Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Aractus]

I checked out your video Scott and I think it is well done.  So I will post it for you,  this should be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPiUGGd25s

It is interesting how Early Christian literature did not start until the latter part of the 1st Century CE, well after the death of a supposed Jesus of Nazareth.  I wrote an essay about Early Christian History for myself to organize what I had read about the subject.  I did a cursory chart of all the extant Christian literature, tried to find it earlier but as of yet not put my hand on it.  Might have to do another one.  In any case I would like to post it in this thread.

I just watched that video, as I expected it's incorrect. The non-historicity of the nativity does not negate the historicity of Jesus's ministry for one thing. For another, You do not know exact dates when any of the writings were made, and this is especially true for the Gospels. Claiming they all came after all of Paul's letters is wrong - it's conjecture. There's no mention that the Epistle of James could well pre-date any of Paul's epistles - and almost certainly predates the First Jerusalem Council in AD49 (Acts 15), seeing as how Jewish the epistle is. While I agree that Mark comes after Galations, I do not agree at all that it comes after Paul's last epistle. In fact the biggest problem with dating the synoptic gospels is determining whether Mark came first or whether Matthew came first. The fact that some 97% of Mark is found in Matthew seems to indicate that it came first, but if this is the case then why is Matthew so much more Jewish? It's a question that plagues all serious scholars to this day.

The book of Acts could have been written as late as 65AD. The last event in Acts happens in 61 AD and the book from chapter 13 to the end is contemporary - so the author experienced some of the events dating from AD49-61AD first-hand. People have proposed dates for the book ranging from 60AD right through to 150AD.

Many scholars make the argument that the 70AD siege of Jerusalem prophesied by Jesus TWICE in Luke prove that the Luke was written sometime after 70AD. This pushes the authorship of Acts to around 80-90AD. But the problem with this theory then becomes the fact that the Author is writing clearly about events in 49AD as a contemporary, and providing the detail that goes with it. Now as you mention in your video there are certainly historical inaccuracies here and there in the gospels - for instance Luke places Jesus's nativity during a census that happened in 6AD because he has mistakenly believed the census to have happened earlier. Matthew and Acts describe two different fates for Judas and the Field of Blood. This is consistent with the Author relying on other information to reconstruct historical events. Nothing from Acts 13 on however is contradicted by other historical findings - completely consistent with a contemporary author who was writing about recent events that they themselves had memory of. But once you push the authorship to 80-90AD then you are saying the events in Acts 13-28 happened 19-41 years before the book was written, and specifically that the events of Acts 15 happened 31-41 years before it was written. Acts ends in 61AD with Paul under house arrest, if it was really written in 80-90AD then why did it stop there? The outcome of Paul's earlier legal troubles are mentioned in detail in Acts. Also, why is there no mention of the mid-60's persecution under Nero? Why is there no mention of the Siege of Jerusalem in 70AD? Why is there no mention of the deaths of James, Peter, or Paul? Noting of course that Josephus recounts the death of James just a couple of years later if you favour the later death, and that Acts does indeed record the deaths and martyrdom of other Christians.

Furthermore the date can't be pushed beyond 90AD either because then there's the question of why did the Author not mention Paul's epistles?

I remain convinced that Acts is written sometime between 61-65AD as it fits the internal and external evidence best. You well know my answer to Jesus's prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem - he made the prophecy and it came to pass. But, his prophecy was just saying the same thing that had happened before would happen again, and others have pointed out, Jerusalem was a walled city - it would only ever be taken either by siege or by burning it to the ground, and the Roman army would not have burned it. If it hadn't been destroyed in 70AD it would have been in 135AD which was the next time the Romans took the city by siege. Had the 70AD one never occurred than there would no one who could claim today that the gospels were written after the siege had already happened. As far as prophecies go this one is not even a lucky guess - it was more likely than not to have happened sometime in the future when Jesus said it. If Jesus had specifically said when it was going to happen then it would have been a really impressive prophecy that would re-convince me of his divinity - however he didn't give this detail. If the gospels were written after 70AD they could have included that detail, but they didn't.

So here are my reasons to believe that Jesus made the prophecy: 1. He makes it twice not once. 2. It is not an addition to the text, it's a genuine part of each of the three synoptic gospels. 3. He claimed to be the Messiah so it'd be very likely that he would have made prophetic claims as a part of his ministry. 4. It did not require him to be genuinely prophetic to make the prophecy.

So you cannot claim to know specifically when the books were written (aside from Paul's epistles which can be quite reliably dated). Even though I prefer an early date - I have to admit a later date is also possible and can't be ruled out entirely. Just as scholars who prefer a later date cannot rule out an earlier one. That's why there is debate and why there isn't a consensus view - not even close to one. What you commonly hear is that the 80-90 AD date is preferred by a majority of critical scholars, and that appears to be true - it's preferred they don't claim it to be a firm answer at this point. If Acts was written in around 61-65AD then it could have been written before some of Paul's later epistles. So much for the theory about everything being based on Paul's writings.