The Gospels—History or Myth?

[iceaura]

I must stop you here.
explain how you drew this as a fact.

I took your word for it - or actually, revolvr's word in that specific response.

You are both claiming that the NT is factual history, written from personal experience of the facts involved. I chose the parts of the NT that seemed to me least likely to fit that description.

I assert no such thing, on my own account. I think that the NT is probably what it looks exactly like: legend and myth. I'm still wating for the first real argument against that view.

 

[w1z4rd]

Personal experience my ass... they (the Gospels) were written long enough after the death of the hypothetical Jesus as not to be "personal"... but "Second hand accounts of someones personal experience"

 

[Myles]

Myles,

You seem to be a little more widely read than your peers. That’s a good thing. Yes my comments were based directly off Hume’s Enquiries concerning Human Understanding.

But if you’ve read these I don’t see how you missed it. To you it may have sounded reasonable. To me it sounded circular. Obviously I shortened things considerably for a post. My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criterion used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Clearly the criteria is impossible to meet. Hence the a priori belief miracles cannot occur.

If you read Section 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.

Ps I do not need to be told I am well read and ,as far as my peers are concerned, I am not arrogant enough to assume that thy are less well read than I am.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Then it is indeed a matter of belief than data.

Nonsense.
It IS a matter of data, of evidence.

I posted the evidence, you ignored it.
Is that how you normally try to debate?
By ignoring facts that disagree with you?

Revolver made an enormous error - he copy/pasted BELIEF from an apologist site which is not supported by evidence. Revolver doesn't seem to have any idea who these writers were or what they wrote. Revolver even confuses Lucan with Lucian - an error which is commonplace on creationist sites

So -
Revolver's claim that these writings are from the first century is false.

You ignored that huge error

And -
Revolver's claim that all these writings vindicate the Biblical accounts is false, as I showed.

You ignored that error as well - here are the facts again :
* Josephus is corrupt, possibly forged in toto
* Suetonius is not about Jesus,
* Mara bar-Serapion is not certainly about Jesus,
* Tacitus merely repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs (and gets some details wrong).
* Pliny also repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs. He says nothing about Jesus himself.
* Lucian ridicules mid 2nd C. Christian beliefs - he does not even use the word Jesus.
* The Talmud tells completely different things about Jesus, using various names for him.

What is your answer, Saquist?

What about you, Revolver?
When will you admit your error?

Meanwhile what about the Talmud :
* Jesus is a black magician
* Jesus is a bastard son of Roman soldier
* Jesus was conceived during menstruation
* Jesus learned black magic in Egypt
* Jesus stole the Egyptian magic by hiding it in a scroll hidden in a cut in his thigh as the magic guard-dog's bark cleared all memory
* Jesus worshipped a brickbat
* Jesus burned his food
* Jesus was stoned to death in Lydda
* Jesus had 5 disciples Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

That's some of the stuff found in the Talmud and Toldoths.

Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts, Saquist?

What about you, Revolver?
Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts ?


Iasion

 

[SnakeLord]

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.

I ultimately drew no conclusions but was interested in why you think as time progressed more extraordinary accounts were added that had either been forgotten about/not included for some reason in earlier versions. What you are left with are several inaccurate accounts. Inaccurate in that they either omit important information, (which would require a valid reason), or that they add it.

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.

Even today there are how many versions of the same text that differ? Whether the translators made a mistake, omitted or added means they are being inaccurate. That inaccuracy exists just as clearly in the differing gospel accounts.

300 years after that and they were still trying to put together a uniform christian doctrine and figure out who and what jesus was in relation to god, (among other things) - which was decided by vote.

It needs to identify the abandonment of precision.

To show that this 'precision' exists would require multiple copies of the same text that do not differ in any way. Got an example? The minute there is difference the minute you instantly have at least one that isn't "precise".

My appolgies but I feel strongly about maintaining a ridged factual approach to history and events

Says the person that concludes that the gospels couldn't have been compiled quickly because the Iliad wasn't :bugeye: (lol).

This is got to be the most specious nonsense in this whole thread.

Not really, I would say it was those claims that nobody would die for something that wasn't true. Still, there is one of your statements I do agree with:

"ultimately, religion cannot be understood intellectually"

As for the data: It comes from the bible. That's the third time I've told you.

 

[Myles]

How can religion be understood intellectually when Saquist told us in one of his early posts that" we are all talking about thing beyond normal human understanding" ?I thought he made himself very clear on thet point. Shortly afterwards he introduced angels.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Greetings,

Nonsense. It IS a matter of data, of evidence.

I posted the evidence, you ignored it. Is that how you normally try to debate? By ignoring facts that disagree with you?

Revolver made an enormous error - he copy/pasted BELIEF from an apologist site which is not supported by evidence. Revolver doesn't seem to have any idea who these writers were or what they wrote. Revolver even confuses Lucan with Lucian - an error which is commonplace on creationist sites

So -
Revolver's claim that these writings are from the first century is false.

You ignored that huge error

And -
Revolver's claim that all these writings vindicate the Biblical accounts is false, as I showed.

You ignored that error as well - here are the facts again :
* Josephus is corrupt, possibly forged in toto
* Suetonius is not about Jesus,
* Mara bar-Serapion is not certainly about Jesus,
* Tacitus merely repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs (and gets some details wrong).
* Pliny also repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs. He says nothing about Jesus himself.
* Lucian ridicules mid 2nd C. Christian beliefs - he does not even use the word Jesus.
* The Talmud tells completely different things about Jesus, using various names for him.

What is your answer, Saquist?

What about you, Revolver?
When will you admit your error?

Meanwhile what about the Talmud :
* Jesus is a black magician
* Jesus is a bastard son of Roman soldier
* Jesus was conceived during menstruation
* Jesus learned black magic in Egypt
* Jesus stole the Egyptian magic by hiding it in a scroll hidden in a cut in his thigh as the magic guard-dog's bark cleared all memory
* Jesus worshipped a brickbat
* Jesus burned his food
* Jesus was stoned to death in Lydda
* Jesus had 5 disciples Matai, Nekai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.

That's some of the stuff found in the Talmud and Toldoths.

Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts, Saquist?

What about you, Revolver?
Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts?

*************
M*W: It's good to see you back! I've been missing your exceptional posts! Do you believe Jesus actually existed? Do you follow the astro-theological view of the Jesus story? Do you believe it's an allegory or the literal truth?

 

[BlueMoose]

I guess it had something to do with politics, early Christians used fish as their sign, that indicates strongly to sun worshipping as moving away from age of ram. no final conclusion yet, still interested reasons behind this, and if there was some prophet among the Jews, then who was it, nothing like in NT for sure because thats an allegory, Romans did have influences from many religions in the past, mainly from Greeks.

13 BC: Augustus expands the borders to the region of the Danube
6 BC: Jesus is born in Palestine
1 AD: Roma has about one million people
2 AD: the Forum of Augustus
5 AD: Roma acknowledges Cymbeline, King of the Catuvellauni, as king of Britain
6 AD: Augustus expands the borders to the Balkans
12 AD: The last Etruscan inscription is carved
14 AD: Augustus dies and Tiberius becomes emperor
14 AD: five million people live in the Roman empire
25 AD: Agrippa builds the Pantheon
37 AD: Tiberius dies and the mad Caligula succeeds him
41 AD: Caligula is assassinated and is succeeded by Claudius
43 AD: Claudius invades Britain
46 AD: Thracia becomes a Roman province
50 AD: the Romans found Londinium in Britain
54 AD: Claudius is succeeded by Nero
58 AD: the Romans conquer Armenia
64 AD: Nero sets fire to Roma and blames the Christians for it
68 AD: Nero commits suicide and is succeeded by Vespasianus
79 AD: Vespasianus is succeeded by Tito
70 AD: Tito destroys Jerusalem and Jews spread in Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Arabia, Egypt, Italy, Spain and Greece

 

[Saquist]

Greetings,

Nonsense.

Realy?!

It IS a matter of data, of evidence.

I posted the evidence, you ignored it.
Is that how you normally try to debate?
By ignoring facts that disagree with you?

Curious, I didn't ignore anyone but Myles.
What I saw that you posted was theory. Perhaps I miss understood. I've been wrong before so I'll go back and review.

You ignored that huge error

Ah...
I wouldn't have knonw the difference. I'm not quite as well read on this subject. History is a subject I'm getting stronger at.

And -
Revolver's claim that all these writings vindicate the Biblical accounts is false, as I showed.

All I saw that he was pointing out is that they do not contest Jesus existence, this in the face of those that propose that few historians recognize him.

You ignored that error as well - here are the facts again :
* Josephus is corrupt, possibly forged in toto
* Suetonius is not about Jesus,
* Mara bar-Serapion is not certainly about Jesus,
* Tacitus merely repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs (and gets some details wrong).
* Pliny also repeats 2nd C. Christian beliefs. He says nothing about Jesus himself.
* Lucian ridicules mid 2nd C. Christian beliefs - he does not even use the word Jesus.
* The Talmud tells completely different things about Jesus, using various names for him.

I didn't ignore this I just didn't see any facts. I require explicity not commentary. Now the former statement does not follow for all your points. Some of your points seem to point out irrelevancies to Revolvr's subject points. Again if this is not the case then I require explicity when I take in new information not summary or commentary.

That's some of the stuff found in the Talmud and Toldoths.

Do you think that is vindication of the Bible accounts, Saquist?

The question is not the justification for some act or belief, Iasion. This is a question concerning the state of acknolwedgement, credit, and approval. Thus the answer is yes this indivdual does seem to acknowledge the exisitence of Jesus Christ. I appreciate your attention to detail but I would draw your attention to devoting some accuracy toward the subject point than as opposed to focusing on general objections and contradictions between the works in question.

I took your word for it - or actually, revolvr's word in that specific response.

You are both claiming that the NT is factual history, written from personal experience of the facts involved. I chose the parts of the NT that seemed to me least likely to fit that description.

I assert no such thing, on my own account. I think that the NT is probably what it looks exactly like: legend and myth. I'm still wating for the first real argument against that view.

I see.
There is a need to clarify then. The Gospel accounts present themselves as historical accounts of events concerning Jesus ministry. At no point is there a departure from historicity to legendary exaggeration. These accounts themselves do not make any mention of having a direct relation to events between the Jesus and the writer before their initial encounter. It is safe to assume this information is not eye witness but first person retelling of the events that may have come from Jesus, his parents, Mary Magedalene or others that were present. This obviously gives weight to the intention that these events were meant to be passed on to future generations.

Infact do to the lack of Fictional Jewish works that I can find I can not summarily rule these accounts as fictional. There would seem to be no common frame of refrence to base such a conclusion.

Using culturally external markers of fictions would be an impropper connection insinuation whose customs, origins, habits, limits and taboo's will not likely parallel at all...

I guess that goes to more Snakelords arguement.

 

[iceaura]

There is a need to clarify then. The Gospel accounts present themselves as historical accounts of events concerning Jesus ministry. At no point is there a departure from historicity to legendary exaggeration

Beg to differ. At almost no point is there any attempt to refrain from legend and exaggeration, and those points restricted to quotes from Jesus himself. The apparent contributions of the writers resemble classic legend-mongering, in every respect.

It is safe to assume this information is not eye witness but first person retelling of the events that may have come from Jesus, his parents, Mary Magedalene or others that were present.

It is not at all safe to make such a bizarre assumption. Why would you ?

 

[Saquist]

Beg to differ. At almost no point is there any attempt to refrain from legend and exaggeration, and those points restricted to quotes from Jesus himself.

That is a matter of your subjective perception, not fact. This is not an examination of a belief system.

The apparent contributions of the writers resemble classic legend-mongering, in every respect. It is not at all safe to make such a bizarre assumption. Why would you ?

Not in every respect.
Resemblence is also a matter of subjectivity to perceptioin. It is also contradictory to generalize every aspect of the accounts as legend-mongering. Hardly conclussive considering the critics' conflicting observations. To say nothing of inaccurate.

It is completely safe to make the assumption. There is no factual reason to deny the gospels as a group relation of events. The acounts posess a self contained status quo of historicity. Increduility isn't a foundation for anything other than a belief. (which I believe I've repeated before.)

Less you wish to...reitterate your belief system you're saying you have no factual reason to doubt the veracity of the gospels. If you do have a common frame of refrence for comparison such as some period Jewish fiction it would serve to exemplify a divergence from truth. A direct comparison is a must to establish any fictional charge against the gospels.

Otherwise we are indulging in loose guessing and elaborate consipiracy theories as Revolvr illistrated. There must be a dedication to facts and accuracy without interpretation of perspective. I will personally maintain that position.

It would be completely different situation if the gospels had no support from the Torah, If they breached the consistancy to oral tradition, if real individuals were not mentioned frequently associated with factual reality... If these conveyors were not willing to die for there cause...But such is not the case. They present themselves as history.

As documents proceeding forward in time I can not overrule that presentation based on mere incredulity. I did not witness the events and I have no proof that they did not indeed occur just as the accounts state. Further without any equally distant account to offer contention as it's own eye witness to the events all the speculation in the world opposed to the historicity of the gospels would be irrelevant and non factual.

That is the only propper conclusion from what I've seen presented sofar.

 

[Saquist]

Additional:

I have observed the claims made by (particularly Medicine Women) others made on the forum. This thread was constructed to specificly and explicity draw them out through a disclosure of facts and relevant comparisons to seperate fact from belief. Yet to my disappointment this has not occured to any significant degree. Revolvr dispense facts which might have been in error. The results of the contention has not been resolved. As the information impacts only observations by historians (perception) that mabe benign or malign yet ultimately irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Thus I must conclude that in the face of both proffessional authorities and amatuer source observations there is nothing factual or by comparison which removes the Gospel accounts' intital self identification as an historical account of events by an isolated group of Jews.

I thank all for your participation.

 

[Myles]

Incredulity rules nothing in or out; it's merely an expression of a point of view. An issue can be decided in light of relevant facts. You appear to have none, so the thrust of your argument seems to be that your credulity makes your case for you.

You just cannot accept that the burden of proof is on you, because you have yet to come up with solid evidence. You want us to change the rules of philosphical debate just to accomodate you. Is that because " we are talking about things beyond normal human understanding" as you told us in an earlier post ?

 

[Saquist]

Are you once again seeking my attention?
(As if I have to ask)
And...why? You have been known to be contentious. What's different now?

 

[iceaura]

Beg to differ. At almost no point is there any attempt to refrain from legend and exaggeration, and those points restricted to quotes from Jesus himself. ”

That is a matter of your subjective perception, not fact.

The resemblances to legend and myth are not "subjective", but verifiable: from mythic honoring of the birth to walking on water, healing the sick, raising from the dead, multiplying food and wine, talking with the devil, etc.

If you want to argue these as "subjective" and open to other interpretations, you must make an argument for that interpretation. Simple assertion will not do, in the face of the evidence.

Otherwise we are indulging in loose guessing and elaborate consipiracy theories as Revolvr illistrated. There must be a dedication to facts and accuracy without interpretation of perspective.

One of the facts before us is that the authors of the gospels present Jesus birth as being attended by choirs of angels, visitations of dignitaries from distant lands bearing gifts, and the light of a special star overhead in the night sky.

You seem to be claiming that any noting of resemblance between such an account and familiar styles of legend or myth is a loose guess implying an elaborate conspiracy theory, while dedication to facts and accuracy demands we accept such description at face value with no corroborating evidence.

Is that a fair assesssment of your position ?

 

[Saquist]

The resemblances to legend and myth are not "subjective", but verifiable: from mythic honoring of the birth to walking on water, healing the sick, raising from the dead, multiplying food and wine, talking with the devil, etc.

You're proposing these events verifiy myth. That is not a true cause and effect relationship. Nor is it factual to state these events did not occur simply based on incredulity. That is perception. That is indeed subjective to belief.

If you want to argue these as "subjective" and open to other interpretations, you must make an argument for that interpretation. Simple assertion will not do, in the face of the evidence.
One of the facts before us is that the authors of the gospels present Jesus birth as being attended by choirs of angels, visitations of dignitaries from distant lands bearing gifts, and the light of a special star overhead in the night sky.

The evidence is inconclusive. The historians are inconclussive. The text it presents is it's own assertions. No argument has thus been established only testimony to events. Thus I have no assertions other than that which the facts present. On the other hand you assert myth on the basis of increduility. Again this is not factual. This is a belief system design to rule out the incredible but can not possibly intersect the facts nor can they decipher duplicity, nor contradiction of any kind.

So...I understand YOU don't believe it but your beliefs are not on trial here. Nor are your beliefs any appropriate meausure to insure the status of reality.

You seem to be claiming that any noting of resemblance between such an account and familiar styles of legend or myth is a loose guess implying an elaborate conspiracy theory, while dedication to facts and accuracy demands we accept such description at face value with no corroborating evidence.

Is that a fair assesssment of your position ?

Mathematicaly speaking the Gospels adds to history. This means it dictates events that occured as opposed to stating these events did not occur thus presenting them as an addition to history. They are in a far superior position to make this dictation.

You assert that these events did not occur, however you can offer no equivilent counter to that testimony. You believe that it is necessary for the text in question to acredit itself in history other than how it already has without any real standard of acreditation. Without predefined limits standards are arbitrary like a rising ceiling of values that can never be attained. This establishes that we are speaking of a massive amount of subjectivity for your argument. That subjectivity is the assertion that the text is lying based on incredulity. Incredulity is an argument of belief. There are no facts to support the incredible.

So without standards for historicity we can not...or rather I... will not assume falsehood based on incredulity without mitigating facts. All history falls under the same unbrella of security.

 

[blobrana]

The Gospel of Thomas seems to be one of the earliest gospels and therefore one would assume more accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

 

[Myles]

Are you once again seeking my attention?
(As if I have to ask)
And...why? You have been known to be contentious. What's different now?

I was a hoping for a better performance from you than you gave last time. But nothing has changed. Just a few points:

In one post on this thread you said "we are talking about something beyond normal human understanding", and regarded that as an adequate response to an objection. It folows that you started a thread for no useful purpose.

You introduced the analogy of an American courtroom, the purpose of which was to shift the burden of proof onto anyone who disagreed with you. You did this by wanting to play the role of defendant, the assumption being that you were entitled to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. When I pointed out that in such a scenario the NT would be on trial and you would have to make your case as we would have to make ours, the courtroom scenario lost its appeal for you.

You attempted to support the veracity of the NT by saying that "incredulity" was insufficient to discredit it. You gave us the following example to illustrate your point.

You argued that a diver, on returning to the surface and reporting that time had slowed down would not be discredited by someone disbelieving him. You conveniently overlooked the fact that someone who believed him would not show that he was right. I suggested that the diver's version of events could be tested scientifically to establish the facts. It is blindingly obvious that facts rather than opinion are needed but, for whatever reason, you do not seem to agree.

After the first few posts you and Revolvr were whining that you would not get a fair hearing on a site such as this. So why did you start the thread here ? As it turned out you were given a fair hearing but you had nothing substantial to offer by way of evidence to support your view. As you see it, you can now conveniently say you were not given a fair hearing.

I have now given you another opportunity to say that I am contentious because I disagree with you. Name -calling does nothing to advance your claims, as you should know from a previous occasion when you told me I could not reason, that you would have to use words of two syllables because that was the limit of my understanding. You finished by likening me to a lunatic. I rest my case.

 

[Saquist]

My, my, my...
That's not right at all. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to liken you as a lunatic. I don't see you as a lunatic, more like...an idiot.

As such I don't really see you worthy of my attention. Nor do I see any logical point in furthering any relations with you diplomatic or otherwise as I have a zero tolerance policy on dishonesty and stupidity, of which you've shown an immense store of in previous threads.

P.S
One could argue there is always a reason to develop diplomatic relations even with contentious individuals such as yourself with regards to improved future relations and a meeting of the minds. However I'm afraid I've already classfied you as I'm sure you've classified myself and to exert the extra energy to a goal that is so improbable (that goal being you understanding my position) would seem like a waste of time and resources which are at a premium.

So I hope you don't take it personaly but I don't have time for the intelectually dishonest. If your behavior changes I assure you mine will aswell. So there is no olive branch, no bridge to rebuild, no treaty to sign, no claim to rest and no argument to validate between us. You are free.

 

[Myles]

My, my, my...
That's not right at all. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to liken you as a lunatic. I don't see you as a lunatic, more like...an idiot.

As such I don't really see you worthy of my attention. Nor do I see any logical point in furthering any relations with you diplomatic or otherwise as I have a zero tolerance policy on dishonesty and stupidity, of which you've shown an immense store of in previous threads.

P.S
One could argue there is always a reason to develop diplomatic relations even with contentious individuals such as yourself with regards to improved future relations and a meeting of the minds. However I'm afraid I've already classfied you as I'm sure you've classified myself and to exert the extra energy to a goal that is so improbable (that goal being you understanding my position) would seem like a waste of time and resources which are at a premium.

So I hope you don't take it personaly but I don't have time for the intelectually dishonest. If your behavior changes I assure you mine will aswell. So there is no olive branch, no bridge to rebuild, no treaty to sign, no claim to rest and no argument to validate between us. You are free.

That's a very full answer to the points I made, as anyone who reads it will know. Don't forget to berate all the others who fail to understand your position. It must be painful to know one's view is right but to fail to persuade others. This site is full of idiots who are too stubborn to seee things your way.

Lastly may I say that calling someone an idiot doesn't make them so,other from your quirky point of view.To me, an idiot is someone who believes the star of Bethlehem stood still, meaning that the earth stopped rotating on its axis.