Gday all,
It is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus. This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because - believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
identifiable people
claimed to have met Jesus
in authentic writing
?
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete."
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
"1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. "
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had. He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said. Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did. Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus. Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
Summary
The entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever personally met a historical Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Christians - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY requird at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books, and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong
It is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus. This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because - believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
identifiable people
claimed to have met Jesus
in authentic writing
?
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete."
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
"1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. "
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had. He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said. Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did. Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus. Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
Summary
The entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever personally met a historical Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Christians - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY requird at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books, and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong
