The Gospels—History or Myth?

[Saquist]

The ignominious execution of Jesus as a contemptible criminal provides “the most convincing argument against opponents of the historicity of Jesus,” states Trilling. Why? Because the execution “encumbered, even hindered, the dispersion of the new faith among Jews and non-Jews.”

~If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles! Furthermore, Jesus’ death is attested to as an historical event not only by the four Gospels but also by the Roman writer Tacitus and by the Jewish Talmud.~

The problem with recognizing particulars of the bible as historical and others as non historical is the indefinite nature that results. The task then is to decipher truth from fiction yet without hard proof all that is left is speculation. Even more profound, raw skepticism is left to guide the search and we might as well just draw straws.

Incredulous is not from my point of view a true point of contention. So I understand what you're saying but it seems the graph is break down of non beliveable situations. That's fine. I'm at a lost as to understand how this is a damaging counter points.

Well Saquist, I’m not sure what research you are really doing on this forum. There are few here who understand Christianity at all, and many who hate it with a passion. They even think Christianity is evil and violent, as if there were Christian terrorist bombers running around killing people.

Most people here are very closed minded, who presuppose there can be no God, no Jesus other than fiction, no resurrection, no apostles. No amount of reason, logic or historical extra-Biblical evidence will sway them. Everything has to be a giant conspiracy.

The reason everything must be a conspiracy is worth discussing. All of the New Testament authors were murdered for their beliefs (save for one). They each had the opportunity to recant, or die. They chose death. No one would choose death for a fictional story. Therefore the anti-Christians have to prove the entire thing was made up, none of these people existed. Even the extra-Biblical references by Tacitus, Josephus and others, from where we get most of our knowledge of ancient Rome, must be corrupted when it came to Jesus. It becomes a conspiracy larger and more impossible than even the “911 Truthers” and the controlled demolition of the towers.

Ironically some of the most anti of Christians believe in the imploded towers myth. But I digress.

Every Biblical contradiction that might exist has been found and argued over for almost 2000 years. No contradictory archaeological evidence has been found. Those who believe have no issue with these contradictions as they all have easy explanations. Those who don’t want to believe keep rehashing the old arguments over and over hoping to find new non-believers. The so-called contradictions I have looked at are non-issues. However, as the Bible is an “inspired” work of men, I would expect some inconsistencies. This is unlike the Qur’an which contains the Actual And Literal Perfect Word of God. One single contradiction in the Qur’an renders the whole thing suspect. Not so with the Bible.

Though I have looked at the various claims of atheists, ultimately, religion cannot be understood intellectually. Christianity is the only religion I know of were believers are asked to form an actual personal relationship with God. Christians feel that relationship and know God exists because they feel His presence in a very real and profound way. That, Saquist, is why people believe the Bible is true.

I'm aware of the attitude problem on sci forums. Perhaps my motives are steeped in idealism of bringing two seemingly opposed parties to the table of discussion. Foolish perhaps. I know there is a middle ground because I think I'm standing on it.

I live in a factual world. I live and breathe facts. From a question I allow the facts to shape the road ahead and as I progress the branching paths are the possibilities I'm more than willing to explore. I admittedly don't understand skeptisicm. It seems to have no other purpose but to bar one from exploring the possibilities being presented and with no other reasoning but incredulous and pointless demur. I was looking for something substantial fromt the antagonist and from what I can tell, it's not there.

I've recently run across Tactitus. I had never heard of him before but Josepheus is well known. I find what you say sound and reasonable. I have seen the 911 conspiracies. at some points I notice things that would question what happened but it's that it runs away rapidly into a long chain of elaborate coincidences....and I've always had a problem believing in endless coincidences that just happend to appeal a pattern. And when it's not a coincidence a conspiracy must be perfect to be undetectable or at least unproveable.

I did not expect to find your post so enlightening and well constructed Revovr.
Thank you for your honesty.

 

[w1z4rd]

Yeah, pity not a single Roman wrote about that execution. Also, Pilots form of execution was not crucifixion.

 

[Sarkus]

It's your opinion Sarkus but I can't agree with where you're placing the burdeon of proof.

Unfortunately that is not how rational debates or even science begins.

Hardly anything in any ancient is actually provable. You see it's not I "claiming" that the gospels are history. The gospels themselves present themselves as historical. So I see it as if you're going to assert against the source documents implication of validity it would do to have a valid reason why.

Drivel.

The gospels do NOT present themselves as anything.
The gospels are merely words on a page.
If you wish to present them as more than that then the onus of proof is upon you.
This is how science works.
This is how, hopefully, this debate will work.
You do NOT start with the claim and try to knock it down... you start with nothing and build up your claim.

The fact that you disagree with this tried and tested approach / method is irrelevant, and it is a trick that theists have tried over and over again to persuade others to listen to their ideas.
Otherwise anyone can claim anything and require others to prove them wrong:
"Oooh - did you know that gravity works differently on only one planet in the Universe - called Zlarbarg IV. This is truth. You must prove me wrong!"
It gets pathetic, doesn't it.


So I suggest you start again and attempt to support the position of the Gospels as more than myth with evidence. If the weight of evidence supports your theory - great.

 

[Myles]

That makes my job a bit more difficult.


Ah...that's where you're going. Well we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding. Should it be entirely unexpected when speaking of the power that it is suggesting.

How can human beings talk about things " beyond normal human understanding". That's got to be a first

 

[SnakeLord]

Well we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding. Should it be entirely unexpected when speaking of the power that it is suggesting.

What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

 

[Revolvr]

I'm aware of the attitude problem on sci forums. Perhaps my motives are steeped in idealism of bringing two seemingly opposed parties to the table of discussion. Foolish perhaps. I know there is a middle ground because I think I'm standing on it.

Well you might find middle ground within yourself, but it won’t be found here.

I mentioned Tacitus and Josephus but there are others to look up. There are many non-Biblical references to Jesus, his crucifixion, and the early growth of Christianity. These are non-Christian sources, so all are skeptical at best, hostile at worst, sometimes satirical.

In the first century we have:

• Cornelius Tacitus,
• Flavius Josephus,
• Pliny the Younger,
• Suetonius,
• Mara Bar-Serapion,
• Lucan of Samosata,
• The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)

All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Some mention other early martyrs and corroborate some events in the New Testament. This is where we get most of our historical information about times around the first century AD. As someone else said, all of these have to be forgeries. Somehow early Christians, knowing they would later create fictional Gospels, had to get to these writings and forge them without anyone noticing. A vast conspiracy over 200 years in the making.

There are also other early non-canonical Christian writing and heretical works from the first century. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

 

[nova900]

More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

But..the roman emperor was not/is not passed off as a divine figure with a specific idealogy attached to it.In a sense the roman emperors were all regarded as Gods by the roman public but that is entirely different than a strictly religous figure.
The agenda in doing so would be quite different as opposed to a non-divine person.

 

[Revolvr]

So I suggest you start again and attempt to support the position of the Gospels as more than myth with evidence. If the weight of evidence supports your theory - great.

If you want to look at this in a more modern legal evidentiary sense, it’s been done. And much better than I could do here.

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853): one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.”* Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system.

Greenleaf was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection.

After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, “Testimony of the Evangelists”.

“Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.”*

Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Successful Advocate," with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. Queen Elizabeth II knighted him twice. Luckhoo said:

“I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.”**

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist, and an atheist. He decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

After compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Motivated by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, "The Case for Christ", which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader –

“remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.”***

[*Both quotes I use are from Greenleaf’s book or back cover]
[**from Sir Lionel Luckhoo, “The Question Answered: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” Luckhoo Booklets]
[***Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998]

 

[nova900]

Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist, and an atheist. He decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

After compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Motivated by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, "The Case for Christ", which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader –

Strobels' main criticism is that he was very biased in his approach. He only interviewed evangelical conservative Christians.No liberal ones or any non-Christian scholars.
Nor did he interview any real critics of christian apologetics.
Strobel devoted an entire chapter to his interview of Greg Boyd ;an outspoken faultfinder of the Jesus Seminar, but Strobel never interviewed a single member of the Jesus Seminar itself!

 

[Myles]

What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

Sorry for butting in;I could not resist the temptation

 

[Myles]

Rather than argue with revolvr, can I suggest that anyone interested should google luckhoo leaflets.

One of Luckhoo's leaflets explains why millions of Muslims are going to hell, the famous lake of fire. Some of the points he makes are intriguiging , to say the least, e.g.

Jesus died and rose from the grave. Mohammed is still in his grave

Mohammed is not a prophet because he is not mentioned in the Bible.

Muslims revere Jesus above Mohammed because Mohammed was only a man

There's a lot more of the same.

Whatever his reputation as a barrister, his "testimony" is no better than that of a street-corner preacher.

 

[Revolvr]

Rather than argue with revolvr, can I suggest that anyone interested should google luckhoo leaflets.

One of Luckhoo's leaflets explains why millions of Muslims are going to hell, the famous lake of fire. Some of the points he makes are intriguiging , to say the least, e.g.

Jesus died and rose from the grave. Mohammed is still in his grave

Mohammed is not a prophet because he is not mentioned in the Bible.

Muslims revere Jesus above Mohammed because Mohammed was only a man

There's a lot more of the same.

Whatever his reputation as a barrister, his "testimony" is no better than that of a street-corner preacher.

You have taken some things out of context. But I agree Luckhoo's writings on Islam are intriguing. He knows full well Muslims revere Muhammad over Jesus, but there are some interesting contradictions in the Qur'an regarding this. I'll take those ideas to a separate thread.

 

[spidergoat]

History: A bronze-age desert dweller with a philosophical bent pissed off the Romans and the Jews, and was executed according to law.

Myth: He rose from the dead because he was devine, and therefore all the secondhand stories about God should be believed.


There is no historical proof of Jesus rising from the dead, only the secondhand reports of peolpe believing this happened so fervently, that they died for it. Even if he was seen living after he was supposed to have died, that doesn't prove anything about God, or the validity of Jesus' teachings.

 

[Saquist]

Unfortunately that is not how rational debates or even science begins.

Drivel.

If you say so.
The standard of evidence maintained in the American court system, which is more rigid than the scientific method establishes vilification of first person's testimony as unjust. The engaging of "leading" and "harassment" through speculative deduction because of a lack of directly opposiing factual data is a line of reasoning that is struck and sustained from action and record. The reason for this is the predetermined standing of innocence which is inhereted by a witness or defendant. It is a status quo which can only be altered or overturned by a weight of evience. If they're were a weight of evidence against the witness these tactics would thus not be necessary to employ.


As to what the scriptures present themselves as, to which you say nothing. Your are incorrect. The scriptures make numerous statements as to "history" of "generations." The Gospels are firmly seated upon that history by the continued use and refrence of information from the Hebrew scriptures. At no point does it turn aside from a historical station.

wrong:
"Oooh - did you know that gravity works differently on only one planet in the Universe - called Zlarbarg IV. This is truth. You must prove me wrong!"
It gets pathetic, doesn't it.

That's not how it works my friend. There is no claim...no theory. Just testimony. They are not interchangable terms. And I think that is where you are going wrong. You seek to define the scriptures as a scientific claim or theory. There is no process being put forth, there is no tangible data to be examined. So for clarification. The Greek and Hebrew scriptures are testimony to events not theoretical claims to the workings of an observable and definable process. As such a scientific forum is an impropper cruicible due it's inability to observe the original enviroment and it's reliance on speculation and supposition that are at times necessary to begin an investigative process...again due to the lack of evidence.

What, with relevance to my post, is "beyond human understanding"? What 'things' are you talking about?

The striking of an event from diliberation begins with any direct opposition to testimony by an unbias outside source. Incredulousness to the occurence of an event does not establish anything factual concerning it's quality or condition of honesty.

For example: Concerning a theory. Lets call this instead testimony.
A man says he travelled to the bottom of the Marianas trench. Returning, he tells his colleagues that time slowed down.

That's testimony to an event.
Being incredulous of his testimony does not prove anything. Incredulity is a state of belief and nothing more. This would seem to strike the "Graph of Incredible events" from the lucubration of the available data.

Well you might find middle ground within yourself, but it won’t be found here.

Aye, I'm getting that sensation.
I don't think this community is capable of "fair hearing" proceedings from what I'm witnessing right now.

In the first century we have:

• Cornelius Tacitus,
• Flavius Josephus,
• Pliny the Younger,
• Suetonius,
• Mara Bar-Serapion,
• Lucan of Samosata,
• The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)

All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ. Some mention other early martyrs and corroborate some events in the New Testament. This is where we get most of our historical information about times around the first century AD. As someone else said, all of these have to be forgeries. Somehow early Christians, knowing they would later create fictional Gospels, had to get to these writings and forge them without anyone noticing. A vast conspiracy over 200 years in the making.

There are also other early non-canonical Christian writing and heretical works from the first century. More authors mention Jesus Christ within 150 years of his life than mention the Roman Emperor who reigned during His lifetime.

Oh I'm familiar with the Sanhedrin...
If you do construct a thread on this topic...I must admit I would be doing more listening and research than engagement. My center of study is engineering and intrest in quantum physics. I look forward to it.

 

[Myles]

Reference: Post 34

A man who claims time has slowed down may be disbelieved, in which case he will be asked for evidence. He can provide it by repeating the experiment and getting others to do so. His credibilitry rests on the outcome of a demonstration. No great difficulty there.

In a court of law a witness testifies( offers evidence ) which is then examined. His testimony must be suported by facts if it is to be admitted in evidence. The witness is making a claim and the nature of the examination places the burden of proof on him. This is how all rational discussions are conducted for reasons which are self-evident.

 

[Cris]

Even in Biblical Times People Asserted Christ Never Existed.

The whole purpose of the brief 2nd book of John is to admonish followers not to listen to the many people who were telling them the simple truth that Jesus never existed. The Catholic Bible dates the 2nd book of John to 90 A.D. Thus apparently it was a big problem only a few decades after the alleged time of Jesus. Read now the words of this book:

2 John 1:7-11 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work."

Thus, soon after Jesus allegedly existed, were so many people claiming that he didn't exist. And rather than approach these unbelievers in a rational manner and present them with overwhelming evidence that Jesus really had existed just a short time ago, and all the miraculous things said to have happened really did happen, the writer instead admonishes his readers to stay away from these people. "Do not take him into your house or welcome him." The writer stigmatizes these people as "the deceiver" and "the antichrist" who do "wicked work," and further stigmatizes anyone who should listen to them.

Thus, even very early on, whenever 2 John was written, which the Catholic Bible dates as being 90 A.D., there was a big problem of many people saying Jesus never existed. And the author's chosen way to refute these claims was by administering admonition and fear into the hearts of the believers.

The only way to maintain a falsehood is to stigmatize the truth to such an extent that it is heresy to even listen to it.

http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd4a.html

 

[SnakeLord]

The striking of an event from diliberation begins with any direct opposition to testimony by an unbias outside source. Incredulousness to the occurence of an event does not establish anything factual concerning it's quality or condition of honesty....

Alas I still fail to see any connection of this to my post. Kindly go back to my post and read it through. Thanks.

 

[Saquist]

Hold on...
Okay...
Ironicly I didn't see the relevancy of your point of increduility.
I attempted to address this and your graph in a manner explaining that such is not propper judicial process even if science regularly makes use of skepticism to prove against subject points.

 

[Cris]

Revolvr,

In the first century we have:

Cornelius Tacitus,
Flavius Josephus,
Pliny the Younger,
Suetonius,
Mara Bar-Serapion,
Lucan of Samosata,
The Jewish Sanhedrin (the most hostile as you might imagine)

All vindicate the Biblical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Well, no. You are simply repeating Christian propaganda.

If you look objectively, all of these references, except Josephus, are simply hearsay accounts. The statements assigned to Josephus who did exist during the alleged time of Jesus did not appear in written form until around the 4th century when Christianity was being established formerly, (e.g. the Nicene Creed) and the Christians desperately needed some evidence to support their new religion. These statements were inserts way after Josephus was dead. It has been suggested that one of the Church fathers, Eusebius, probably did this, although that cannot be confirmed, but Eusebius did state it was perfectly OK to make false statements if that would further the Christian cause.

So really the only possible direct independent historical support for the existence of Jesus is several controversial statements that are widely held as forgeries. This is hardly credible or convincing to demonstrate the existence of potentially the most important figure in the history of mankind.

 

[Cris]

Saquist,

Not only do the Gospels contain reliable accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection but so does the apostle Paul’s first canonical letter to Christians in ancient Corinth. He wrote: “I handed on to you, among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep in death. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely.” They were custodians of historical facts regarding the life of Jesus.

Except that Paul never met the alleged Jesus so this is pure created fiction, either original or copied from elsewhere.