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

[chi pan]

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.

But is there agreement on what Jesus was?

Mark 13:32 (Jesus doesn't know what the father knows)
Matt 26:39 (Jesus has a separate will from his father and is clearly separate from and subordinate to his father.
Luke 3:22 (Jesus and his father speak to one another in second person and of one another inn 3rd person).

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

---

The Marcionite Christians believed that there were two separate gods, Jesus and the lesser god Yahweh. They rejected the OT and all things Jewish. Salvation was by faith in Jesus. Jesus' life on earth had no childhood. He appeared in the temple one day as all pagan gods might. The Ebionite Christians were at the opposite extreme. There was one god, Yahweh. Jesus was a mortal man, conceived by Mary and Joseph the same way all babies are made, and later adopted by Yahweh as a son at his baptism. Salvation was by keeping Jewish laws. The Docetic Christians rejected the idea of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Jesus was an apparition. The material world was evil and so Yahweh could not ever debase himself by being part of it. The Arian Christians (no relation to Hitler's fictional race) believed Jesus was an angel sent by God. They were fierce rivals with the Trinitarian Christians up until Nicaea in 325.

---

no argument here. there were false Messiahs before Jesus.

Finally, there's the ministry. It spread like wildfire throughout neighboring provinces, drawing great multitudes (Matt 4:23-25). It attracted the attention of notable rulers like Herod Antipas (Luke 9:7). He shook the religious foundations so profoundly that the priests were always trying to trick him with questions and finally met on Passover Eve in an elaborate conspiracy to kill him off (Mark 14:10-12).

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. 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? and yes, he attracted attention of Herod. but nothing of significance happened between them. in Luke 23, he questioned him, and he said nothing. he got upset and sent him to pilot. that's it. it can't really be considered a major event because nothing happened.
here are reasons why he wasn't not note worthy to many scholars. he wasn't a political official or involved in politics at all. he did not start a conflict or war. he did not write anything. he did not travel outside Palestine. and like you already said, there were other false messiah's before him. they put him in the same class as them and did not feel the need to note him.

What about Josephus? The Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery so rank that even apologists confess it was tampered with (example Strobel's "The Case for Christ" p79) though they try to make the case for "partial authenticity" (the whole paragraph reads like the stuff of Christian propaganda, rattling off all the bullet points of their theology in rapid fire succession, in a paragraph that interrupts the flow as if inserted whole cloth, but I'll let the reader judge for yourself with the link provided).

not forgery, interpolation. all forgeries are interpolations but not all interpolations are forgeries.

The Testimonium has been the subject of a great deal of research and debate among scholars, being one of the most discussed passages among all antiquities.[95] Louis Feldman has stated that in the period from 1937 to 1980 at least 87 articles had appeared on the topic, the overwhelming majority of which questioned the total or partial authenticity of the Testimonium.[96] While early scholars considered the Testimonium to be a total forgery, the majority of modern scholars consider it partially authentic, despite some clear Christian interpolations in the text

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

and yes, it is true that it breaks continuity. but this is typical in Josephus' writings because he would write in multiple sittings often losing his trane of thought.

, I will cite the part that my opponent did not quote, at the bottom of the paragraph:

Quote:...and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Wrong Jesus.

i did. either you didn't pay attention or ignored what i said.

The only argument I've heard against this passage is that it is not referring to Jesus Christ but Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest sense he is also referenced at the end of the same paragraph.

my argument, that you did not address, was that the two Jesus' were different Jesus' and there's no justification to say Jesus the so-called Christ and Jesus son of Damneus were the same. wait, so you're saying two different Jesus' were mentioned in the same paragraph? isn't that a stretch? not considering the size of the paragraph and how many total people and events were mentioned in it. to show you what I'm talking about, I'll post it.

---

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

---

please do not misrepresent my words like that again, it's not very professional.

BUZZZZZZZZ! Wrong!

See Mark chapter 16. This is the chapter that details the resurrection account. Now, this is no minor issue. The resurrection is perhaps the most important part of Christian theology. Now, I know I was going to gloss over the magic but I only bring it up because it contradicts your assertion that there have been no significant changes.

Originally Mark ends at 16:8. A later version expanded on the resurrection account to make a more satisfying ending.

i would like to point out a mistake i made saying Mark 15:9-20 were added, it's Mark 16:9-20. and the resurrection account is in Mark 16:1-8. verses 9-20 are just a general narrative of what happened after probably added to give the story resolution. the original ending is rather abrupt. the general narrative is not important in light of the more detailed accounts in the other gospels.

2nd century, oblique, tells us nothing but that he was called "the anointed one" and crucified by Pilate.

you forgot that he confirms him as the founder of the Christian faith when it says "Christus, the founder of the name..."

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.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/suey.html

the Jewish Talmud,
...circa 300 CE.

i don't disagree.

Was the stone already rolled away from the tomb or did an angel do it when the ladies arrived?

yes, the guards saw the angel roll the stone away and the women arrived after. Matthew is the account of what the guards saw, then the women arrived and spoke to an angel.

How many angels were there?

at least two. in Matthew, an angel rolled the stone away and sat on it before the women arrived. i think most likely there was enough time for Jesus to walk out of the tomb before the women arrived as in all four accounts the tomb is empty. this means there was also enough time for the angel to get off the rock and sit in the tomb. there were 2 angels in the tomb when they arrived according to Luke 24:4 and one spoke to them according to Mark. in Luke 24:4, it says the angels appeared suddenly, though it's likely they were already there and they suddenly noticed them. it's also possible the one who noticed one of them sitting to the right according to Mark did not see the other or simply did not mention him because he just stood there. John was an account of Mary Magdalene going to the tomb for a second time by herself. she came to the tomb (the other women were not mentioned though that could have been seen as unimportant to Marry Magdalene when she gave her testimony) with them but upset, ran out not even noticing any angels (John 20:1-2) while the other women stayed and heard from one of the angels speaking to them. Marry Magdalene then returned to the tomb and stayed weeping (John 20:11). and after a while she saw 2 angels and Jesus. this does not conflict with the other accounts because this it was latter in the day when she returned to the tomb.
one thing you have to consider looking at these as if they are eye wittiness accounts is the differences in perspective. the only people at the tomb were the women and guards who fainted when the angel rolled the stone away. if we are to look at the gospels this way, we should treat them the same as any other reports from eye witnesses. lets say a bank was robbed and reporters are gathering the story from eye witnesses. one eye wittiness says there was one robber, another says there was two. one says they both had guns, another says only one had a gun. should all these stories be disregarded because they seem to contradict? no, obviously we need to take differences in perspective into consideration.

Were they inside the tomb or outside?

they were inside when the women arrived. Matthew is the only one that does not say this, but Matthew also seems to skip large portions of time between some accounts without noting the time passed between events. this leaves room for possibility that the angel rolled the stone away, the guards fainted, Jesus walked out, and the angel sat in the tomb. if we assumed that the women were present when the stone was rolled away that would leave us wondering why Jesus was not there.

Mark:
His authorship is ascribed by "an ancient tradition" (New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT, p57). He was a companion of Paul, who in turn saw Jesus in a vision. So where did Mark get his information.

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

Luke 1:5, 26-28, 31 The annunciation of Mary and subsequent pregnancy was during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BCE)

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.

Luke 2:1-5 Mary was pregnant was during the administration of Quirinius of Syria (who started his administration in 6 CE)

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. I'm no expert on the text but here is the translation of the word. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...2064&t=KJV
at worst though you have a mistake of Luke.

Luke 3:1-2 John the Baptist started his ministry in 27-28 CE

right.

started his ministry in 33-34 CE (fudge what "about 30" means, say it means 27 or 28)

his birth was already explained so the age is already off. but here's Kenneth F. Doig's input on it.

Tiberius became Caesar on August 19, 14, and in that year Dios 1 fell on October 15. Thus, his first regnal year according to the Syro-Macedonian calendar would be from Dios 1, or October 25, 13 until October 14, 14. Luke would have measured the fifteen years from that year one by non-accession, or inclusive, reckoning. 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.

http://doig.net/NTC12.htm

and died in 36 CE

I've shown how you were wrong about the start of his ministry and subsequently are wrong about this. most new testament scholars place Jesus' death 33 CE.

So Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. That's quite a relief for Mary, but this places the date of his birth around 5 BCE.

about that time yes.

This is far too early for Luke's census. Judea was an independent tributary at that time and Quirinius was governor of a province in the middle of modern day Turkey, quite a distance from Syria.

some say Luke was referencing the wrong census and that's why he was referring to Quirinius incorrectly.

The majority view among modern scholars is that there was only one census, in 6, and the author of the Gospel of Luke deviated from history in connecting it with the birth of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

I'm sure you will say later that there was no census when Jesus was born then. please read this from Alfred Edersheim first though.
http://www.jesus.org/birth-of-jesus/beth...birth.html

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.

1:22-23 "A virgin shall conceive. In reality, if you read Isaiah chapter 7, this is not a prophecy but speaks to events in his time.

i don't see how you can say it is not a prophecy.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

it is speaking in future tense saying the lord will give you (in Hebrew you is plural here) a sign. how does this speak of events of his time?

Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt". This is a reference to Hosea 11:1 and is not a prophecy but refers to the Exodus.

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

John's Gospel is not only significantly advanced in its theology (re: The Trinity) but also refers to "The Jews" (not the Pharisees, not the priests, not the scribes) as a separate and hostile group to Jesus' followers. But wait, weren't Jesus and his followers Jews? Clearly, this was written in later times when Christianity had emerged as a completely separate sect from Judaism.

weak evidence. John refers to Jesus' opponents as the Jews because he's referencing the Halakha which is what the Jews stood for and what Jesus commonly attacked. and you fail to consider that he speaks as though his reports were witnessed first hand. if this is the case, he is a very credible witness.

i would like to end by posing some questions to my opponent.
if the events of the gospels were based on actual events, how would you expect them to be written? if they are the same, there are 3 accounts of plagiarism. you are criticizing these accounts by content but don't show what would prove them accurate by content. if the gospels are all copied off one another why are they different? why do some have details that the others don't? this would be a criteria to test whether they are based on a true story so why should there be an exception in this case?