I've been doing some reading (I am constantly strengthening my lack of faith) and some amazing things have come up that I thought I would share here. I won't swear by the book I'm reading, but it has yet to sound biased and simple-minded in any way.
Let's start by reinforcing my argument against the virgin birth, which I already fought against in another thread.
1A) Jesus was supposed to be a "Nazarene" which means he was from Nazareth, right? Well, archaeological discovery shows that "Nazara" did not exist in the beginning of the 1st century A.D. A few Jews may have lived in the area, but it did not become a town until Jews fled from Jerusalem in 69 A.D.
1B) Bethlehem was also not a town in Judea. Bethlehem exists there now, but the original Bethlehem was a small town in Galilee in the time of Jesus. Why the original was abandoned is unknown, but there is evidence that the original town was not in Judea.
1AB) How do these two facts link together? Well, let's say that Nazareth somehow existed. Well, if both Nazareth (Mary's home town) and Bethlehem (Joseph's home town) were in Galilee, they were out of Herod's jurisdiction, and so a census and slaughter of babies is even more of an impossibility. It does make a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem less of a trek for Mary and Joseph, but ultimately a pointless one.
2A) Simon the Zealot was a disciple of Jesus. Josephus says that Zealots existed in 6 A.D. As much as I appreciate Josephus' writings, it is obvious that some of it was influenced (or interpolated) by Christian ideas. It is arguable to point out that Zealots did not really come to into existence until around 66 A.D., well after the time of Jesus.
2B) People in the Gospels (especially the lastly written Gospel of John) call Jesus "rabbi" or "rabboni" at least 12 times (Mary Magdalene does it, for example). The term "rabbi" was not used in the early 1st century until around 40 A.D.
2AB) What can we conclude from this evidence? Well, obviously that the people (whoever they really were) that wrote the Gospels (in Greek) were just using terms that were common in their era to refer to people (especially Jesus) in the Gospels. Something smells fishy.
A couple other tidbits:
In Mark 5:1-13 Jesus is in the country of the Gadarenes. He sends a bunch of demon-possessed pigs into the sea. However, the writer of the Gospel of Mark didn't know his ancient geography. Gadarenes was nowhere near the ocean. The pigs would have had to run for 2 and a half hours to reach it. In Matthew 8:28-32, the country is changed to that of the Gergesenes, which is closer, but still 5 miles from the ocean. That was a helluva run for the possessed piggies! Now, granted, the Gospels don't mention how far the run was, just a "steep place," but come on, how would the people of the area have been shocked by what happened if the pigs were 5 miles away when they died? It just doesn't make sense.
The New Testament establishes that Peter and Paul spent some time together. Now, Paul never says that he learned anything from the apostles, just scripture and revelations. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, Jesus performing miracles or the empty tomb. Don't you think that someone that learned the ways of Christianity from Peter, Jesus' number one guy, would have learned something about the life of Jesus from him? People like to say that telling the life of Jesus was not Paul's intentions, but c'mon! If you knew the life story of the son of God, wouldn't you have said more than just a couple things?
As I said before, I won't swear by these ideas, but they do make strong points. There is much more to be read, and I'm excited to do it!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Christ-Enigma-...ist+enigma
Let's start by reinforcing my argument against the virgin birth, which I already fought against in another thread.
1A) Jesus was supposed to be a "Nazarene" which means he was from Nazareth, right? Well, archaeological discovery shows that "Nazara" did not exist in the beginning of the 1st century A.D. A few Jews may have lived in the area, but it did not become a town until Jews fled from Jerusalem in 69 A.D.
1B) Bethlehem was also not a town in Judea. Bethlehem exists there now, but the original Bethlehem was a small town in Galilee in the time of Jesus. Why the original was abandoned is unknown, but there is evidence that the original town was not in Judea.
1AB) How do these two facts link together? Well, let's say that Nazareth somehow existed. Well, if both Nazareth (Mary's home town) and Bethlehem (Joseph's home town) were in Galilee, they were out of Herod's jurisdiction, and so a census and slaughter of babies is even more of an impossibility. It does make a trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem less of a trek for Mary and Joseph, but ultimately a pointless one.
2A) Simon the Zealot was a disciple of Jesus. Josephus says that Zealots existed in 6 A.D. As much as I appreciate Josephus' writings, it is obvious that some of it was influenced (or interpolated) by Christian ideas. It is arguable to point out that Zealots did not really come to into existence until around 66 A.D., well after the time of Jesus.
2B) People in the Gospels (especially the lastly written Gospel of John) call Jesus "rabbi" or "rabboni" at least 12 times (Mary Magdalene does it, for example). The term "rabbi" was not used in the early 1st century until around 40 A.D.
2AB) What can we conclude from this evidence? Well, obviously that the people (whoever they really were) that wrote the Gospels (in Greek) were just using terms that were common in their era to refer to people (especially Jesus) in the Gospels. Something smells fishy.
A couple other tidbits:
In Mark 5:1-13 Jesus is in the country of the Gadarenes. He sends a bunch of demon-possessed pigs into the sea. However, the writer of the Gospel of Mark didn't know his ancient geography. Gadarenes was nowhere near the ocean. The pigs would have had to run for 2 and a half hours to reach it. In Matthew 8:28-32, the country is changed to that of the Gergesenes, which is closer, but still 5 miles from the ocean. That was a helluva run for the possessed piggies! Now, granted, the Gospels don't mention how far the run was, just a "steep place," but come on, how would the people of the area have been shocked by what happened if the pigs were 5 miles away when they died? It just doesn't make sense.
The New Testament establishes that Peter and Paul spent some time together. Now, Paul never says that he learned anything from the apostles, just scripture and revelations. He makes no mention of the virgin birth, Jesus performing miracles or the empty tomb. Don't you think that someone that learned the ways of Christianity from Peter, Jesus' number one guy, would have learned something about the life of Jesus from him? People like to say that telling the life of Jesus was not Paul's intentions, but c'mon! If you knew the life story of the son of God, wouldn't you have said more than just a couple things?
As I said before, I won't swear by these ideas, but they do make strong points. There is much more to be read, and I'm excited to do it!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Christ-Enigma-...ist+enigma
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
- Buddha
"Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
- Dennis McKinsey
- Buddha
"Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it."
- Dennis McKinsey
