Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[SteveII]

You must see the distinction between a scientific fact and historical fact. One, by definition is repeatable. The other, by definition, it not. The standards of evidence are vastly different with many historical facts falling closer to "more probable than not". So your appeal to authority rebuttal is without merit since who is more qualified to weigh subjective context, evidence, and accounts?

I do see the distinction. I've read the essays by Bart Ehrman. All he offers is ad hominems and other logical fallacies. This is not evidence by any standard. So "the scholars say so" is meaningless unless you can pony up some evidence aside from "stupid mythers".

But let all that go, since I'm a Jesus Mooter. Your burden is not simply to prove that some guy named Yeshua was a doom crier and after he died his followers deified him like those who saw Elvis and urban legends about miracles and wonders began to grow. Your burden is to prove that he actually worked miracles and rose from the dead.

The Gospels are four accounts of the events from the same time period.

Four hopelessly contradictory accounts.

Why aren't these counted in the evidence?

Because even if we're so generous as to omit discussion of the miracles and other supernatural events, the accounts are anonymously written (attributed by "tradition") that record hearsay testimony (they are written by non-witnesses, sometimes about things even with witnesses they quote couldn't have witnessed, making it hearsay on hearsay) that were subjected to all manner of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation (we know of at least one undisputed and major revision in Mark 16) and they contradict one another and what we know of actual history. In some cases, as with Matthew, they contain blatant lies and so are uncredible testimony. I can elaborate on each of these points as you like.

What other series of ancient events have 4 near-contemporary accounts?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great is within the realm of what we understand to be the natural universe. The miracle-working godman is extraordinary. I hold such claims about Jesus to a higher standard.

Can you give me examples of meaningful contradictions that would shake any of the basics of Christianity?

Let's begin at the beginning. What decade was Jesus born?

If the accounts were perfect, wouldn't that be evidence of a conspiracy?

No because nobody that I know of suggests a conspiracy.

And did those that saw Elvis quickly meet together and write the most complicated and original body of religious writings, travel the world convicing others of the truth of their new religion, and suffer for their beliefs? If so, then you might have an analogy.

You're using folklore to prove mythology.

The rise of Christianity was unique. It spanned national boarders, races, and cultures in one-two generations and it continued to grow for 2000 years.

That's not unique. Islam did the same.

What tomb today is irrelevant. The people at the time knew which one because the account was specific.

Did people look for a tomb back then?

Making appearances for 40 days does not conflict with Luke 24:50ff.

Yeah, it does.

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.

Your reference to others who might have denied Christ on pain of death is also irrelevant. The argument only works when you are discussing the actual people who you say made up the religion and knew it to be false.

I never said anyone made up the religion.

Can you prove that the original "witnesses" to the resurrection of Jesus went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Your comparison to Jim Jones et al is also a poor analogy. Your examples had psychological problems, control issues, ego maniacs, etc.

Ah, OK. So David Koresh and Jim Jones went to their deaths for what they sincerely believed because they were crazy but the disciples of Jesus did so because they knew The Truth.

Special pleading.

The apostles were about the opposite in character. In addition, these cult leaders pointed to themselves as important, whereas Christianity's early leaders never did.

Jim Jones and David Koresh could also be charming and appear not to be crazy. They did so well enough to draw a following. Not all crazy people seem crazy.

We'll let go how the only detailed accounts of Jesus and the apostles only come to us through scripture and Christian folklore. We'll also let go how we don't have nearly enough information to psycho-analyze them as you have done.

All of that granted and taking your scripture and folklore at face value, you are committing confirmation bias. These are saintly men to you and so you see them as saintly.

Would it surprise you that I see the Paul of Galatians as a bombastic bully, thinking of himself on a mission from his god and accountable to no one? Would it surprise you that I see Jesus as an egotistical cult leader, indistinguishable from David Koresh or Jim Jones? Would it surprise you that I see the early Christians as fanatics, viewing them the same way you would these crazy cultists that you dismiss?

---

The Jews have always looked for a political messiah--even to this day.

Clearly, not all Jews bought it. Those who don't today have good reason to think Jesus was not the Messiah, even as the story is written.

Revelation was not first.

Yeah, it was. Even Christian scholars say so. I'll look up the annotations to my Bible when I get home. If you disagree, get a plane ticket to London and take it up with Oxford.

Jews were almost uniquely monotheistic. Making up someone who claimed to be God or equal to God was the exact opposite of what they would expect or want.

...and hence Christology was a divisive issue for a long time, leading to the many factions of Christianity. Today, you have papered over it with the doctrine of "The Trinity".

How did Mark bring Paul down to earth?

Jesus. Not Paul.

Docetics taught that Jesus' body was not real but only seemed real. It does NOT teach that Jesus was a myth.

I didn't say they did.

I merely bring them up to show there was anything but consensus on who and what Jesus was and what he taught. Even when the Bible was penned, Jesus seems a mysterious character.

Sorry, missed your responses earlier.

You mention that the authors are anonymous. It seems that after Mark, each of the other gospel writers knew of the existence of Mark and then contributed sources from that particular group that followed the disciple for which the book was named. How does that affect the historicity of the account? If anything, no glaring contradictions strengthen the argument for the gospels.

I would like to know how the gospels contradict each other in some meaningful way. When police question people and they have exactly the same story, it is suspicious. Why do you think that the events spanning 3 years from four different groups of people would not have some minor differences. You are holding these documents to insane standards.

I would love to discuss a serious matter and not who went where after what. I think you "hopelessly contradictory" is a ridiculous assertion.

Later on, you mention that the miracle stories need to be held to a higher standard. How many accounts would make you feel comfortable that miracles really happened and there was a God?

Jesus is thought to have been born between 6-4 BC. If you are going to mention the census thing and Herod, read this article. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

Islam was spread by the sword. Hardly a good analogy.

Your listing of versus in Luke does nothing to suggest that this all happened in one day. In fact, Acts 1:3 (written by the same author) clears up the timeline quite nicely.

Your continued comparison of the apostles and the cult nut jobs illustrates your lack of understanding the bigger picture of how all this works together to form a consistent message and theological framework.

How did Jesus bring Paul down earth?

So if the apostles and early church leaders met and weeded out the heresies, we can be even more confident that what we have today is what was intended by Jesus.

---

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 15:24 (CEB) = Jesus replied, “I’ve been sent only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”

So unless you are one of the clique there's no reason to care what he said. After all, the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem doesn't have a gate for Gentiles.

It was very clear throughout the gospels that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. He was fulfilling their law, their prophesies, arguing with their teachers, etc. After all that was complete, he also gave the "great commission" which clearly includes gentiles. Again, you cannot take a sentence or even passage without looking at the complete framework in which these events happened and the systematic theology that results from including all the material.

---

If Jesus existed, you would expect to see some historical accounts. We have historical accounts. Scholars have poured over these historical accounts and the vast majority (according to many many source) agree that Jesus lived. In fact, most believe that he was crucified.

Appealing to authority won't help you. Are you ready to accept the historical documents that establish the existence of Thor and Perseus?

3 Minutes from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus:
-------
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[48]
-------
According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote "If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[50]
-------
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."[54]
-------
Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua,born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."[55]
-------
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs[56] has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."[57]

3 wasted minutes. Was the initial appeal to authority not enough for you? Show me their evidence. It's that simple.

You're the skeptic and the one that decided not to accept the conclusions of history scholars. You can spend the next hundred years redoing all of their research if you like. Deal with it. Jesus lived, was crucified, his followers believed 100% that he rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.