I thought Jesus was only qualified to teach carpentry.

Well there's a lot more info on him teaching theology than there is on him ever teaching carpentry in the bible...

Which has to be pointed to as one of the greatest shames of christianity. A real missed opportunity right there.

(July 19, 2014 at 2:47 am)Aractus Wrote: Okay, so I'd like to open this topic for debate with all Christians on the forum. Hopefully we can have a serious, polite discussion on this topic.

So in summary: Jesus taught to keep the whole of the OT law, he never taught any different.

Before, or along with, the question "What does Jesus teach?", one must also ask, Whom does Jesus teach?

Did Jesus even exist? Let's be honest, how many people named Jesus were born at the same time and location?

(July 23, 2014 at 11:05 am)Blackout Wrote: Did Jesus even exist? Let's be honest, how many people named Jesus were born at the same time and location?

The answer is none because the letter "J" was not used in words until the Middle Ages. So even Jesus wasn't named Jesus until the English guys gave him that name.

(July 23, 2014 at 11:05 am)Blackout Wrote: Did Jesus even exist? Let's be honest, how many people named Jesus were born at the same time and location?

Yes, and we can also say (as sceptics) that a number of others also existed. We can certainly debate what he taught and whether it is actually consistent with Xianity.

Quote:As usual I don't care for your opinion. By the same stroke you shoud doubt early dates of Paul.

"Paul" is as big a pile of shit as Jesus, laddie. But you aren't ready to face that much reality yet.

No serious historian would agree with you- you are so far away from the academic debate.

Let me start by saying that I renounce the Jesus Myth and am now an advocate of The Jesus Moot Theory. This is not because I'm convinced that The Historical Jesus existed, whatever that even means, but because it's a waste of time that's better spent critically examining the Gospel tales.

The Jesus Moot is that we can never know anything for certain about The Historical Jesus since the only detailed accounts of either his life or teachings come to us from the Gospel accounts. On close examination, even if we are so charitable as to strip out all the supernatural claims (in which case you've gutted the story but let that go) the accounts are so dubious, so self-contradictory and so contradictory of what we know of history that we have an unsolvable mess.

Let's start with the dates you assert:

(July 19, 2014 at 4:11 am)Aractus Wrote: As you know it's very difficult to date the Gospels, except for Luke-Acts which dates to around 61 AD. This puts the Gospel of Mark at least slightly behind Luke, any date from about 45 AD to 60 AD is possible.

I'd love to see some source material here. Even apologists seldom try to push Mark any earlier than 70 CE. This is because the "little apocalypse" of chapter 13 places the dates after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

The Gospel of Mark Wrote:Mark 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke and Matt are clearly derived from Mark so that puts their dates even later.

Quote:If we accept 1 and 2 Timothy as written by Paul

Most scholars don't.

But let's get back to Mark. Since the other Gospels are based upon Mark (with the exception of John, which is a different story about a different Jesus, as tacitly admitted by the Christian use of the word "synoptic" (similar) to classify the other three Gospel accounts), he's your star witness. The problems with Mark's credibility include:

• Dubious Source: Mark is considered the author of the Gospel by "tradition"
  
• Hearsay: This same "tradition" tells us that he penned the Gospel based on what Peter taught him.
  
• Testimony Based on Much Later Recollections: It was penned at least 40 years after the events.
  
• Contamination: We know of at least one very significant alteration to the original publication (Mark 16:8)
  
• Hearsay on Top of Hearsay: Some of the events in the Gospel are ones that Peter would not have witnessed, as admitted to in the Gospel itself. For example, it places Peter with the servants while Pilate interrogates Jesus.
  

And he's your star witness.

Luke admits in the very beginning of his Gospel that he's not a witness but has collected and recorded his accounts. Luke was a companion of Paul who in turn only met Jesus in a vision after Jesus had died.

Luke can't possibly be the author of Acts of the Apostles due to a contradiction on the day that Jesus rose into the sky, surely an important detail that one would expect a single witness to be consistent about. Luke's Gospel places the ascension on the day of the resurrection while Acts places it 40 days later.

In fact, Acts is so drenched in the supernatural, even by the Bible's standards, that it should be summarily dismissed as a reliable account.

Matt is clearly a liar, as evident by his misquotes of OT scripture and assertions about non-existent OT "prophecies" where he should have known better. Three whoppers he tells in just the first two chapters of his Gospel are sufficient to dismiss his testimony. These included his Isaiah chapter 7 "prophecy" about the virgin birth (even letting the "Bethula/Almah" matter go, Isaiah Chapter 7 relates to events of the time, not to a future messiah), the Rachael Weeping "prophecy" of Jeremiah which actually refers to the Babylonian captivity and the "Out of Egypt" "prophecy" in which "Israel" is the metaphoric son, not a literal son, and the verse isn't a prophecy at all.

John's Jesus is a completely different Character set in a completely different story. Cataloging all the differences would require a dissertation and I trust it isn't necessary seeing how the incompatibility is all but admitted to by even the Christians themselves.

A consistent timeline that includes all four Gospel accounts is impossible to construct. Matt has Jesus born before 4 BCE under the reign of King Herod. Luke has Jesus conceived under the reign of King Herod but not born until the administration of Quirinius after 6 CE, meaning Mary's pregnancy lasted at least 10 years.

Christians tie themselves into knots trying to rationalize why Jesus could still be born before 4 BCE and still be consistent with Luke. Even letting that go, Jesus was, according to Luke, "about 30" when he started his ministry. His ministry didn't start until after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. According to Luke, JtB was imprisoned for speaking out against Herod's marriage to Herodius. Antipas' divorce to his first wife resulted in a war with Aratas that culminated in a battle at about 37 CE, so this divorce and remarriage couldn't be too many years prior. Additional historical milestones are provided by Luke himself. He tells us that JtB started his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius (28/29 CE). It would be reasonable to think that such a successful ministry would require at least a few years to build.

If we fudge what "about 30" means, perhaps Jesus was 28, then we can make Luke's dates fit nicely with the birth in 6 CE, JtB's imprisonment in 34 CE (allowing for consistency with political events and enough time for JtB to build his ministry), a ministry between 34-36 CE (allowing for John's three Passover holidays mentioned in that Gospel), and a crucifixion in 36 CE by Pilate just in the nick of time before Pilate is recalled to Rome that same year. It's a tight squeeze but it all fits... except for the 10 year pregnancy but hey, perhaps those sons of gods take longer to bake in the oven.

Getting back to Matt, there are numerous problems trying to fit his dates in with Luke's census. The census at the time of Herod the Great was around 9 BCE and Judea was a client state, not a province of Rome and therefore not under the jurisdiction of any unlikely Roman census that required people to report back to their home town. But hey, let that go. Perhaps Rome still wanted a census and Herod was happy to oblige. Placing Jesus birth around 9 CE makes him far too old to be "about 30" at even the start of JtB's ministry, let alone the end of it.

And then there's the "where" in addition to the "when". Luke places Mary and Joseph in Nazareth and they had to report to Bethlehem for the census and Jesus was born during that stay in Bethlehem. After a short stay in Jerusalem performing certain rites at the temple, they return to Nazareth. Matt, on the other hand, has Mary in Joseph living in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt and only coming to settle in Nazareth to avoid Herod Achelaus.

When Jesus is baptized, and this story is one that clearly got better with the telling, the synoptic Gospels tell us that he immediately went into the wilderness for 40 days but John's Gospel tells us he gathered disciples attended a wedding.

The order of the events that follow is highly inconsistent even within just the synoptic accounts. I'll have to dig up my spreadsheet where I mapped out the itinerary of Jesus as related in just these three versions of the story. The death and resurrection accounts are also highly inconsistent with one another.

The "when"s and "where"s are hard to reconcile as are the "who" and "what" Jesus was. The synoptic Gospels have Jesus as a man who is clearly separate from and subordinate to his father while John's Gospel is more consistent with Trinitarian ideas about Jesus. The Synoptics depict a Jesus that has a subordinate will ("oh my father... not my will but thy will be done"), inferior knowledge to his father ("no man knows... not even the Son but the Father only"), and he speaks to his Father in 2nd person and of him in 3rd. The booming voice from above introduces Jesus in 3rd person. It isn't until John is penned that we have any idea that Jesus is supposed to be one with his Father.

What Jesus preached is another mess. First, good luck knowing just what that was since all we have are dubious sources. Letting that go, we have serious disputes to resolve. Matt's was the most Jewish of the Jesus' while Paul would have disputed that Jesus taught any adherence to OT laws or standards. The early Christianities also make it clear that Jesus was less than clear about his teachings. We have more distinction between the Ebionite and Marcionite sects than there are between modern Christianity and Islam.

Fine. I'll assume for the sake of argument that The Historical Jesus existed ...and its moot because we'll never know what the true story was.

Bart Ehrman can get back to me if he ever does find out anything.