Official Debate: Are the Gospels based on a true story?

[DeistPaladin]

your first point i will address last because it is your most convincing point. but i would like to point out that this is not a debate over whether or not we can trust the Gospels as a source, but whether the gospels are based on a true story.

I'm curious how you could know the latter if you are unsure of the former. Perhaps an analogous example will help to clear up what this debate is about.

Based on archaeological evidence, we know there was an ancient city of Troy and that this city was apparently destroyed in a war. Based on this knowledge, could we put the label "based on a true story" on Homer's Iliad? Even if we removed all the supernatural elements, as the recent movie "Troy" starring Brad Pitt did?

Perhaps if we lived in a society that still believed and venerated the gods Zeus, Apollo, Athena, et al there would be a segment of devotees that would hail the discovery of the ruins as confirmation of the mythology written by Homer. Would this be rational? I would argue no. At least not without any corroborating evidence. We don't use mythology as a source of information on what the true story was. The fact that Troy existed and was destroyed in some sort of war is not sufficient similarity to slap the label "based on a true story" on the Iliad. Any historian would claimed to know about the wooden horse or details about the epic heroes that fought in this war simply because they were mentioned in the Iliad would be laughed out of the room.

Do you think the Iliad is based on a true story? I'm not sure how you would answer but I know how I would. I apply the same standard to ALL myths, including the Gospel accounts. The existence of a historic King Arthur doesn't confirm tales of the magic sword or his wizard companion. The existence of George Washington doesn't mean I take the story of the cherry tree seriously. Even assuming that there was some sort of mortal religious leader Jesus, the Gospels tell us nothing reliable about what his true story was, what he taught, when exactly he lived or what his ministry was about. I am arguing that they are myths and if Jesus existed, we know little or nothing about him.

Clear?

This is why Tacitus is completely irrelevant to our discussion, except to point out that it wasn't until the 2nd century before non-Christians paid any notice to this Jesus (and even here not enough to make him worthy of addressing him by name). All Tacitus says, taking it at face value and assuming he wasn't simply relating what the Christians told him, is that there was some "anointed one" that started this religion who was crucified by Pilate. Tacitus is as much corroborating evidence for the Gospels as the ruins of Troy are for the Iliad.

Even if I were to accept that Josephus mentions your Jesus (and not another) in the Jamesian Reference (I don't but this argument would be moot), it is so vague, late (90s CE) and oblique that like the Tacitean reference that it also does nothing to advance your assertion that we can know anything about the true story from the Gospels.

Now the Testimonium Flavianum (hereafter "TF" for brevity), if it were authentic, would be the kind of corroboration you would require to make that case. You have acknowledged that the paragraph in context seems strangely out of place, as the whole would flow better if the paragraph were removed completely. Apologists have acknowledged that the paragraph is at least partially "inauthentic". What you and others try to argue is for "partial authenticity" and that the interpolations were not deliberate.

Reading the passage, even with the messianic confirmation removed, it is the stuff of hyperbolic Christian propaganda. Nearly every salient point of Christian theology is crammed into one short paragraph, presented in rapid fire fashion. It strains credulity to the extreme to suggest such propaganda was accidentally inserted. Furthermore, as the passage was "discovered" by the self-professed liar-for-Jesus Eusebius, we have every reason to think otherwise.

"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."
-- Eusebeus, The Preparation of the Gospel

In light of these facts, the burden of proof for partial authenticity of the TF along with backing up the nakedly bare assertion that the interpolations were an innocent mistake by a Christian copyist would fall on the apologist. Convincing evidence would include pre-Eusebian copies or references to same by pre-Eusebian authors. The only arguments the apologists offer is along the lines of "it uses words Josephus would have used and stuff". I'm only slightly paraphrasing.

Can we toss out the TF now or is there a case you'd like to make for it?

Now the point of discussing these few, late and oblique mentions of Jesus is to point out that he was not noteworthy to anyone outside the Christian community, a point you acknowedge. Consequently, the Gospel's claims of the fame, controversy and success of Jesus' ministry are at best gross exaggerations if not outright lies. Your last post tried to downplay the ministry of Jesus as being only noticed by the poor, an assertion not supported by the Gospels themselves (more on that later).

(Re: disagreements in the Gospels as to what Jesus was)

this is a little off topic into the subject of apologetics. it doesn't prove inconsistency.

If the Gospels couldn't get their story straight on something so basic as what Jesus was, why should I take them seriously as reliable sources on what he had to say or events in his alleged life?

I invite you to re-read the whole NT in the order that the books were published and you'll see how the myth was crafted over time. Revelation has Jesus as the warlord that the Jews yearned for. Mark's Jesus (10:17-18) is a modest holy man who denies he is "good", that such praise is for his father only. Matt's Jesus has the same conversation but with this part removed. John's Jesus is the only one that claims to be God. This Trinitarian Jesus of John is unlike the other versions in the NT, a point underscored by the Christian label of "synoptic" to describe the other three.

Re: The other Christianities of the first few centuries

no argument here. there were false Messiahs before Jesus.

Your summary dismissal of the wild variety of Christianities that existed in the first few centuries reveals how badly you missed the point. If the early Christians, those who would have lived at a time when his ministry was recent history, were so greatly divided over what those teachings were, how can we be sure in the 21st century about his life story?

Furthermore, I pointed out to you how the very Bible passages contain echoes of what a serious problem the heterodox Christians were. The Docetics believed Jesus never existed as a flesh-and-blood being but only as an apparition. John in 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7 (not one but two epistles, indicating these rival Christians were more than a small problem) admonished Christians not to believe them using the language of faith ("believe" and "confess") instead of appealing to recent history and dismissing these Docetics as crazy. How can we take Christian mythology seriously today when the earliest Christians considered such basic facts (like was he a flesh-and-blood being) to be controversial?

You need to do more than wave your hand and dismiss the heterodox Christians with words of faith similar to the ones in John's epistle.

You exaggerate it quite a bit. his ministry did spread like wildfire... among the poor. if you recall, Jesus' teachings were not very positive among the rich. the rich nobles had influence over history, but the poor had almost none.

This is a view of Jesus' ministry not supported by the Gospel accounts. I've already quoted for you the passage where Herod Antipas asks if Jesus is John the Baptist returned (considering how much JtB was a thorn in his side, this is not as insignificant as you assert) but this is not the only contrary example. I trust you are familiar with the Roman Centurion who had many servants who sought out Jesus to heal his servant? How about the rich man who implored Jesus to tell him how to get into Heaven (the "eye of the needle" story)? How about the woman who had seen many physicians (apparently wealthy enough to have such a luxury) who was healed by her faith?

The assertion that Jesus in the Gospel stories was unknown to the rich and powerful is every bit as untrue as the bare speculation that the Romans would have paid no notice to a wandering religious leader that attracted crowds of Jews looking for their messiah everywhere he went.

And my word "wildfire" is actually a term the Gospel of Matthew uses. This is quite a hyperbolic term for an insignificant cult that nobody noticed.

and yes, the Pharisees were trying to trick him with questions, as they would do with anyone who taught controversial doctrine. and yes, they had plans to kill him. they also had plans to kill prostitutes. does that make them important?

How many prostitutes warranted a special meeting on Passover Freaking Eve and such an elaborate conspiracy? You'd think such a thorn in the side of the priests would get a mention by Philo or other Jewish philosophers, historians and theologians but no. No mention of either Jesus or later their chief prosecutor Saul turning against them.

he did not write anything.

And that's also part of the problem knowing what he really said or taught.

Suetonius,
...does not mention Jesus at all.

really?

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

yes, this is weak evidence, but he does mention him. the reason he spells it Chrestus is because that is the correct Latin spelling of the Greek name.

Chrestus = the good. This is not Christus = the anointed one.
The Jews =/= Christians.
The reign of Claudius (the "he" who expelled them) =/= within the lifetime of the alleged Jesus.
Rome =/= the area in which Jesus traveled.

I thought even the nutjobs at Tektonics were smart enough not to claim this a reference to Jesus but obviously I gave them too much credit.

the Jewish Talmud,
...circa 300 CE.

i don't disagree.

OK, then you missed the point.

This a reference three centuries after the alleged life of Jesus. This is too late to be evidence of anything and shows just how little Jewish historians cared about Jesus that he doesn't get a mention until so long afterwards.

But wait, it gets even better. With this Talmudic Jesus, his trial lasted 40 days, he was connected with the government and he had five disciples, none of which matched the ones in the Gospels. There is no indication as to the time when the trial occurred. It could have been a 2nd century Jesus for all we know.

Again, wrong Jesus.

just like Luke, he got his information from reports from eye witnesses. probably interviewed some of the disciples themselves.

And such is an admission of hearsay testimony. According to my Bible, same page, "Mark appears to draw from a rich variety of oral traditions". Flowery language but doesn't do much to inspire confidence that we're getting accurate information.

well, i admit to a mistake. after doing some research, most new testament scholars place Jesus' birth around 5-4 BC. you are correct here.

5-4 BCE is too late for the Roman census and taxation that occurred in 8 BCE (New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT, p98). It is highly unlikely that such a census would have occurred in Judea, an independent kingdom/tributary under King Herod, just as it is unlikely that Rome would have done something so inefficient as to require everyone to travel back to their hometown. This would have made Jesus too old by the time he started his ministry (37, using your date of 30 CE, =/= "about 30").

this does pose a problem. I've heard Frederick Fyvie Bruce proposed that the passage should be translated to say that he was born before Quirinius was governor of Syria not during.

Can you name one (1) translation of the Bible that uses the word "before" in Luke 2:2? More modern translations, aware of this fringe apologetics, footnote the controversy but still go with "during" or "when".

at worst though you have a mistake of Luke.

A pretty massive mistake.

Thus, the "fifteenth year" fell from October 20, 27 to October 9, 28. According to Luke's Syro-Macedonian reckoning John the Baptist began his ministry between these two dates. This falls in line with the arrival of Pontius Pilate by the autumn of 27. The earliest first Passover of Jesus' ministry would have been in 28.

28 CE is when JtB BEGAN his ministry. What, was he some sort of overnight smash success for no reason? He was called the "messiah" by a sect of Jews called the Mandeans who exist to this day! Even in the Gospels, the Jews ask if he is Elijah (John 1:21). A ministry like that takes time to build, especially when you are competing against many other doom criers and messiah wannabes.

If this logic isn't enough to convince you, I'd again cite the Bible where Luke says that JtB was imprisoned for speaking against Herod's marriage to his dead brother's wife, Herodius (Luke 3:19). His brother Philip didn't die until 33-34 CE.

A Jesus born during the census at the time of Herod the Great, 8 BCE, would have been 40, not "about 30".

most of what you're saying is quibbling over petty details and you think there is either no margin of error or it is completely false. is this objective reasoning? is there no inbetween? the topic of this debate is are the Gospels based on a true story, not are all the accounts of the gospels true to the letter.

Sure there's an in between. What color was Jesus' robe? Who cares? I can see how one viewer might see one color and another a slightly different one.

What were Jesus' last words on the cross? This is a more significant contradiction. Their lord and savior was being crucified. This traumatic event, along with the dying words, should have been seered into their brains. How about his genealogy? Were there 43 generations or 28? Did Jesus start his ministry with his "temple tantrum" as John says or toward the end as Mark says? These are not picayune details and if the Gospels can't get their story straight, why should we assume it's based on any real tale?

i don't see how you can say it (Isaiah 7) is not a prophecy.

*Tsk tsk* I was expecting you to at least use the "double prophecy" apology (a bare assertion with neither scriptural evidence nor precedent) but instead you opted for quote mining your own scripture. Read the whole chapter here. Isaiah is speaking of a war during his time, not of a future messiah to be born centuries later.

he was using similar language to say just as Israel came from Egypt, Jesus came from Egypt. this is not dishonest.

There was no prophecy. Therefore, it's dishonest.

To sum up:
1. The sources are dubious, either hearsay accounts or they're liars.
2. The ministry was too insignificant to get noticed during his time, so the Gospel accounts of this are lies or exaggerations.
3. We can't be sure of what Jesus really said or taught because he wrote nothing down and the Christians within the first few centuries were so deeply divided about who and what he was and what he taught.