The Gospels—History or Myth?

[iceaura]

Paul did not willingly die for a fictional story.

He wouldn't have been the first, or the last.

Thus this is really inadmissable. This is not factual but it is perceptional.

So you gonna answer the question ? Why should we take as factually accurate accounts that resemble, in key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making ?

Notice how even in this thread the number of people who saw Jesus alive after he supposedly died on the cross is growing. The last claim was "thousands".

And that when the early resurrectionist missionaries challenged doubters to simply ask one of those who had seen this, the physical difficulty of that would have been serious - another country, strangers, no common language. There is no record of anyone doing so - traveling to the place and verifying the eyewitnesses' existence and plausibility first hand. It's a classic cult pitch - the revelations of the Angel Moroni written on the gold tablets were attested to by witnesses as well, and doubters of Mormon claims challenged to simply ask them.

One more critical number is of those who saw him dead - who verified that he was dead when removed from the cross. That is not many, and they are not around when these resurrection stories are being promulgated.

Yes Christianity grew, and almost certianly from some base in charismatic teachings. But many, if not most, of the early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection, nor were they presented with such elaborate accounts of miracles So the gradual accumulation of legendary feats around Jesus cannot be given legitimacy by invoking support from early Christians. They have to stand on evidence and circumstance.

 

[Saquist]

I'm afraid the perception of "key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making" is circumstantial compared with the evidence of record and agreement the writers of the gospel keep to.

Again your post lends to the incredibility of the event. Which I understand. Yet how does this establish any factual standard. It does not. And for every bit of circumstantial information there is just as much or more reason to take it at face value. Yet...even that is a system of belief as well.

The question is why spend so much time on circumstantial evidence. Perhaps you and some of the others don't understand or have never participated in a court setting. The American Jury system is set up to find objective individuals to make verdicts against defendant.

The Gospel is your defendant. They're charged with the crime of fictional posing as truth.

The "Juror" before you says it's obviously part myth and fabrication yet offers no proof -perceptional
The Snakelord "Juror" offers a chart of Incredulity as evidence -perceptional
The Sarkus "Juror" says it's okay to convict because the defendant hasn't shown proof it exist or truthful - outrageously perceptional.
The Bluemoose "Juror" undecided flirts with speculation. -speculation
The Spidergoat "Juror" looks to the attorney rather than focusing on the evidence - combative
The Pandemoni "Juror" speculates as to the writers identies. -speculation
The Revolvr "Juror" considers the support of the writings. - objective
The Wiz4rd "Juror" convicts - prejudicial
The Nova900 "Juror" offers counterpoints to the defense's case. - possible fence rider
The Cris "Juror" offers strong speculative counterpoints -speculation


You would convict based on perception, speculation and circumstantial evidence? I find this fascinating from a so called scientific comunity. That's the bad news. The good news is none of the statements can be determined as hostile however strongly incredulous.

 

[iceaura]

I'm afraid the perception of "key respects, known patterns of invention and legend making" is circumstantial compared with the evidence of record and agreement the writers of the gospel keep to.

It is not "compared with" - it is exactly the evidence of record and agreement among the writers of the Bible.

This evidence of record and agreement matches known patterns of invention and legend making. It matches in its form, its trend through time, and its origins: the Bible is a deliberately compiled work, with the Gospels included - a subset of the writings available - chosen for consistency, and by coincidence or design matched for persuasiveness in a context of competing legends.

And this circumstance is not countered by any argument of weight. We know that many - perhaps most - early Believers did not rest their belief on these stories, may not have even heard of them. The people closest to the action, as it were, seem most likely to have rested their faith elsewhere. These stories came later.

 

[SnakeLord]

The reality of Allah is irrelevant to this thread. The reality of Muhammad is.

Myles spelt it out for you, but it isn't irrelevant given your claim that nobody would willingly die for a fictional being - unless you assert that allah is real.

You provided a graph which shows a progression of extraordinary events in the Gospels. By providing this you hope to illustrate what you perceive as exagerations to an original story.

The idea was to show you that things have been added as time goes by. You really cannot dispute that. I'm asking you to tell me why you think these things have been added and which, if any, of those versions are therefore inaccurate, (as they differ in what did or didn't happen). I'm not asking for a great deal from you.

I then countered your statements indirectly by identifing your premise as sustained by a definition of incredulity...the root word of which is incredible, which means you found the later accounts ever increasing in unbelievability.

It isn't about whether something is believable or not, it is about things being added, which they have, and why you think this has happened.

Any time today..

 

[Revolvr]

The point I was getting at is that people will die for their beliefs irrespective of what that believe The Cathars were going against the prevaling orthodoxy ..

You are not making your point Myles. The Cathars dies for their belief in Jesus. Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy. Thanks for making my point.

You want to make the point that people will allow themselves to be persecuted and to be murdered for any ol' belief. Would you? Try again.

 

[Revolvr]

Myles spelt it out for you, but it isn't irrelevant given your claim that nobody would willingly die for a fictional being - unless you assert that allah is real.

We are talking about physical seen beings who can make such an impression people will die for them. Jesus compares to Muhammad. God compares to Allah. Your example furthers my point. Thanks.

Regarding your chart you like to bring up so often. Please provide a source for the chart and data. One cannot analyze some interpretation of data without understanding the motives and biases of the person creating the chart. Until we understand the pedigree, the chart is inadmissible.

 

[nova900]

Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy.

History would seem to indicate this was true but unfortunately it was the orthodox side that won out.After all ,it always helps to have the Roman Empire on your side.
So..therefore all the content we see in the Gospels today ultimately had to have the seal of approval of the orthodox elements.
Fundamentalists who say they reject the orthodox church or organized religion and say they base their belief system strictly on the gospels are being hypocritical.

 

[Revolvr]

You would convict based on perception, speculation and circumstantial evidence? I find this fascinating from a so called scientific comunity. That's the bad news. The good news is none of the statements can be determined as hostile however strongly incredulous.

Yes they would. They have to.

Let me give you some additional insight into what they are doing. Have you ever read David Hume (1711-1776)? He is well known for an essay on miracles and used the following logic:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough​

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

Likewise, the atheists view is:
A) I know a priori God and Jesus do not exist
Therefore 1) and 2).​

In order for 1) and 2) to be true we MUST speculate on the existing evidence and why it is unreliable. Therefore, it MUST be a giant conspiracy of altered texts, forged documents, lies and deceit.

And there is no evidence I could show that can break through this barrier.

Now we must agree with Hume that if Jesus or miracles did not or never happened, well they never happened and there is no evidence for it. But we know they never happened because we know all the positive reports are false. Since all of the positive reports are false, we know they never happened.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

So how does one get out of this circular reasoning? I see two ways:

[1]
Jesus, or miracles are matters of perception and therefore investigable. They exist, if they do, in the realm of matters of fact. To laugh out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are, is prejudicial. Notional concept A) is not valid in court. We can take a non-prejudicial legal view and weigh the evidence in a legal court, not a scientific court.

[2]
We can also assume that our understanding of the laws of nature, which lead to A) is not as firm and unalterable as we think it is. We do not know everything about nature. We in fact, know very little. To think we know everything is presumptuous. Therefore A) is not known to be true with any degree of certainty.​

Saquist, you tend to look at the legal view [1], which is why I brought up the works of legal scholars like Simon Greenleaf. I believe, like Greenleaf, that the preponderance of evidence supports the Bible. Tactic [2] is hard to take on a science forum as most people here think we know everything.

You can see that the Hume argument leads to long threads where one person presents evidence of forgeries or other falsehoods. Another identifies why those arguments are themselves false and often disingenuous. Round and round we go. You’ll note too the believers in A) tend to get defiant and combative after a while.

-- Rev

 

[Revolvr]

History would seem to indicate this was true but unfortunately it was the orthodox side that won out.After all ,it always helps to have the Roman Empire on your side.
So..therefore all the content we see in the Gospels today ultimately had to have the seal of approval of the orthodox elements.
Fundamentalists who say they reject the orthodox church or organized religion and say they base their belief system strictly on the gospels are being hypocritical.

Sorry. Not true. What we consider orthodoxy was canonized in the third century. Catholicism developed after that, adding much that is not in the Bible and creating a large power structure around it that did not belong. The crusade against the Cathars occurred around 1200. I could also make a fair argument this crusade was more about power and land than beliefs. But that's another thread.

The Protestant Reformation, leading to the Renaissance, occurred around 1500. Personally I agree the Cathars were heretical; I do not for example put Satan on the same level as God as a separate deity and I find no evidence to support this. Protestant beliefs are much closer to the nascent Christian beliefs than Catholicism. Fortunately these days we do not go on crusades against people for odd ball beliefs.

But this digresses quite a bit from this thread.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

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.

Just so you two are aware - what constitutes evidence in the legal system is NOT the same as that required for formal debate.
And this IS NOT a legal matter... but one of rationality and formal debate and following the SCIENTIFIC METHOD (this is a SCIENCE FORUM after all).

Would the claim that the Bible is historically accurate withstand a battering in a court of law? Yes - most probably.
But then so could any unsupported claim if there is not necessarily sufficient evidence to reject it.


In a western court - one is generally considered innocent until proven guilty.
i.e. one makes a claim (e.g. "I didn't do it") and the prosecution must break down that assertion - and failure to do so means the claim legally stands.

In SCIENCE - and formal debate - ANY CLAIM must be supported by evidence - or it holds no ground at all beyond confidence statement.


If you can not appreciate the difference then in such forums as this you will for ever have people requiring you to support your claim.

If you DO appreciate the difference - change your tone, change your approach and SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


And remember - THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW!!!!


So - if you want us to accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of words - PROVIDE THE SUPPORT.

 

[nova900]

Sorry. Not true. What we consider orthodoxy was canonized in the third century. .

By "we" I assume you mean Christians.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the definition of orthodox:

orthodox - adhering to what is commonly accepted; "an orthodox view of the world"
conservative - resistant to change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as most empires tend to be conservative in nature the Romans were no different.In the first and second centuries various Christian sects conflicted with each other and the more conservative ones(orthodox) are going to be the ones the authorities in power of the region at the time are going to support so therefore my point still stands:

The Gospels as we know them today were given the final seal of approval by conservative,orthodox forces.

 

[Myles]

You are not making your point Myles. The Cathars dies for their belief in Jesus. Early Christianity also was against orthodoxy. Thanks for making my point.

You want to make the point that people will allow themselves to be persecuted and to be murdered for any ol' belief. Would you? Try again.

I did my best but you can't see what I am driving at. The Cathars were persecuted as heretics for not accepting the idea of one all-powerful god and the Trinity, which was the prevaling orthodoxy.

You previously suggested that people would not die for a belief that was not true, in consequence of which the gospels must be true. It follows from this style of reasoning that dying for a belief guarantees the veracity of that belief, something I am contesting.

I offered the Cathars as an example of many people dying for a belief which differed from the prevaling orthodox one. It was not about Jesus, however much you would like to think so; it was because they were dualists. How you can infer that they were put to death for believing in Jesus is beyond me.

So we now have a situation where two lots of people died for different beliefs. Your way of looking at things means they were both right. There is nothing more I can usefully say.

 

[SnakeLord]

We are talking about physical seen beings who can make such an impression people will die for them.

Incorrect. It is the existence or non-existence of that being that is under question. You say he's real because people died for him, (which is the same for many beings you would determine as fictional), and then try and support that by claiming he's a real being. :bugeye:

Please provide a source for the chart and data.

Scripture.

Until we understand the pedigree, the chart is inadmissible

Not really or everything ever mentioned with regards to religious faith is inadmissible. The good thing with the chart is that it is falsifiable.

 

[Revolvr]

I did my best but you can't see what I am driving at. The Cathars were persecuted as heretics for not accepting the idea of one all-powerful god and the Trinity, which was the prevaling orthodoxy.

You previously suggested that people would not die for a belief that was not true, in consequence of which the gospels must be true. It follows from this style of reasoning that dying for a belief guarantees the veracity of that belief, something I am contesting.

I offered the Cathars as an example of many people dying for a belief which differed from the prevaling orthodox one. It was not about Jesus, however much you would like to think so; it was because they were dualists. How you can infer that they were put to death for believing in Jesus is beyond me.

So we now have a situation where two lots of people die for different beliefs. Your way of looking at things means they were both right. There is nothing more I can usefully say.

You aren't quite getting what I am saying.

Your hypothesis is that Jesus did not exist and the stories about him are fictional. I am simply saying that if these people knew it to be fictional (the writers of the New Testament), they would not have allowed themselves to be persecuted and killed for it. There is no gain. That to me is powerful argument that they did not believe it was fictional. They saw what they saw, experienced what they experienced. It was not a hoax.

 

[Revolvr]

Scripture.

That doesn't cut it. I want to see the data used, the assumptions made, and how the numbers were created. Any scientist would ask for that. Is there some reason you don't want to provide the source?

 

[Myles]

You aren't quite getting what I am saying.

Your hypothesis is that Jesus did not exist and the stories about him are fictional. I am simply saying that if these people knew it to be fictional (the writers of the New Testament), they would not have allowed themselves to be persecuted and killed for it. There is no gain. That to me is powerful argument that they did not believe it was fictional. They saw what they saw, experienced what they experienced. It was not a hoax.

Can you tell me where I have said that Jesus did not exist ? You are putting words in my mouth to ssuit your own ends. That is despicable.

Footnote: Earlier, you made the point that the Albigensian crusades were not just about heresy. Well, I agree. A lot of what went on was about power and land grabbing. But that does not vitiate the fact the people died for their beliefs. That is my whole point.

 

[SnakeLord]

That doesn't cut it. I want to see the data used, the assumptions made, and how the numbers were created. Any scientist would ask for that. Is there some reason you don't want to provide the source?

I did provide the source: the bible. Why is it suddenly not good enough for you? How dare you sit there and talk of science while not once having shown anything even remotely resembling science in any of your 243 posts.

You use the bible to argue that a being featured within it exists. I use that very same book to show inconsistency and additions and all of a sudden the bible can't be used? Pfft.

 

[Myles]

Yes they would. They have to.

Let me give you some additional insight into what they are doing. Have you ever read David Hume (1711-1776)? He is well known for an essay on miracles and used the following logic:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough​

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

Likewise, the atheists view is:
A) I know a priori God and Jesus do not exist
Therefore 1) and 2).​

In order for 1) and 2) to be true we MUST speculate on the existing evidence and why it is unreliable. Therefore, it MUST be a giant conspiracy of altered texts, forged documents, lies and deceit.

And there is no evidence I could show that can break through this barrier.

Now we must agree with Hume that if Jesus or miracles did not or never happened, well they never happened and there is no evidence for it. But we know they never happened because we know all the positive reports are false. Since all of the positive reports are false, we know they never happened.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

So how does one get out of this circular reasoning? I see two ways:

[1]
Jesus, or miracles are matters of perception and therefore investigable. They exist, if they do, in the realm of matters of fact. To laugh out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are, is prejudicial. Notional concept A) is not valid in court. We can take a non-prejudicial legal view and weigh the evidence in a legal court, not a scientific court.

[2]
We can also assume that our understanding of the laws of nature, which lead to A) is not as firm and unalterable as we think it is. We do not know everything about nature. We in fact, know very little. To think we know everything is presumptuous. Therefore A) is not known to be true with any degree of certainty.​

Saquist, you tend to look at the legal view [1], which is why I brought up the works of legal scholars like Simon Greenleaf. I believe, like Greenleaf, that the preponderance of evidence supports the Bible. Tactic [2] is hard to take on a science forum as most people here think we know everything.

You can see that the Hume argument leads to long threads where one person presents evidence of forgeries or other falsehoods. Another identifies why those arguments are themselves false and often disingenuous. Round and round we go. You’ll note too the believers in A) tend to get defiant and combative after a while.

-- Rev

You seem to get your information from biased sources or interpret what you read ,to suit you beliefs. You accused me of denying the existence of Jesus when I have never done so. There may or may not have been such a person but I am not prepared to accept the claims made for him.

Can you now please tell me the source of the syllogism you attribute to David Hume . Was it his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding or from someone's interpretation of what Hume is supposed to have said ? I can tell you now you will find no such syllogism in Hume's writings. How do I know ? I have copies of his works which I have studied, Can you say as much ?

 

[Saquist]

The idea was to show you that things have been added as time goes by. You really cannot dispute that. I'm asking you to tell me why you think these things have been added and which, if any, of those versions are therefore inaccurate, (as they differ in what did or didn't happen). I'm not asking for a great deal from you.

Snakelord your statement is conclusive but the evidence is far from definite. The variable invovled are unknowable.




It isn't about whether something is believable or not, it is about things being added, which they have, and why you think this has happened.

Any time today..

To conclude that there were willful additions to the account is speculation.
To conclude that the anomolies of their accounts are caused by perception and omission is speculation.

Do you not see.

The difference is one is strongly supported by probability and recurrence. The other speculation would require us to isolate motive and location in the exaggeration of the story.

The theory that a legend status was applied to the retelling does not transition at all through the recopying of the text through the next 1,500 years. This theory would have us indulge in the speculation that the writers abandoned the rabbinic method of oral precision that the Jews were renowned for and then readopted that precision for the copies. Yet even the Christian Greek scriptures copied in some cases by unproffesional copiest aswell as the highly skilled maintained a chain of integrity.

This theory needs support.
It needs to identify the collapse of oral tradition
It needs to identify the abandonment of precision.
It requires the sudden reassembly of both in a very very short time frame with out lapse of adherence to that precision.

The theory would require us to leap over scholars such as Adin Steinsaltz who explains:

"Each teacher had his own method and phrased his oral rulings in his own singular fashion...It was no longer sufficient to be acquainted with the teachings of one's own mentor, and the student was obliged to acquaint himself with the work of other scholars...These students were forced to memorize vast quantities of material because of the 'explosion of knowledge."

He established that the transition from oral to verbal was an almost seemless necessity. In the second century C.E., the Jewish rebellion against Rome, headed by Bar Kokhba, led to the intense persecution of rabbinic scholars. Akiba, a foremost rabbi, who had supported Bar Kokhba, as well as many leading scholars were put to death. They feared that this renewed persection could endanger the very exisitence of their oral law. They had believed that traditions were best passed on by word of mouth from master to dissciple, but these circumstances led to an increased effort to create an organized structure to preserve the teachings lest they be forgotten forever.

Thirty some-odd years later during Jesus' ministry after the Mishnah was created and given authority like no other book, save the Torah. He remarks this as a new age in Judaism began here, a tradition of oral precision passed cleanly and neatly to that to a written tradition in the looming shadow of what would be Jerusalems destruction at the hands of the Romans.

This was an act of desperation. This was an atmosphere of brooding contention, a threat that the bible writers grew up within, as they rebelled against Roman occupation. A threat that was made clear by the prophecies of Jesus as he cautioned them from the "end of this system of things." It was a threat they even inquired of the Messiah. Everyone was aware and yet this theory of a lapse from oral tradition amiss the measures the rabbi had implemented is some how to be fit in ....how?

What support is their for this speculation aside from the circumstantial evidence from which it was concocted from? That evidence would have to hurdle some high obsticales in pattern and events at the era of their writing.

I'm not prepared to give such a theory credence in the face of such concerted efforts when perceptional factors account for the dicrepancies far more eloquently with out abrading the sitatuation and climate factors to suit its position in the puzzle. Quite Frankly neither should you Snakelord. Scholasticly we've got to do much better than presenting manicured and mishapen theories that more fit our agenda than they do the surrounding facts.

My appolgies but I feel strongly about maintaining a ridged factual approach to history and events rather than inventing theory systems of circumstantial evidence. They often lead to wrong conclusions and it happens to occur far too frequently when it comes to the bible. I believe it invovles the skeptisicm and incredility that scholars often initially approach the scriptures with. If you're searching for how it couldn't be true then you're obviously not searching for the whole truth. That's not investigative. That's the definition of a prosecution. Do you understand now why I take the legal avenue of standards instead of this so called unbiased scientific approach to search for the truth?

 

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

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)

Cornelius Tacitus -
Not 1st century.
He merely repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs.


Flavius Josephus -
A forged or corrupt passage from late 1st C.


Pliny the Younger -
Not 1st century.
He merely mentions 2nd C. Christian beliefs.


Suetonius -
Not 1st century.
Not about Jesus, but Chrestus in Rome.


Mara Bar-Serapion,
Probably not 1st century. Probably not about Jesus.


Lucan of Samosata -
You mean LUCIAN, Lucan was someone else.
Not 1st Century.
Lucian ridiculed Christians in mid 2nd century, he did not mention Jesus by name.


The Jewish Sanhedrin.
Not 1st century. More like 3rd century.
They say :
* Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman soldier
* Jesus was conceived during menstruation
* Jesus learned black magic in Eqypt
* Jesus was stoned to death
* Jesus had 5 disciples
* many other bizarre stories...

Does that confirm your stories of Jesus ?


Iasion