One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

My thoughts on "The Historical Jesus":

1. There is no proof.

Oh Lordy! You’re one of these fringe people too? So much for honest scholarship. Not sure what you mean by proof, but the evidence is overwhelming. Multiple contemporary accounts based on the testimony of eye witnesses to Jesus is more than we have from any other historical figure from that time period. I smell special pleading.

2. Christian mythology doesn't count as "proof".

Using question-begging epithets to describe the New Testament doesn’t count as a valid argument.

3. The Christians themselves have never told a coherent story in the first place, let alone provided any reason to believe it.

This seems to be a poorly worded attempt at poisoning the well. Christianity is remarkably united on their Christology, so apparently the New Testament does present a coherent picture of the Christ.

4. The picture gets even murkier when you look at Christian beliefs of the first few centuries.

This assertion would actually require some information to back it up. As it stands now it is meaningless.

So either:

False dichotomy in 3….2….1….

1. Jesus was an insignificant rabbi that nobody paid any attention to and who wrote nothing of himself and his own teachings and, against all odds, was deified with fanciful legends, except that nobody could agree on what he said, taught or did, including what are now considered canonical sources, never mind all the myriad "heterodox Christians" who were so divergent as to make modern Christianity vs. Islam look like petty theological hair-splitting, so good luck ever knowing anything about him.

Nice run-on. I assume you’re referring to the gospels created by the Gnostics which date to between 100-250 years later than the four gospels of Jesus? The early church viewed only the four gospels we accept today as legitimate from the very beginning.

2. He's an urban legend.

Or he is a historical figure accurately described in the four gospels which is the historically accepted view today. People do not fabricate a person in order to die horrible deaths for what they know to be a lie.

1. You're using folklore to prove mythology.
We're all familiar with the classic Hollywood imagery of Christians being tortured and killed by dastardly Roman pagans and yet they held their head high and looked forward to being united with their celestial savior (*cue the swelling orchestral music to enhance the drama*). Got any proof that it happened outside Christian folklore?

Nice try. The martyrdom and persecution of Christians in Rome is a historical fact establish by the New Testament, the writings of the Church fathers, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Eusebius. The burden of proof is actually upon you to refute the historically accepted position. This is how we have to deal with Holocaust deniers.

David Koresh. The Heaven's Gate cult. Jim Jones. The list goes on. Modern day cults where leaders and followers alike lay down their lives for absolutely crazy beliefs. And these things happen today. You think Judea of the first few centuries, with all the superstitions of the primitive world, would be any less prone to this kind of crazy behavior?

Prove that anyone in Waco or Jonestown who died believed that what they were dying for was false or else my argument still stands.

To dismiss modern cultists as crazy but early Christians as "knowing the truth" is classic special pleading.

I have done no such thing. To deny the historical fact that Jesus existed while accepting the existence of far less attested historical figures is special pleading though.

[Bad Writer]

The difference being that Jesus' life is full of outrageous claims of miracles, renown, and divinity. Other historical figures cannot even be held to the same light of scrutiny for being philosophers. For instance, even if Plato wasn't real, those writings attributed to him do not condemn a world's population to eternal damnation if they are not adhered to or believed in. Does it also make a lick of difference if it truly turns out that Shakespeare is not the true author of all the works of art that were supposedly written by him? The greater and more pressing the claim, the more evidence and proof of its authenticity is required.

[DeistPaladin]

OK, pay attention class. This is how the apologist deals with a skeptic on the Jesus story and defends the free ride Christianity gets from how they've written history.

First, you dismiss your opponent as crazy or a crackpot, with plenty of ad hominems:

Oh Lordy! You’re one of these fringe people too? So much for honest scholarship.

Next, in a jaw-dropping departure from logical thinking, the apologist presents the story book as proof of the story book. Impressive terms like "testimony" and "eye-witness accounts" help to deceive the unwary into thinking that anonymously written mythology texts are actually biographies.

Not sure what you mean by proof, but the evidence is overwhelming. Multiple contemporary accounts based on the testimony of eye witnesses to Jesus...

In reality:

Mark: Putting aside the dubious authorship, we have a non-witness (companion of Paul) who wrote a hearsay account (based on Peter says he saw) from a source that couldn't have witness all the events (Peter was not always present in that Gospel), penned at least four decades after the alleged events (circa 70 CE) and we know of at least one undisputed alteration to that account (Mark 16).
Matthew: Supposedly an eye-witness but he bases his account on Mark even though he corrects Mark on some of the sloppy moments where Mark is ignorant of Jewish theology. He writes for a Jewish audience, padding his account with "prophecies" from the OT. Unfortunately, when the OT is cross-referenced, it turns out Matty is lying his ass off. Were he to give courtroom testimony, he'd be arrested for perjury.
Luke: Also not a witness, as admitted in the very first chapter. His timeline is utterly incompatible with Matthew's. Luke also goofs on the dates of Herod the Great vs. Quirinius, or else the virgin Mary had a ten year pregnancy. The "annunciation" happened during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BC) and she gave birth when Quirinius was governor of Syria (began 6 CE).





John: [sung] One of these things is not like the other... [/sung]





Christians refer to the other of the four as "synoptic" (similar), tacitly admitting that John sits oddly alongside them. John presents some clearly advanced theology. "The Jews" are a separate and hostile group. Jesus is one with his father instead of being a clearly separate, lesser and wholly subordinate being. Jesus opens a baptizing stand next to John the Baptist and beats him at his own game. John the Baptist becomes so submissive that he doesn't even baptize Jesus at all. The meek and mild Jesus is replaced with the bombastic Jesus who is nothing less than God-incarnate. John's Gospel is aimed at establishing orthodox theology. It's a Gospel for the Trinitarians.

Trying to arrange a timeline for all the Gospels is impossible. Matthew has Jesus born before 4 BC, Luke after 6 CE. Luke says Jesus is about 30 when he starts his ministry where John implies Jesus is about 50. Mark says Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days immediately after his baptism where John says Jesus spent the next two days gathering disciples and the next day attended a wedding. The Synptics have Jesus end his ministry with the arrival at Jerusalem and temple "cleansing". John has Jesus go to Jerusalem and kick off his ministry with the temple cleansing. Luke says Jesus went to Heaven on the day of his resurrection. John says it was at least 8 days later. Acts says 40 days later. Shall I go on?

is more than we have from any other historical figure from that time period.

Oh bull.

Repeating that lie over and over doesn't make it true.

Let's try Julius Caesar. We have books he wrote. Where's the Book of Jesus? He had a mission to save all of humanity, didn't he? Why didn't he write down his teachings so we could get it all from the horse's mouth instead of hearsay and mythology? We have his memoirs and dispatches. We have busts and statues and coins depicting him (who knows what Jesus really looked like but it probably wasn't the blond-haired, blue-eyed surfer dude we know today. We have his family tree. For Jesus, we have three different bloodlines in the Bible. We have his political career, unlike the ministry of Jesus which supposedly was controversial, popular, highly successful, drawing crowds and gaining the attention of the rich and powerful and spread like wildfire to the surrounding provinces and yet nobody in his century seemed to notice it.

But hey, maybe I'm unfair talking about a major political figure of the time. How about John the Baptist? He's actually mentioned by actual historians of the time, not just followers in his religion. He gets a better billing from independent witness than Jesus!

Using question-begging epithets to describe the New Testament doesn’t count as a valid argument.

All I'm doing is being consistent. You don't believe in Islam just because of what the Koran says. You don't believe in Zeus because of what the Iliad says. When you understand why you don't take the mythology of other religions seriously, you understand why I don't take yours seriously.

This seems to be a poorly worded attempt at poisoning the well.

No, it's a statement of fact.
Is Jesus one with his father or a lesser being, separate and subordinate with a lesser base of knowledge, a subordinate will, and a being that "grew in wisdom and favor with the Lord"?
Did Jesus rise into Heaven on the day of his resurrection or 40 days later?
Was he born during the reign of Herod the Great or the governorship of Quirinius?
Did he go into the Wilderness after his baptism for 40 days or did he stay and gather disciples and then attend a wedding?
Was Mary from Nazareth and went to Bethlehem to give birth in a manger or did she live in Bethlehem and give birth in her home, to settle in Nazareth after returning from Egypt?

It's...
A...
Mess!

Christianity is remarkably united on their Christology, so apparently the New Testament does present a coherent picture of the Christ.

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

This assertion would actually require some information to back it up. As it stands now it is meaningless.

During the first few centuries, there were a wild variety of Christianities that, as I've said, would make modern Christianity vs. Islam look like picking nits. Islam and modern Christianity both agree that the OT icons were prophets, Mary was a virgin, Jesus was born as a baby, he was a physical being, he preached a monotheistic religion (with a confusing Trinity with modern Christianity but let that go for now) and he flew up into the sky after being last seen.

Docetics denied that Jesus was a flesh and blood being. To them, the material world was evil, the spiritual world was good and therefore God could only be spiritual, almost by definition. Echoes of the struggles with Doceiticism are found in the Bible where 1John 4 and 2John both rail against them on a faith-based grounds and pleads with the reader to reject them, not appealing to recent history, but on the basis of faith.

Marcionites believed there were two gods. They rejected the Jewish god and all things Jewish. Jesus was a higher god who appeared as an adult in the temple one day (no baby Jesus, no virgin Mary).

Ebionites believed that Jesus was born a normal baby, son of Mary and Joseph, conceived the same way all babies are. He was a normal man until adopted by Yahweh as a son at his baptism. Then the Holy Spirit came down and formed a symbiotic relationship. Salvation was in keeping the Jewish laws.

The Arians (not to be confused with Hitler's mythical race) believed Jesus was an angel sent by Yahweh. They rejected the Trinity.

Christianity only became a unified faith once all the "heterodox" beliefs were all violently persecuted out of existence.

People do not fabricate a person in order to die horrible deaths for what they know to be a lie.

I never suggested that anyone "just made up Jesus one day".

A more compelling story than either that straw-man or your folklore is that the ancient Jews, chaffing under foreign rule, wondered WTF happened to Yahweh's promise to David? Some of them rebelled, and were violently and thoroughly put down by the Romans. Others decided that the promised kingdom existed in a "higher place".

Reading the NT books in order is revealing that way. You can almost see how the story developed and got better with the telling. Revelation was the first book written. Jesus is the mighty warlord that would lead Israel to ultimate victory over Yahweh's enemies. Bits and pieces of pagan ideas of Hell, salvation and an intercessor deity (ALL of which are either absent in Judaism or wholly blasphemous to it) were synchronized into the new religion. Christianity was born the bastard child of Judaism and paganism and the maladjusted brat would grow up to persecute both parents. Paul's letters described this being but in vague terms. In fact, the much touted testimony in 1Cor 15 actually has Paul denying that he was born during the time of JC.

This savior deity was brought down to earth first by Mark, in stories which may have been regarded as parables. Certainly the fig tree was not a literal event, or at least many Christians say so, as surely the godman would have known they were not in season.

Matt and Luke added to the story by writing in a birth and lineage to David (though both are contradictory, having been written independently and to different audiences). John the Baptist sinks lower and lower onto his knees, an obvious put-down for the early rivals of the Christians, the followers of John the Baptist.

John goes completely over the top and writes a completely different story, one more compatible with modern Trinitarian ideas.

Nice try. The martyrdom and persecution of Christians in Rome is a historical fact establish by the New Testament,

Excuse me, but are you citing ACTS as a "historical document"?

Seriously?



"historical documents"

the writings of the Church fathers,

Propaganda

Pliny the Younger,

The Christians didn't hold their heads high and go to their deaths. They renounced Jesus.

Tacitus, Suetonius, and

According to the story, Nero blamed the fires of Rome on the Christians and had them killed for it. There was no attempt that I saw in either account to get them to renounce Jesus. They were simply exterminated in a religious pogrom. Not the first time in history that's happened and you don't believe in the other religions just because it happened.

The story in a nutshell:
Rome burns.
Nero claims "The Christians did it. Kill them!"
No "renounce Jesus and we'll spare you".
It was "you burned our city and now you'll pay"
No way the Christians could have seen that coming.

Eusebius.

Self-professed liar for Jesus.

The burden of proof is actually upon you to refute the historically accepted position.

Nice. I see what you did there. You confused whether or not Rome persecuted any Christians with the folklore that Christians willingly held their heads high and laid down their lives, waiting to be reunited with their savior rather than renounce him to live. Not the same thing.

Christians persecuted the pagans. That doesn't prove Isis and Zeus are real. Hitler persecuted the Jews. That doesn't prove Yahweh is real. Buddhists and Hindus have been fighting in Sri Lanka. That doesn't prove the validity of either religion.

Your assertion is that the Christians told the Roman's "Go ahead and kill me. I'm ready to meet my Lord." As if religious fanaticism proves anything. Regardless, that's what you need to prove: the folklore of their heroic martyrdom, not just their persecution.

This is how we have to deal with Holocaust deniers.

Wonderful. A false dichotomy designed to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic with a side order of Godwin!

Prove that anyone in Waco or Jonestown who died believed that what they were dying for was false or else my argument still stands.

Nope. Your argument was that the Christians were persecuted and refused to renounce their lord, preferring death. And this proves Christianity is true. My counter is that people do that all the time. Fanaticism proves nothing.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Nice try. The martyrdom and persecution of Christians in Rome is a historical fact establish by the New Testament,
Excuse me, but are you citing ACTS as a "historical document"?

Seriously?



"historical documents"

---

Nice use of Sesame Street too. Thoroughly enjoyed that read.

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks, TS. Every time a Christian holds up the Bible and says "historical documents", the theme from Galaxy Quest pops into my head. You might enjoy my introduction to my Jesus Timeline video series:





I'm currently working on the next video in the series "The Jesus Itinerary", comparing the four accounts' description of his life and ministry, seeing if they can be reconciled with one another.

[Mystical]

Ima watch it!

[Brakeman]

What does one do to deserve genocide? What qualities can you enumerate that our "god given senses of right and wrong" will agree on that deserve genocide and it's related torture, death, and subsequent eternal torture?

Whether the reprobate agrees with the punishment or not is irrelevant. We do not ask convicted murderers, “Do you think we were too harsh sentencing you to life in prison?” Any crime against a perfect and infinite being is going to deserve an infinite punishment. We should have all just woken up already in Hell; so every breath we are allowed to take is a form of grace made possible by Christ’s work.

What a weasel and dodge that is! Didn't answer the question. You claim that we're guilty of some horrible crime that you avoided describing, then claim that we're so bad we should be killed because god won't die.
Did that response seem good to you when you wrote it?

I would bet that if you asked all the mormons if "Moroni" existed then they too would overwhelmingly agree that he did. We have been so flooded with the stupid mess of religiosity and with the underlying threat against dissension that the scholarly world has not had time to freely consider the possibility that he is completely fictional.

.. Christian and non-Christian scholars do not always agree, but they unanimously agree that Jesus existed, that should tell you something.

Except you are again lying because they don't. You only accept "Scholars" and "Historians" that agree with your premise, despite the fact that the terms scholar and historian are generic terms to describe someone that is studying a topic. Steeping someone in religious dogma for decades makes them no wiser for identifying unbiased evidence.
For either a historian or a scholar to be the slightest bit relevant they have to study evidence. And that is the evidence you nor Ehrman can provide. Instead you pathetically hide behind the coattails of men who squander monies arguing over fairy tales and myths. You think argumentum ad populum is a strength. Secular Universities' theology departments are not havens for atheists. Chistians go to secular universities too and they are allowed to teach in this field. Atheists do not tend to want to spend precious hours of their lives furthering theology. Duh!

The more telling glimpse into the truth can be seen when people ask for the evidence that Jesus was real, the Bart Erhmans of the world continue to stammer and provide nothing.

Bart Ehrman is part of the conspiracy now too?.. We have eye witness testimony..

Lies. You have no Eye witness testimony. You have copies of anonymous works of Pseudepigrapha. (Look that up, it is a word bible scholars use to say bullshit so it doesn't scare off their unlearned christian benefactors.)

There is a complete lack of contemporary art of jesus, despite the ubiquity on other major historical figures of the time. Why?
Evidence is what matters.

Christians were living in poverty and persecuted by Rome until Rome’s conversion, how were they going to produce any art that would last for thousands of years? Not only this but because Christians believe Jesus is God, they often will not make images of him in accordance with the Ten Commandments. We do not have contemporary art of most historical figures.

Except we do have contemporary art depicting rulers and famous people of that time in the same area. Take a tour of some of Rome's art museums online. Furthermore, We ain't talking about some podunck country evangelist here, we're talking about the most amazing and miraculous man that has ever f==king lived according to the bible. Thousands saw him do miracles and when he died, day turned to night, the earth quaked and zombies jumped out of the ground, yet not one artist was convinced to change his sculptures or carvings of the current roman centurion or fisherman to commemorate him. That's pretty peculiar isn't it. But I'm sure that doesn't bother all the "Scholars" and "Historians" at Liberty bible college.

Even the beginning stories of jesus with the impossible star guidance system, strongly point to an imaginary being. Who were the three kings who honored the baby jesus and why was he forgotten by them for thirty years?

How am I supposed to take you seriously if you keep messing the Biblical account up? Where does it say that three kings visited Jesus?

How many middle class goat herders of the time could afford to travel out of country and donate large gifts of gold and precious gifts? The "Wise" men are often portrayed as kings. Wah Wah, did I step on your precious story? What's your definition of a king? Do we now need to call Bob Jones universities' medieval department and get a popular answer?

I hope someday you come out of your delusion and reread your posts.

[tokutter]

One things for sure.......between the jews ....you christians and the mormons.....gods screwing with someone

Well the Jews worship the same God, they just missed the Messiah. Mormonism entails numerous gods.

No the jews didn't miss him, they were there and found your leader "lacking" (to be kind). Thus he was executed as the common criminal he was.

"Mormonism entails numerous gods"....so what....your god changed the script...moved on...now he's screwing with the jews and you christians.

horseshit begats horseshit...Stat.

.

[ThomM]

[quote='Godschild' pid='469673' dateline='1372370032']
Post like the four above this one is what derails an OP, people parroting the same ol' tired things, why can't you go to scripture and try to disprove what Christians believe.

Actually - scripture is nothing more than religious writings - so I can go to the scripture of a number of OTHER religions to prove that your belief is nonsense -if that is what YOU want



XTIAN Scripture is NOTHING more than a bunch of fairy tales written by the church itself - and contains enough contradictions and errors to be of no use to a real thinking person

THe christ - for example - is a fictional character. THERE is not a single document that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name - NONE at all.

WE do not even have a piece of the bible - that mentions his name - that can be dated to that time. SO of what use is the bible - written as legends and myths and not put together until almost 400 years after the time.
How many things do YOU remember from 400 years ago - that you can personally claim to have seen?

[Statler Waldorf]

The difference being that Jesus' life is full of outrageous claims of miracles, renown, and divinity.

So? That does not prove he’s a myth.

Other historical figures cannot even be held to the same light of scrutiny for being philosophers.For instance, even if Plato wasn't real, those writings attributed to him do not condemn a world's population to eternal damnation if they are not adhered to or believed in.

So apparently if you agree with what the historical figure claimed then you also believe that he existed and if you disagree with what he claimed then he conveniently never existed? That’s not how we do scholarship. Whether you like Jesus or not is irrelevant, his existence is a historical certainty.

The greater and more pressing the claim, the more evidence and proof of its authenticity is required.

Where do you get this standard from? We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other historical figure from that period, so even your arbitrary standard has been met. There are 42 early authors who mention the historical Jesus, that’s over four times as many as mention Tiberius Caesar, the leader of the most powerful empire in the World.

OK, pay attention class.

“I am about to teach you something that nobody else believes, and I am right because I say so and all the historians are wrong because YouTube says so.”

This is how the apologist deals with a skeptic on the Jesus story and defends the free ride Christianity gets from how they've written history.

Yes, those evil Christian historians like Bart Ehrman. I smell an unproven and ridiculous conspiracy theory coming in the rest of your post. I hope you will not disappoint!

First, you dismiss your opponent as crazy or a crackpot, with plenty of ad hominems:

Nope, secular and Christian historians alike dismiss your ideas as crazy, I just simply agree with them. I’ll engage you on the merits though, “we never landed on the moon” and “the holocaust never really happened” type claims are hardly difficult positions to refute.

Next, in a jaw-dropping departure from logical thinking, the apologist presents the story book as proof of the story book.

Nope, I simply used the historical accounts to support the existence of Jesus like all historians do. Prove Tiberius existed without using Roman historians.

Impressive terms like "testimony" and "eye-witness accounts" help to deceive the unwary into thinking that anonymously written mythology texts are actually biographies.

All historians are now “the unwary”? Convenient.

Mark: Putting aside the dubious authorship, we have a non-witness (companion of Paul) who wrote a hearsay account (based on Peter says he saw) from a source that couldn't have witness all the events (Peter was not always present in that Gospel), penned at least four decades after the alleged events (circa 70 CE) and we know of at least one undisputed alteration to that account (Mark 16).

Logical non-sequitur’s abound!

1. We know that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and it is accepted that it is based off of the testimony of Peter. Fragments of Mark’s gospel have been dated to as early as 53 AD. That makes it the most contemporary historical account for any historical figure we have.
2. The fact that Peter did not witness some of the events in Mark does not logically prove that Peter witnessed none of the events in Mark. Peter would have been familiar with the accounts of Jesus’ early life from his parents much like I know facts about my friends’ childhoods from their parents.
3. Christian scholars (Eusebius and Jerome) recognized Mark 16:9-20 has an addition to Mark’s gospel as early as the 4th Century. It has no bearing on the authenticity of the rest of Mark’s gospel or the historicity of Jesus.
4. Do you also reject the existence of Tiberius Caesar?

Matthew: Supposedly an eye-witness but he bases his account on Mark even though he corrects Mark on some of the sloppy moments where Mark is ignorant of Jewish theology.

Assertion, example needed.

He writes for a Jewish audience, padding his account with "prophecies" from the OT. Unfortunately, when the OT is cross-referenced, it turns out Matty is lying his ass off.

Assertion, example needed.

Luke: Also not a witness, as admitted in the very first chapter.

That’s actually an assumption, Luke never says he’s not an eyewitness; he merely states that his narrative is based on eye witness accounts (which you must accept since you appealed to his claims in Chapter 1). Luke was a contemporary of Jesus and his accounts in Acts and Luke are still viewed and used today as the best early accounts we have for even portions of Roman history.

His timeline is utterly incompatible with Matthew's.

Assertion, example other than a YouTube (your own interestingly enough) video needed.

Luke also goofs on the dates of Herod the Great vs. Quirinius, or else the virgin Mary had a ten year pregnancy. The "annunciation" happened during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BC) and she gave birth when Quirinius was governor of Syria (began 6 CE).

This will be fun! How do you know what year Herod died and what year Quirinius was governor of Syria?

John:
Christians refer to the other of the four as "synoptic" (similar), tacitly admitting that John sits oddly alongside them. John presents some clearly advanced theology. "The Jews" are a separate and hostile group. Jesus is one with his father instead of being a clearly separate, lesser and wholly subordinate being. Jesus opens a baptizing stand next to John the Baptist and beats him at his own game. John the Baptist becomes so submissive that he doesn't even baptize Jesus at all. The meek and mild Jesus is replaced with the bombastic Jesus who is nothing less than God-incarnate. John's Gospel is aimed at establishing orthodox theology. It's a Gospel for the Trinitarians.

Whoa! What sort of backwards logic is this? “John’s Gospel serves a different purpose than the other three gospels (even though they all serve different purposes), therefore the figure it is describing never existed.” That’s quite the non-sequitur, even for you. You’re going to have to address the historical fact that John’s Gospel was written by an eye witness to Jesus and can be dated well into the 1st Century.

Trying to arrange a timeline for all the Gospels is impossible.

Wrong.

Matthew has Jesus born before 4 BC,

Matthew never mentions the year of Jesus’ birth (obviously, since the dating system was created after Christ). How do you know what year Matthew is claiming for the birth of Jesus?

Luke after 6 CE.

Nope, Luke merely says Jesus was born around the time of the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, so how do you know what year Quirinius was governor of Syria?

Luke says Jesus is about 30 when he starts his ministry where John implies Jesus is about 50.

Assertions, specific verses needed.

Mark says Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days immediately after his baptism where John says Jesus spent the next two days gathering disciples and the next day attended a wedding.

Where does the Gospel of John mention when the Baptism of Jesus occurred?

The Synptics have Jesus end his ministry with the arrival at Jerusalem and temple "cleansing". John has Jesus go to Jerusalem and kick off his ministry with the temple cleansing.

The first five chapters of John’s Gospel give us unique supplemental details about events in Jesus life that the synoptic gospels omit (with the exception of the testimony of John the Baptist); so it is reasonable to assume that John’s temple cleansing is a different temple cleansing than the one detailed in the synoptic gospels. After all, there are many details in John’s temple cleansing that are not found in the synoptic gospels’ account of Jesus cleansing the temple. This is not a contradiction.

John: Jesus cleansed the temple early in his ministry.
Mark/Matthew/Luke: Jesus cleansed the temple towards the end of his ministry.

Both can be true and are therefore not contradictory.

By your reasoning Luke 5 and John 21 would contradict one another even though they are obviously describing two different but similar events involving casting nets and catching large amounts of fish.

Luke says Jesus went to Heaven on the day of his resurrection. John says it was at least 8 days later. Acts says 40 days later. Shall I go on?

Please do go on because you’re not doing so well. Luke 24 never states that Jesus ascended on the same day as the resurrection. John never even mentions the ascension, so he does not contradict Acts. Acts clearly states that the ascension was forty days after the resurrection.

Oh bull.

Repeating that lie over and over doesn't make it true.

It is true. Asserting that it is not just reveals your ignorance on the subject matter.

Let's try Julius Caesar. We have books he wrote. Where's the Book of Jesus?

Nice try but a horrible fail. The earliest manuscripts we have of anything supposedly written by Julius Caesar date to 900 AD, that’s nearly 1000 years after his life. Not only this, but we only have 10 partial copies of these manuscripts. We have over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone. Not only this, but you have yet to prove that Julius Caesar ever existed! In order to do this, I need multiple sources that date to within 100 years of Caesar’s life written by eye witnesses of Caesar. These sources cannot be Roman sources by the way. Good luck!

But hey, maybe I'm unfair talking about a major political figure of the time.

A major political figure that didn’t exist you mean? Where are those contemporary sources for Caesar? It’s shocking that you accept books that merely claim to have been written by Caesar and that are completely missing from the historical record until 900 AD as authentic. Well I guess it’s not that shocking, you want Caesar to have existed, you do not want Jesus to have existed because you know the implications of Christ’s existence. I am glad you have put your double standard on display for everyone to see though.

How about John the Baptist? He's actually mentioned by actual historians of the time, not just followers in his religion. He gets a better billing from independent witness than Jesus!

Assertion, examples of the historians needed.

All I'm doing is being consistent.

Being consistently wrong is no cause for celebration.

You don't believe in Islam just because of what the Koran says. You don't believe in Zeus because of what the Iliad says. When you understand why you don't take the mythology of other religions seriously, you understand why I don't take yours seriously.

So you are saying that you do not believe in Yahweh because He Yahweh is the one true god? Huh? What does this have to do with the existence of Jesus anyways? I still accept that Muhammad existed.

No, it's a statement of fact.
Is Jesus one with his father or a lesser being, separate and subordinate with a lesser base of knowledge, a subordinate will, and a being that "grew in wisdom and favor with the Lord"?

Are we arguing theology now or the existence of the historical figure of Jesus? If it’s the latter then your question is irrelevant.

Was Mary from Nazareth and went to Bethlehem to give birth in a manger or did she live in Bethlehem and give birth in her home, to settle in Nazareth after returning from Egypt?

I am going to need to know which specific verses you’re referring to.

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

Says the guy who just repeated a half dozen questions he already asked earlier in his post. Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians all agree on their Christology, study up a bit before you make such claims.

During the first few centuries, there were a wild variety of Christianities that, as I've said, would make modern Christianity vs. Islam look like picking nits.

Again, you merely re-asserted your original assertion without providing one iota of support for it.

Docetics denied that Jesus was a flesh and blood being. To them, the material world was evil, the spiritual world was good and therefore God could only be spiritual, almost by definition. Echoes of the struggles with Doceiticism are found in the Bible where 1John 4 and 2John both rail against them on a faith-based grounds and pleads with the reader to reject them, not appealing to recent history, but on the basis of faith.

You’re only proving my point, the only reason we even know about Doceticism in regards to Christianity is because it is identified as heretical in the New Testament (Colossians) and by Bishop Serapion of Antioch. It is still viewed as heretical by all three branches of Christianity today, which proves my point that Christians have always been united on their Christology and refuted heretical teachings. It is logically fallacious to argue against the existence of the genuine by pointing to the existence of the counterfeit.

Marcionites believed there were two gods. They rejected the Jewish god and all things Jewish. Jesus was a higher god who appeared as an adult in the temple one day (no baby Jesus, no virgin Mary).

Wait, you believe that Marcion of Sinope existed even though we have none of his writings and he is not mentioned by any historians of the time period? I see you only accept the historical existence of figures when it is self-serving.
All we know of Marcionism is what we can learn from Tertullian’s rebuke of it in the early 3rd Century. It was obviously a short lived heresy that was refuted by the early church fathers. Again, all you’re proving is that the early Church was very united and refuted false teachings quickly.

Ebionites believed that Jesus was born a normal baby, son of Mary and Joseph, conceived the same way all babies are. He was a normal man until adopted by Yahweh as a son at his baptism. Then the Holy Spirit came down and formed a symbiotic relationship. Salvation was in keeping the Jewish laws.

Same story, all we know of the Ebionites comes from their rebuking by early church fathers (the same church fathers who state Jesus existed, so again you’re engaging in special pleading). You’re only proving that the early church was quite united and resilient.

The Arians (not to be confused with Hitler's mythical race) believed Jesus was an angel sent by Yahweh. They rejected the Trinity.

Now you’re straying out of the early church period. Arius was a 4th Century figure. He was deemed a heretic in the 4th Century and is still viewed as one today. Nothing to see here folks…move along.

Christianity only became a unified faith once all the "heterodox" beliefs were all violently persecuted out of existence.

Proof that they were violently persecuted? You’ve actually done a great job demonstrating that the early church fathers were quite united in their beliefs and rebuked false teachings.

I never suggested that anyone "just made up Jesus one day".

That’s what the Christ Myth theory you’re defending postulates.

A more compelling story than either that straw-man or your folklore is that the ancient Jews, chaffing under foreign rule, wondered WTF happened to Yahweh's promise to David? Some of them rebelled, and were violently and thoroughly put down by the Romans. Others decided that the promised kingdom existed in a "higher place".

Wait, how do you know they rebelled and were violently put down by the Romans?

Reading the NT books in order is revealing that way. You can almost see how the story developed and got better with the telling. Revelation was the first book written. Jesus is the mighty warlord that would lead Israel to ultimate victory over Yahweh's enemies. Bits and pieces of pagan ideas of Hell, salvation and an intercessor deity (ALL of which are either absent in Judaism or wholly blasphemous to it) were synchronized into the new religion. Christianity was born the bastard child of Judaism and paganism and the maladjusted brat would grow up to persecute both parents. Paul's letters described this being but in vague terms. In fact, the much touted testimony in 1Cor 15 actually has Paul denying that he was born during the time of JC.

What on earth are you talking about? Revelation is believed to be the last book written of the New Testament (Mark being the first), are you intentionally committing such egregious errors to see if I am paying attention?

Where does 1 Corinthians 15 state that Paul was born after the Christ period?

This savior deity was brought down to earth first by Mark, in stories which may have been regarded as parables. Certainly the fig tree was not a literal event, or at least many Christians say so, as surely the godman would have known they were not in season.

You’re wandering all over the place.

Matt and Luke added to the story by writing in a birth and lineage to David (though both are contradictory, having been written independently and to different audiences).

Being sexual creatures, People have two lineages, not merely one.

John the Baptist sinks lower and lower onto his knees, an obvious put-down for the early rivals of the Christians, the followers of John the Baptist.

To say there is anything “obvious” about your little ad hoc conspiracy theory is absurd.
“The Gospels cover different aspects of the Christ and his life, and are intended for different audiences….therefore they made it all up”- is not a logical argument.

John goes completely over the top and writes a completely different story, one more compatible with modern Trinitarian ideas.

A completely different story? Looks like the same story to me.

You’ve provided no actual evidence or reason for one to believe anything you’re asserting. It’s obvious that you will arbitrarily accept the historicity of any figure when you want to and arbitrarily reject the existence of any figure that may be inconvenient to your beliefs. This has been hands down your worst showing to date.

Excuse me, but are you citing ACTS as a "historical document"?

Yup, as historians do. I know as a member of the “Jesus Myth Crowd” you do not put much stock in historical facts, but I sure do.

Propaganda

Where’s your proof that the writings of the early church fathers was merely propaganda (once you do that you must also prove that it was false propaganda since not all propaganda is false)? That’s interesting considering the fact that you just referenced their writings in regards to the historical existence of early church heretical groups. So the early church fathers can be used as a reference by you but not by me? Special pleading yet again.

The Christians didn't hold their heads high and go to their deaths. They renounced Jesus.

So you’re admitting that the Romans tortured Christians? Oops! You goofed because that’s all my argument needed.

According to the story, Nero blamed the fires of Rome on the Christians and had them killed for it. There was no attempt that I saw in either account to get them to renounce Jesus. They were simply exterminated in a religious pogrom. Not the first time in history that's happened and you don't believe in the other religions just because it happened.

Again, you’re flailing about. Suetonius merely states that Nero greatly persecuted Christians, he never states why. You’ve gone from, “No Christians were persecuted by Rome” to “Well the ones that were violently persecuted were never asked to recant their beliefs (even though according to Pliny the Younger they were)”. Either way, it would make no sense for the writers of the New Testament to knowingly fabricate Christ all the time knowing it would lead to their persecution, torture, and deaths at the hands of the Romans or Jewish leadership. It’s also quite amusing that any Christian historian is necessarily spewing propaganda about their persecution but Roman scholars are automatically telling the truth about why they persecuted Christians; more special pleading on your part.

The story in a nutshell:
Rome burns.
Nero claims "The Christians did it. Kill them!"
No "renounce Jesus and we'll spare you".
It was "you burned our city and now you'll pay"
No way the Christians could have seen that coming.

Again, you’re cherry picking. This is only consistent with one Roman historian; while another admits they were torturing Christians so badly they’d renounce their faith (which implies that was the goal of the torturing), and a third that merely confirms that Christians were persecuted. Couple that with the writings of Christian sources (we’re allowed to use sources from both sides of the aisle) at the time and it’s a historically accepted fact that Christians were brutally persecuted in Rome simply because of their faith.

Self-professed liar for Jesus.

The quote I believe you are referring to was falsely attributed to Eusebius; get off of the second rate websites and do some real research for once. Eusebius is a well-accepted historical reference.

Nice. I see what you did there. You confused whether or not Rome persecuted any Christians with the folklore that Christians willingly held their heads high and laid down their lives, waiting to be reunited with their savior rather than renounce him to live. Not the same thing.

You claimed that Rome never persecuted Christians. Now I am glad you realized the absurdity of your claim. Whether they held their heads high as Stephen did or not is irrelevant to my argument. However, Pliny the Younger actually conceded that a genuine Christian could not be made to curse Christ; so there is good evidence Christians did retain their faith and had a reputation for doing so.

Christians persecuted the pagans. That doesn't prove Isis and Zeus are real. Hitler persecuted the Jews. That doesn't prove Yahweh is real. Buddhists and Hindus have been fighting in Sri Lanka. That doesn't prove the validity of either religion.

Why do you insist on arguing for the irrelevant? I never said that the persecution of Christians in Rome proves that Jesus is the son of God, I said that it proves the writers of the New Testament didn’t fabricate Jesus’ existence because they genuinely believed that he was who he claimed to be, which it does. There is no evidence that people are willing to die for what they know is false.

Your assertion is that the Christians told the Roman's "Go ahead and kill me. I'm ready to meet my Lord." As if religious fanaticism proves anything.

That’s never what I said, please stop misrepresenting my position.

Regardless, that's what you need to prove: the folklore of their heroic martyrdom, not just their persecution.

I do not have to prove anything to you; you’re the fringe skeptic challenging the historically accepted position. This means the onus is on you to support your claim. Until you give me some evidence to support your claim I am perfectly justified in relying upon the testimony of experts on such matters.

Wonderful. A false dichotomy designed to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic with a side order of Godwin!

You’re just ignorant of how the burden of proof works. When you’re the one challenging a well-accepted idea, the burden of proof is on you. I do not have to prove the Holocaust happened, nor do I have to prove we actually landed on the Moon. I realize the only card you can play when adhering to such a fringe position is to shift the burden of proof, but it won’t work in these here waters.

Nope. Your argument was that the Christians were persecuted and refused to renounce their lord, preferring death. And this proves Christianity is true. My counter is that people do that all the time. Fanaticism proves nothing.

Where was that my argument? My argument was that people do not die for what they know to be false, which means the writers of the New Testament would not have fabricated Jesus’ ministry all the time knowing it would later lead to their deaths (by the Jewish leadership or by the Romans). That argument still stands. Intentionally misrepresenting it will get you nowhere.

I'm currently working on the next video in the series "The Jesus Itinerary", comparing the four accounts' description of his life and ministry, seeing if they can be reconciled with one another.

You do realize that’s already been done numerous times by real scholars right? Give it a shot though, I am sure you’ll try your hardest; after all it is not like you have an agenda or anything like that…

What a weasel and dodge that is! Didn't answer the question. You claim that we're guilty of some horrible crime that you avoided describing, then claim that we're so bad we should be killed because god won't die.
Did that response seem good to you when you wrote it?

I am in no way logically obligated to address a point that is irrelevant. I even explained to you very clearly why it was irrelevant. The Biblical position is that we deserve far worse than we are actually receiving (which is made possible by Christ’s atonement); if you’re going to claim the Biblical God is somehow unjust then you’re going to actually address the Biblical position. Anything else is irrelevant.

Except you are again lying because they don't. You only accept "Scholars" and "Historians" that agree with your premise, despite the fact that the terms scholar and historian are generic terms to describe someone that is studying a topic. Steeping someone in religious dogma for decades makes them no wiser for identifying unbiased evidence.

I am lying? That’s a bit harsh. Perhaps I am just aware of the fact that to appeal to the authority of someone who is not properly educated in a field (i.e. a patent attorney, a blogger, or a linguist) is a fallacious appeal to authority. Continue to be irrational all you want, but I will not follow you down that road. You provided not a single historian that believed Jesus never existed. You’ve provided no evidence that would lead a rational person to even doubt the existence of Jesus. Nobody takes the Jesus Myth crowd seriously.

For either a historian or a scholar to be the slightest bit relevant they have to study evidence.

No, they must first actually be a historian or scholar; you’d better get to finding one that actually agrees with you!

And that is the evidence you nor Ehrman can provide.

There’s more evidence for the existence of Jesus than even Julius Caesar. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to cause anyone to doubt the testimony of experts; you have done no such thing. Until you do, you’re no different than the flat Earth society and those who deny the Holocaust.

You think argumentum ad populum is a strength.

You apparently think adhering to a historical position that no historian adheres to is a strength.

Secular Universities' theology departments are not havens for atheists.

Given your and other atheists’ lack of even basic theological understanding, I will not dispute that this is the case. However, it’s not just the Theology departments that agree with me, it’s the History departments as well. Are they part of the grand conspiracy too? Who orchestrated this worldwide multi-millennial conspiracy? What for?

Atheists do not tend to want to spend precious hours of their lives furthering theology. Duh!

You’re absolutely right! Rather than getting educated on the subject matter they’d rather spew falsehoods on their blogs.

Lies. You have no Eye witness testimony. You have copies of anonymous works of Pseudepigrapha.

You see, this is where you’d be well served by actually studying the subject matter. Mark, Luke, Acts, John, Matthew, and Jude are all based off of eye witness accounts or even written by eye witnesses (in the case of Matthew, John, and Jude)- which is more than any other historical figure has. You don’t want Jesus to be real, I still get that, but we don’t always get what we want.

(Look that up, it is a word bible scholars use to say bullshit so it doesn't scare off their unlearned christian benefactors.)

Biblical scholars do not refer to any of the 66 books of the Bible as Pseudepigrapha. It’s widely accepted that who we traditionally thought wrote them is who actually wrote them.

Except we do have contemporary art depicting rulers and famous people of that time in the same area.

Such as?

Furthermore, We ain't talking about some podunck country evangelist here, we're talking about the most amazing and miraculous man that has ever f==king lived according to the bible.

Yes…and?

Thousands saw him do miracles and when he died, day turned to night, the earth quaked and zombies jumped out of the ground, yet not one artist was convinced to change his sculptures or carvings of the current roman centurion or fisherman to commemorate him.

No, instead they wrote about it. That’s what the more advanced historians do rather than making pictographs.

That's pretty peculiar isn't it. But I'm sure that doesn't bother all the "Scholars" and "Historians" at Liberty bible college.

Actually it doesn’t bother the rest of the scholars and historians in the rest of the world either. Written accounts are greatly preferred over art and statues. You’re criteria is not accepted by historians and is obviously arbitrary and self-serving.

How many middle class goat herders of the time could afford to travel out of country and donate large gifts of gold and precious gifts?

Are you really asserting that only kings were wealthy? They are not kings, and there is no reason to believe there were three of them.

The "Wise" men are often portrayed as kings.

And Jesus is often portrayed with blue eyes, both are incorrect and have no bearing on the actual Biblical account.

Wah Wah, did I step on your precious story?

Nope, you were referring to something not in the Biblical account. I believe the Biblical account.

What's your definition of a king? Do we now need to call Bob Jones universities' medieval department and get a popular answer?

The Biblical account never says they are kings, why do you want it to so badly? Is it because if it doesn’t then it does not fit into your silly Zeitgeist conspiracy narrative? Well bummer.

I hope someday you come out of your delusion and reread your posts.

I’ve seen what this “Jesus Myth” refuse does to the human mind so I prefer to remain with all of the actual historians and scholars, but thank you!

No the jews didn't miss him, they were there and found your leader "lacking" (to be kind). Thus he was executed as the common criminal he was.

His execution makes it possible for us to be doing what we are doing.

so what....your god changed the script...moved on...now he's screwing with the jews and you christians.

horseshit begats horseshit...Stat.

.

Zzzzz Zzzzzz

Actually - scripture is nothing more than religious writings - so I can go to the scripture of a number of OTHER religions to prove that your belief is nonsense -if that is what YOU want

You committed a category error here. Simply because two things share one aspect in common does not necessitate that they share all aspects in common. Scripture’s infallibility is a logical necessity; no such necessity exists in other religious texts.

XTIAN Scripture is NOTHING more than a bunch of fairy tales written by the church itself - and contains enough contradictions and errors to be of no use to a real thinking person

The irony of atheism- you all claim to be free thinkers and to be capable of thinking for yourselves but then you never cease the endless regurgitation of tired and already refuted rhetoric you absorb on the internet where scholarship is dismissed and references are few and far between. If it were not so sad it’d be quite amusing.

Tell me, how did the official Church write documents that predate it by over 200 years? That’s like saying George W. Bush wrote the Declaration of Independence.

THe christ - for example - is a fictional character. THERE is not a single document that can be dated to the supposed time of the christ that even mentions his name - NONE at all.

That’s actually false; all of the New Testament can be dated to being contemporary with Christ. Not only this but your logic is invalid, did Julius Caesar never exist since no documents can be dated to within 900 years of his life?

WE do not even have a piece of the bible - that mentions his name - that can be dated to that time.

Again, that’s false. There are pieces of Mark’s gospel that date to 53 AD that mention Jesus by name.

SO of what use is the bible - written as legends and myths and not put together until almost 400 years after the time.

400 years!!!? The 5th Century? You seriously believe that? The entire New Testament could be re-assembled just from church fathers quoting it in the 2nd and 3rd Century.

How many things do YOU remember from 400 years ago - that you can personally claim to have seen?

Nothing, but that is irrelevant, scripture was written only decades after Christ. I can remember quite a bit from 20 years ago, and I was merely a kid then. Scripture was written by people who were adults when Jesus was conducting his ministry.