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

[Rayaan]

Are all the Gospel accounts on the life and teachings of Jesus based on a true story? That is the topic of the debate.

The participants in this debate are DeistPaladin and chi pan.

DeistPaladin will be arguing that the Gospels are not based on a true story of Jesus. Chi pan will be arguing that they are.

This is a debate on a specific version of the historical Jesus - i.e. as depicted in the four Gospels of the NT, specifically - and whether or not they are true, accurate, has any corroborating evidences, and/or whether or not they compose a consistent story. Along the way, the debaters will be discussing some of the details of the historical Jesus such as when he was born, when he died, how he died, what was his ministry, what he said, and what he preached exactly.

There is going to be four rounds altogether: (1) Opening Statements; (2) Response to Opening Statements; (3) Rebuttal of Responses; and (4) Closing Statements.

The time limit for the responses is 5 days. The time limit may be extended later, if needed.

This thread is closed for everyone else except for the participants and the staff.

However, all the (non-participant) members can discuss the debate or their thoughts on it in the following thread:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15500.html


DP and chi pan, please adhere to the rules, discuss maturely, and have fun.

Rayaan

[chi pan]

Thank you. I do not see the supernatural aspects of the gospels being excluded as a condition of this debate though I will assume it is because that is what was agreed on. The first thing I would like to talk about is the textual reliability of the gospels. Now, the gospels undeniably have the strongest textual evidence than most any other historical document. Just to compare, Tacitus' Annals were written around 100 AD but the earliest copies of these documents are dated 850 AD with a total of 20 copies found. Now there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, and over 10,000 Latin manuscripts of the New Testament books. The oldest complete copy is Codex Sinaiticus dated about 300 years after the originals. The earliest unanimously confirmed fragment is of the gospel of John, called Ryland’s Papyrus: P52 dated in the early first century. Most New Testament scholars (if not all) think that John was the last gospel written, so we absolutely cannot date the gospels any later than P52. With all these copies, there have been no significant changes to content. There may be some differences, like differences in spelling, and Mark 15:9-20 were probably added in later but nothing significant. Textually, it is more reliable than all other ancient documents. As for external confirmation, the geography and description of first century Palestine fits with all other known ancient documents. Archeology also confirms their historical accuracy. Plus, there are extra biblical sources that confirm the stories like Tacitus, Suetonius, the Jewish Talmud, and Josephus. There is also internal evidence to consider. This is looking at the stories themselves and confirming if they are consistent. The similarities of the gospels show apparent common material and also debunk independent fabrication. The many differences between them and apparent contradictions between the gospels discredit the theory of collective fabrication. Though these apparent contradictions have been puzzling, closer study of the text, culture, and situations can provide explanation. Sense independent and collective fabrication are ruled out, the most reasonable explanation is that these accounts are based on true events.

Next I will answer the key topics at hand.
When was Jesus born? Scholars who think Jesus existed (there are few that don't) have no problem in believing he was born around 5BC to 3AD.
When did Jesus die? Again, there is little debate that he was executed around 30AD to 33 AD.
How did he die? By crucifixion as reported by the gospels and secular sources around the time.
What was his ministry? The fact that the Jews downplay him a lot suggests his teachings were very controversial. The gospel accounts of his teachings fit very well with the nature of the Pharisees and how they would respond to such teachings.
What he said- coincides with the last question.
What he preached exactly- there is no reason why there should be much argument with the gospel's accounts of his teachings.

Next I will confront possible arguments I'm anticipating.
First, that there is no evidence that Jesus even existed and is most likely completely fictitious. Now, let me point out that this is a minority position among scholars and even well outspoken New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman doesn't think these arguments hold water. However, I have seen a surprisingly large number of people here who believe this so I'm not putting it past my opponent. One of the main arguments is the argument of silence. This is that because there are no contemporary or near contemporary witnesses who attest to Jesus' life that he must not have existed. It is a given that there are no secular contemporary writings of Jesus, though the same is true for many historical figures this is not a criteria for determining existence. It is not true that there are no near contemporary writings of Jesus. There are a few and I would like to point out a couple.
Josephus: he was a Jewish historian who was born about 37 CE and is one of the most prominent historians of his time. He wrote many volumes including the Jewish War in 78 CE, Antiquities of the Jews in 93 CE, Apion around 96-100 CE, and The Life of Josephus around 100 CE and died shortly after. He mentions Jesus a couple of times in Antiquities of the Jews. First, he is mentioned in volume XVIII chapter 3, third paragraph.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him is not extinct at this day.

now it should be noted that this passage has been suspected fraudulent. the most compelling reason is that he was an orthodox Jew and he would not have mentioned Jesus as "the Christ" or say "for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold" without any sort of disclaimer. however, most scholars believe the paragraph is mostly true with some interpolation, particularly in the parts i mentioned. He is also mentioned in volume XX chapter 9, first paragraph.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

It should be noted that a vast majority of scholars agree that this paragraph has no interpolation at all. Also, notice it's speaking of Jesus' brother James which confirms the gospels' account of his siblings. 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. But it really doesn't make sense that he would be called "the Christ" and there is no compelling argument to suggest he is referenced in the middle of the paragraph (where this quote is from).
Here is some commentary of the passages. http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Tacitus: known as the best historian of his time, he mentions Jesus once in his Annals in Annals 15.44.

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

He was referred to..
as "Christus" which was completely normal for him to be referred to at this time. This was an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians. The only good argument I've heard for this one is that he could have been reporting hearsay rather than fact. If that were the case, however, it would have his usual disclaimer of "these accounts have not been confirmed." he clearly references him as a real person and accounts for his execution under Pilate.

Another common argument is the Jesus copycat argument, that Jesus borrowed his story from other myths. This is an uninformed argument as all myths brought up either: are greatly exaggerated or twisted to look similar to the stories of Jesus, are completely fabricated, or had additions to them after Jesus' life. I will not address specific ones unless they are brought up. There are other minor arguments that are used to prove he did not exist, but again I will not address them unless they come up.

[DeistPaladin]

"Reliable eye witness accounts"

This is a phrase you're likely to read or hear whenever perusing Christian apologetic arguments for Christian theology. Christians like to believe that, unlike many competing religions, their god (or at least a third of their god, it's kind of complicated you see) walked the earth and within relatively recent history. This divine visit was further recorded in four different biographies which they regard as historical documentation proving who and what Jesus was.

This debate will be not over whether or not some guy named "Yeshua" existed, the Jesus-of-the-gaps that Bart Ehrman is welcome to pursue. "Yeshua" was a common name in 1st century Judea and doomcrier, messiah-wannabe (or "Christ" which means "anointed one") not an uncommon pursuit in a Roman province chaffing under imperial rule and wondering what happened to Yahweh's promise to King David that his seed would rule for all time. Doubtless many such persons existed if your definition of "the historical Jesus" is that vague (hold that thought for when we later review the "Jamesian Reference" in Josephus). No, this debate is over whether or not we can trust the Gospels as a source on that Yeshua. Are these Gospels based on a true story?

To answer that question, we need to first ask just what that story is.

The Gospel of Luke
Let's begin with Luke. We start here because his is relatively the easiest to reconcile with history, compared to the other accounts. Here are some of the milestones he provides in his Gospel account (please read these verses and you'll learn that...):

The annunciation of Mary and subsequent pregnancy was during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BCE)
Mary was pregnant was during the administration of Quirinius of Syria (who started his administration in 6 CE)
John the Baptist started his ministry in 27-28 CE.
Jesus started his ministry after JtB was put in prison.
Jesus was "about 30" when he started his ministry.
Luke 23:1 Jesus' three Passover ministry (according to the Gospel of John) ended with his crucifixion by Pilate (recalled to Rome in 36 CE).

So, OK, let's make that a 10 year pregnancy and we can make it all fit. Jesus is born in 6 CE, started his ministry in 33-34 CE (fudge what "about 30" means, say it means 27 or 28) and died in 36 CE. It's a tight fit but we can shoe-horn it all in... if you accept that Mary had a ten-year pregnancy. Maybe a curse went with the miracle of her virgin conception?

The Gospel of Mathew
Matthew has a different set of dates for the life of Jesus.

Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, right before the "slaughter of the innocents" detailed in verse 16.

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. 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.

The Gospel of John
John provides the most specific dates to work with. He tells us that Jesus started his ministry in 27 CE and was crucified in 29 CE. How do we know that?

John 2:19-20 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

Temple construction started in 20 BCE (New Oxford Annotated Bible, NT p152). Add 46 years and we arrive at the Passover of 27 CE. Add two more Passovers (the dates of Jesus' ministry given in John 2:13, 6:4 and 13:1) and we arrive at 29 CE as the date of the crucifixion, too early for JtB to be arrested and executed.

So much for "little debate". But then, John does sit oddly alongside the "synoptic" accounts, a point underscored by how Christian scholars use the very term "synoptic" (similar) to describe Matt, Mark and Luke (excluding John).

OK, so there's a lot of disagreement on which DECADE Jesus was born in and when exactly he was crucified. 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).

So Jesus had a separate and subordinate will, an inferior body of knowledge and interacted with his father as a separate being. In fact, read only the synoptic Gospels and you have a hard time coming up with any justification for the Trinity. That doesn't come along until John is written. John 10:30.

The theology becomes even more divided when you consider all the heterodox Christianities that existed in the first few centuries (Bart Ehrman provides a good overview in "Lost Christianities" on pp 2-3).

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.

Early struggles between Christian factions is codified in the Bible itself. See 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7. John is condemning the Docetics for thinking Jesus had not come in the flesh. If we are to believe he was a disciple of Jesus, wasn't this within the lifetimes of those who would have remembered Jesus? Did Jesus not have relatives who could have testified as to the existence of their uncle or great uncle Yeshua? One wonders why followers of Jesus would make up such a fantastic notion that he was only an apparition at all but why would John condemn them with the language of faith ("believe" and "confess")? Why not appeal to recent history to prove them wrong? Surely he would have if he could have.

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).

Such a profoundly popular, powerful and controversial ministry should have gotten attention outside of Jesus' following, right?

The closest Christians come to a non-tampered source is the Annals of Tacitus (quoted by my opponent above). This passage is so brief and oblique it doesn't even mention Jesus by name (just "the anointed one" or "Christos") and even this doesn't surface until the second century. Evidently, Jesus was the leader of a minor cult following that got nobody's attention while he lived.

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). As for the Jamesian Reference, I will cite the part that my opponent did not quote, at the bottom of the paragraph:

...and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Wrong Jesus.

So his followers were divided on his teachings, we don't have a coherent timeline as to when he lived and the reports of the success of his ministry are, at best, gross exaggerations. We have no idea what Jesus really said or taught, as we have no writings of his. The story, as related, is just not coherent or verifiable.

Further, the sources, even taking their authorship at face value, are unreliable as witnesses:

Mark: Hearsay upon hearsay from a non-witness and we know of at least one significant alteration in the version we now have (Mark originally ended at 16:8).
Matt: Liar (misrepresents the OT to manufacture "prophecies")
Luke: Not a witness by his admission (see Luke 1:1-3)
John: Theology too advanced to be contemporary (for more reasons than already provided).

But this post is already long so I'll reserve this subject for one of my followup posts.

[DeistPaladin]

And now for my first response:

With all these copies, there have been no significant changes to content.

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.

As for external confirmation, the geography and description of first century Palestine fits with all other known ancient documents. Archeology also confirms their historical accuracy.

And we've found the ruins of Troy. Apparently, it was destroyed in a war. I guess that means that Athena, as depicted in the Iliad and Odyssey, is real.

Tacitus,

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

Suetonius,

...does not mention Jesus at all.

the Jewish Talmud,

...circa 300 CE.

and Josephus.

See my intro above.

There is also internal evidence to consider. This is looking at the stories themselves and confirming if they are consistent.

Really?
Was the stone already rolled away from the tomb or did an angel do it when the ladies arrived?
How many angels were there?
Were they inside the tomb or outside?

Now on to the subject of the so-called eye-witnesses themselves:

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. According to the NOAB, it was "a summary of Peter's preaching". But Peter wasn't a witness to all events that Mark relates. Mark places Peter with the servants during Jesus' trial by the priests (Mark 14:54). Neither could Peter have been a witness to the trial by Pilate. So are we dealing with hearsay on top of hearsay. And when was Mark written. Most scholars date it at earliest 70 CE because of the "little apocalypse" in chapter 13. As mentioned earlier, we know of at least one significant alteration to the account in Mark chapter 16.

So, to review, he's our "star witness". His Gospel was the earliest and the others clearly got their story from him. His account is anonymous hearsay on hearsay, written 4 decades + after the alleged events and we know of at least one significant alteration to the modern account.

Next witness, your honor.

Next we have Matthew, who repeatedly perjured himself in his attempts to fabricate "prophecy". Examples:
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.
Matt 2:15 "Out of Egypt". This is a reference to Hosea 11:1 and is not a prophecy but refers to the Exodus.
Matt 2:17-18 "Rachael weeping". Read Jeremiah 31:15-16 in context. This is not a prophecy but about the Babylonian captivity.
Three lies and we're only into chapter 2.

Next witness!

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.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Reliable eye-witnesses" should be made of sterner stuff.

[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?

[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.

[DeistPaladin]

Well, it looks like we've officially lost my opponent in this debate. I thought Christmas Eve would be as good a time as any to wrap it up with my conclusion.

Perhaps we lost him because he thought he was signing up for a different debate, despite how I made the topic and terms clear. Judging by his posts, I think he was hoping to go for the usual tactic of shrinking Jesus down into some obscure religious teacher who falls into the gaps of our knowledge of the time and place. I'm sorry if he felt confused but I made it clear that this debate was over not just "some-guy-named-Yeshua" but whether or not the Gospels were based on a true story.

Some Christians who had PMed me about this debate challenge before immediately ran away when they realized the usual escape routes were sealed off. One accused me of trying to "rig the debate". Far from it. The terms were, I thought, quite generous to a defender of the faith. I allowed them to gloss over the miracles and we'd be using the Bible, their own Holy Book, as my primary source material. All the rules of this debate did was nail down the believer as to what the term "historical Jesus" even means. To debate anything, step 1 is to define in exact terms the thing being debated.

Put bluntly, I could not possibly care less if there was "some-guy-named-Yeshua-who-was-a-religious-teacher". Yeshua was a common name in that time and place and doom crier/messiah wannabe were common professions. If your definition of "The Historical Jesus" is this vague, you can likely find several in 1st century Judea that fit that description.

This is why the oblique references in the Annals of Tacitus and the Jamesian Reference in Josephus, even if we can be so charitable as to overlook the problems with both, do not avail the apologist in this debate. There are insufficient details in both to assert that the Gospels are at least based on a true story. Now the Testimonium Flavianum, if it WERE authentic, WOULD be the kind of evidence the apologist would need. I've already reviewed why it is not.

To break it down, a discussion of the "Historical Jesus", defined in terms of the Gospel character, should be over three aspects of his alleged life:
1. His miracles
2. His successful ministry
3. His teachings

His Miracles
The glossing over of miracles as described in the Gospels is a generous concession in this debate to the apologist. The reason is that if a man were going about healing the masses of their diseases and disabilities, such events should have gotten the attention of authorities or historians of the time.

His Ministry
The same could be said for a religious leader of such a controversial ministry, preached in such a volatile Roman province where authorities were always watchful of any potential insurrection. The Bible leads us to believe that Jesus shook the political and religious foundations of the time, that priests were always trying to trick him and eventually they met on Passover Eve in an elaborate conspiracy to get rid of him. It was not just peasants who sought him out but the wealthy and powerful. At the height of his ministry, he had his triumphant entry into Jerusalem with crowds waving palm leaves and crying "Hosanna" (Mark 11:7-11). This was no insignificant ministry.

Christians, aware of the oddity that such a ministry wouldn't even merit a mention from any non-Christian testimony until the second century, try to minimize Jesus. His ministry was only for the poor and the general masses, not something any notables would notice. This assertion, bare as it is, does not fit the Gospel accounts of a ministry that spread like wildfire to the surrounding provinces and got the attention of great notables like Herod Antipas and others.

His Teachings
What were they again? He wrote nothing down so already establishing what his teachings were is problematic. And what we have from other so-called "witnesses" and early theologians is contradictory. Did Jesus tell us to keep the OT laws, as Matthew would suggest or abolish them as Paul would suggest? Did Jesus teach he was a separate being from and subordinate servant to God, as the synoptic Gospels teach, or was he God incarnate, as John would suggest? Even the Gospels can't keep their own story straight, never mind the plethora of early heterodox Christians who had such radically different ideas of what Jesus was and what he stood for as to make the differences between modern Christians and Muslims look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

Modern Christians like to summarily dismiss all the heterodox Christians, the Ebionites, Marcionites and Docetics, as minor schismatic groups but clearly they were a big problem for the early church. They warranted mention in two out of three of the canonical epistles of John as well as an entire council to hammer it all out three centuries after Jesus' ministry. If he did exist, he certainly failed to make anything clear to the followers he would leave behind. Good luck to anyone who wants to sort it all out now.

Conclusion
If there was a historical Jesus, we'll never know anything about him or be able to sort the real story away from all the myths and folklore. We simply do not have any reliable, detailed information to go on. The Gospels are NOT based on a true story. They can't even get their own story straight.

[side note to the moderators]
Chipan is welcome to post his rebuttle and conclusion as he likes. Unless he can dig up some heretofore undiscovered evidence, I already know he has nothing else to offer.