianity was considered a cult; just like many other cults before and since.

- People did not write of much about Jesus mostly because they were under the impression that all would 'come to pass' during their life time.
- Furthermore, most of the believers were illiterate at the time. Oral tradition was key.

- If it wasn't for the claimed vision of Saul, the literate Roman citizen,

who attempted to convert others, we would have even less early writings.

Divine Providence?

- We do not have much in the way of full manuscripts until after Constantine - (how convenient).

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

- Theocracy ruled the roost of the day, and Constantine legalized Christianity.

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

- We then start to see many manuscripts emerge over the upcoming centuries ahead.

Of course, Christians meticulously copied their sacred scriptures

- The church is a bunch of humans whom impose their beliefs and practices as authoritative law, especially during this time period.
- Most wanted to be like the emperor. Hence, the Christian uprising after Constantine.
- It's convenient that if one looks at a world religions map, Christianity seems to flourish in the areas which adopted the early cultures of the Roman empire (the later Americas most notably)

The Church of the East spread throughout India as far as China in the East. Christianity stretched from Ireland to India in China. By about 1500. AD.

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.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Neither is ANY other anecdotal claim then I guess

CORRECT. On what grounds can you dismiss something someone says? Completely out of hand.

Everyone deserves at least half of one ear.

Dubiousness should never devolve, to, dismissive denial.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Fair and balanced:

Earliest New Testament Manuscript Fragment Discovered?

If the events of Jesus’ life recorded in Mark’s Gospel, including the resurrection, never happened, then the book would have been ridiculed by all those who read it. Obviously, it was believed to be true, not discredited. So copies of Mark’s work—and the other New Testament documents—were made early on for distribution through the first-century Church and for posterity.

So many thousands of people witnessed events in Christ’s life, including hundreds who saw Him after He was resurrected, that no sane author would write something like the Gospel of Mark while eyewitnesses were alive—if it wasn’t true. Otherwise, it would easily be discredited. And it would be foolish to copy such lies, as copying such manuscripts involved skill, time and effort—and for what?

On the contrary, it was an accepted fact that Jesus lived—and it was widely recognized that He was resurrected, or at least that He was believed to have been by multitudes of people.​

 

[Starcomet]

I've touched on this very topic from time to time, and received little response in the past.

Take for instance... Mark 16:8 - (the original ending point). Then take the later 'addition' of Mark 16:9-20, (as even acknowledged by staunch believers/editors). Then begin to compare the two other synoptics of Luke and Matthew. Then read John. It seems to demonstrate a clear path of growing legend, over time.

Scholars have noted this trend as proof that Jesus was steadily mythicised to fit prophecies and the evolving ideology of the early Christian movement. You go from a human Jewish sage/prophet to a divine cosmic crusader bent on removing sin by sacrificing himself.

 

[inquiring mind]

Scholars have noted this trend as proof that Jesus was steadily mythicised to fit prophecies and the evolving ideology of the early Christian movement. You go from a human Jewish sage/prophet to a divine cosmic crusader bent on removing sin by sacrificing himself.

Or, as believers have noted as truth, Jesus went from the ‘divine’ to a ‘human Jewish sage/prophet’ to fulfill the prophecies, just as their hearts tell them and the Bible says. As always, the choice is ours.

 

[Starcomet]

Or, as believers have noted as truth, Jesus went from the ‘divine’ to a ‘human Jewish sage/prophet’ to fulfill the prophecies, just as their hearts tell them and the Bible says. As always, the choice is ours.

That is one way most look at it!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Everyone deserves at least half of one ear.

No. Jesus said to be more careful than that. In the meetings of Ekklesia, no such mockers , unbelievers, was allowed to speak. They were dealt with outside the meetings, if at all. Usually ignored.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Scholars have noted this trend as proof that Jesus was steadily mythicised to fit prophecies and the evolving ideology of the early Christian movement. You go from a human Jewish sage/prophet to a divine cosmic crusader bent on removing sin by sacrificing himself.

"Scholars"? They (not all, but as specified; after all, Saul was a scholar of scholars, the best most zealous, in ignorance; he renounced/gave up/ all he once valued to be a disciple of Yeshua) are entirely wrong and die in their unbelief.
As Jesus Praised the Father for: "...... and have hidden salvation from the educated ones, because thus it is your good pleasure".....

 

[Starcomet]

"Scholars"? They are entirely wrong and die in their unbelief.
As Jesus Praised the Father for: "...... and have hidden salvation from the educated ones, because thus it is your good pleasure".....

I think Jesus was referring to the egotistical scholars who would hoard knowledge from others.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I think Jesus was referring to the egotistical scholars who would hoard knowledge from others.

Not in Scripture. He Says specifically that all the knowledge of all mankind is as dung, worthless, pernicious (death-dealing), because it is used on purpose and without purpose , knowingly and unknowingly, wittingly and unwittingly, an abomination to pervertedly serve creatures instead of the creator. Idolatry permeating mankind/ man's wisdom and man's knowledge.

 

[Starcomet]

Not in Scripture. He Says specifically that all the knowledge of all mankind is as dung, worthless, pernicious (death-dealing), because it is used on purpose and without purpose , knowingly and unknowingly, wittingly and unwittingly, an abomination to pervertedly serve creatures instead of the creator. Idolatry permeating mankind/ man's wisdom and man's knowledge.

Knowledge of God is of course superior!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Knowledge of God is of course superior!

Not really, unless you mean Knowledge that Yahweh has.

The religious leaders had the best 'knowledge' of Yahweh, having memorized all TORAH,
but they still rejected the Messiah Savior Yeshua !!!!!

Meanwhile, people who could not even read, poor also, and even destitute,
like little children without a shepherd as Jesus Said/Says,
FOUND HIM ! Who they were not even seeking for !
Yahweh REVEALED SALVATION to little children.... WONDERFULLY ...
and everything concerning SALVATION .... as Written, as JESUS PRAISED the FATHER FOR, because He is well pleased so to do.

All the knowledge of all the universities in the world has led to destruction as written: there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end of that way is destruction;
and again it is written: whatever men (mankind/ society) consider worthy of high praise,
Yahweh calls an abomination.

 

[Starcomet]

Not really, unless you mean Knowledge that Yahweh has.

The religious leaders had the best 'knowledge' of Yahweh, having memorized all TORAH,
but they still rejected the Messiah Savior Yeshua !!!!!

Meanwhile, people who could not even read, poor also, and even destitute,
like little children without a shepherd as Jesus Said/Says,
FOUND HIM ! Who they were not even seeking for !
Yahweh REVEALED SALVATION to little children.... WONDERFULLY ...
and everything concerning SALVATION .... as Written, as JESUS PRAISED the FATHER FOR, because He is well pleased so to do.

All the knowledge of all the universities in the world has led to destruction as written: there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end of that way is destruction;
and again it is written: whatever men (mankind/ society) consider worthy of high praise,
Yahweh calls an abomination.

Knowledge of God as in knowing what God knows. Simply knowing about God is still mundane knowledge. Surely you know that! .

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Knowledge of God as in knowing what God knows. Simply knowing about God is still mundane knowledge. Surely you know that! .

In English language and words and definitions ,
it is not easy to distinguish such variances most of the time
unless it was already previously tested , proven, and known ,
including what anyone in particular is speaking about - there
are so many wrong, and a few right, according to Scripture.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Scholars have noted this trend as proof that Jesus was steadily mythicised to fit prophecies and the evolving ideology of the early Christian movement. You go from a human Jewish sage/prophet to a divine cosmic crusader bent on removing sin by sacrificing himself.

cart before the horse

how could there have been a Christian movement without Jesus having already been PERCEIVED as having been Christ Messiah because of having fulfilled all of the prophesies, including the Resurrection?

if Pilate actually executed the "mere wandering sage" then why would his scared and scattered followers have come back together behind the name of the executed failure, and tried to mythologize him post mortem into a fictitious Superman?

why would they stick with the "regular guy" if they didn't PERCEIVE Supernatural miracles indicating & vindicating him as Messiah?

some regular nice peasant worker carpenter guy...

stands out from the millions of other Jews just like him...

WITHOUT something miraculous happening?

then the "Joe Schmo nice guy" gets charged with blasphemy...

WITHOUT having claimed to be the Divine Messiah ?

and he is executed by the Caesar...

WITHOUT having claimed to be the lord of lords king of kings?

then his fellow farmer followers and poor peasant people opt to dedicate the rest of their lives to "joe schmo's dead corpse"...

WITHOUT a Resurrection event??

 

[Erik Nelson]

No. Jesus said to be more careful than that. In the meetings of Ekklesia, no such mockers , unbelievers, was allowed to speak. They were dealt with outside the meetings, if at all. Usually ignored.

not disagreeing with you on that but not what I meant

there is a difference between making a positive assertion, eg Matthew alleging some miracle happened

and making denigrating negative assertions of what "just could not" have happened