Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[DeistPaladin]

"My" fairy tales?

OK, your favorite fairy tales. Better?

If you are making the claim that the events recorded in the gospel are wildly inaccurate you have to find sufficient evidence, not evidence that Luke got the nativity wrong (one of the only things he got wrong when considering historicity).

My claim is based on how the four Gospels can't be arranged into a single coherent timeline. The authors made grave errors on even basic facts like "In which decade was Jesus born?" etc.

The ministry of John the Baptist is another gem. According to the Gospel authors, JtB made it crystal clear to his followers that he was just the warm-up act, that a far greater prophet was to come. This tale got better with the telling. Mark has JtB putting himself down, calling himself unworthy to loose one of Jesus' sandals. Matthew does all this plus he objects to baptizing Jesus on the grounds of being unworthy. John's version of JtB has him never baptizing Jesus at all, followed by Jesus opening a rival baptizing franchise and beating JtB at his own game. Each successive author seemed to make it a point to make JtB increasingly insignificant and sycophantic toward Jesus.

Odd thing, to this day the Mandaens, the followers of John the Baptist, who were rivals to the early Christians, continue to regard JtB as the messiah. Did they not get the memo? Stranger still, all the historical records of JtB outside the Bible, such as from Josephus, discuss John the Baptist's successful ministry but say nothing about how JtB pointed to a messiah to come. It's almost like his ministry was a force unto itself and not an overture for another's ministry to come.

The whole thing reeks of religious propaganda, incorporating the religious icons of rival faiths, much like what the Muslims would later to do Jesus.

Just one example of many.

I didn't call them reliable eye-witness accounts, the writers weren't eye-witnesses.

...which only helps my case, not yours.

We can have a high degree of confidence, for instance, that Pontius Pilate was a real person...

Check.

and that he served as governor...

Check.

and that he presided over the tial of Jesus.

Dubious but let that go for now.

Now, many historians have pointed out that it seems unlikely that a Roman official would be "reluctant" to carry out the sentence against Jesus as described in the gospel accounts - but that fact alone doesn't mean that he didn't preside over the trial.

Let's see, that and the non-existent tradition of letting a prisoner go that the crowd called for, and the unlikely name of an insurrectionist "Jesus Barabas" (or "Jesus Son-Of-The-Father"), the unlikely actions that the Romans would ever release an insurrectionist against Roman authority, the unlikely nature of the Jews lording over a cowed Roman governor, and the unlikely possibility that a crucified criminal would ever be given a proper burial. And the logistics of Jesus going to trial by the Jews, then Pilate, than Antipas, then Pilate again, all in one night.

Besides all that, there's scant evidence that he DID preside over the trial.

Of course there are plenty of critical scholars who think all the Synoptic gospels were written after 70AD that would place John around the same time by their reasoning,

...actually, John's Gospel is typically dated to around 90 CE.

You're dating it by an event that never takes place anywhere in the gospels -

Sorry, but the destruction of the temple is mentioned in Mark 13.

so by that reasoning if the 70 AD siege had happened in 100 AD you'd claim that's when the gospels were written.

Yes.

Again, you're misusing information. Yes they're both based on Mark or proto-mark, but that doesn't mean they're "elaborations of Mark" as you just put it - and that would be especially true of Luke who doesn't use "all" of Mark in the way that Matthew does.

Both read like elaborations, or fan fictions of Mark, elaborating the birth of Jesus and other events, but they're written independently and so there are many continuity gaffes.

...for instance this creed in 1 Corinthians 15:

Here we go. Right on cue, the vaunted creed enters stage right.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

Does this mean Paul understood the events of the crucifixion through scriptures instead of obvious recent history? Or does it mean that the intercessor sacrifice for our sins is forecast in Jewish scriptures? The former has obvious implications. The latter is simply untrue, as the very idea of an intercessor is wholly blasphemous to the Jewish faith.

that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

The disciples were down to eleven by that point.

Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

A thousand unnamed witnesses saw monkeys fly out of my ass this morning. Isn't that impressive?

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Is this a confession that Jesus only appeared to him in a vision because he had not lived within the lifetime of Paul?

Of course Paul is a reliable source for what he talks about. I'm not talking about theology I'm talking about the history of the early church.

Calling Paul a reliable source doesn't make him so, especially given the problems of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation with holy documents, especially given how half of the epistles attributed to Paul are pseudo-epigraphical (forgeries).

that doesn't negate what you can say with confidence about the teachings of Jesus. That's two different things.

And what were they exactly? What sources outside the dubious Gospels can you offer? We have no "Book of Jesus". Unlike Paul and Moses, we have no books even attributed to him. And the wild varieties of early Christianities, from Ebionite to Marcionite, indicates that Jesus was less than clear to his followers.

It reads pretty consistently to me. Show me where the inconsistency is?

Oh Sweet Fucking Reason!

24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

In sum: Luke = Same Day

1:3 To whom also he [Jesus] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

In sum: Acts = 40 days later.

And even the most sceptical scholars will tell you that you can derive historically significant facts from it.

Such as...?

Well, I hope you can prove that.

Of course I can prove it, asshole:

Is 7:14 (LXX): διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ

Matt 1:23: Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός

If you know anything about Greek you'd know that this is impossible to happen by chance.

Yeah, Matthew relied heavily on the Greek Septuagint to understand the OT (odd that, seeing as he was supposed to be a Jewish tax collector).
Matthew grossly misrepresents Isaiah chapter 7. He knew or should have known better. Ergo, Matthew lied about Isaiah chapter 7.

I'm not defending Matthew, nor am I calling him a prophet. I'm simply saying that your assertion that he's a "liar" is unfounded, he's recorded what he was taught.

He lied about OT scripture and prophecies. I've provided you three whoppers in just his first two chapters alone. You have yet to defend any of his lies.

At least 30 years after his birth. 28-29AD is perfectly consistent with him being born 6-5 BC.

Which would make Jesus way too old (well beyond "about 30") by the time JtB was put in prison.

That's right, there isn't, but it's an event that we know about because of the bible.

I post this movie clip every time a Christian refers to the Bible as a collection of "historical documents".

Enjoy!

---

If the Gospel writers were liars, wouldn't they have made their stories agree to the letter?
If they worked independently, getting different information from different people, than yeah, inconsistencies would abound, because their sources would remember or forget certain details.
This is not an end-all argument for the veracity of the Gospels, but the fact is that if they were lying, there would have only been one person or group with a single Jesus narrative and inconsistencies would be non-existent.

There...
was...
no...
New...
Testament...
During...
The...
First...
Few...
Centuries.

That's why.