For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Undeceived]

The Bible is prone to no error

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one? That's like you claiming there was a president between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon named Johnny Cool. Any fool could look it up and your story would lose credibility. Instead, history shows us that people believed Luke's account, as early as 60AD, which is why Christianity exploded in the way that it did.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that's why christianity "exploded the way it did"?

[FallentoReason]

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one?

Would two Gospels have recorded a virgin birth even though the OT didn't mention such a prophecy?

Cognitive dissonance my friend. Luckily for you (and unluckily for the world) you will do anything to find an explanation for your faith's shortcomings in order to save your beliefs instead of seeing it for what it is: a fraudulent bunch of made up lies, courtesy of dishonest Christians.

[Minimalist]

Correct. It is in fact the rest of the ancient world that decided to ignore a census that our Lord recorded in Luke's Gospel.

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one? That's like you claiming there was a president between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon named Johnny Cool. Any fool could look it up and your story would lose credibility. Instead, history shows us that people believed Luke's account, as early as 60AD, which is why Christianity exploded in the way that it did.

I am finding it hard to accept that you could be as stupid as you sound...but you are convincing me.

No one heard of "Luke's" account until Irenaeus named it so....at the end of the 2d century AD. Try...just once...to get your head out of your ass.

[Undeceived]

By now you've heard many possible explanations for Luke's wording. Would Luke have recorded a census if there wasn't one?

Would two Gospels have recorded a virgin birth even though the OT didn't mention such a prophecy?

Is this a red herring? If you want to switch topics, fine, but I don't understand the point this is supposed to make. The virgin birth may or may not have been prophesied (http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/2007/11...cy-or.html ), but if it wasn't, doesn't that make it all the less likely that two writers would record it?

No one heard of "Luke's" account until Irenaeus named it so....at the end of the 2d century AD.

Acts was most certainly written in the 60s AD (http://carm.org/when-was-acts-written ). We also know that the same man wrote both Acts and Luke, with Acts presumably part two of a set written to a patron by the name of Theophilus (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1). The question whether this man was "Luke" himself is an inconsequential one-- but we do have evidence for it. Paul calls Luke his "dear friend Luke, the doctor" (Col. 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phm 24). Luke shows good knowledge of medical conditions as well as a sophisticated vocabulary, which is what one would expect from a real-life physician.

[FallentoReason]

Is this a red herring? If you want to switch topics, fine, but I don't understand the point this is supposed to make.

My point is that we have clear examples of fabrications by the early Christians, yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact, as you demonstrated with the post before this one.

The virgin birth may or may not have been prophesied (http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/2007/11...cy-or.html ), but if it wasn't, doesn't that make it all the less likely that two writers would record it?

It doesn't matter if 100 hearsay accounts had recorded it, why, because the OT doesn't claim any such thing. It's a clear indication of Christians mistranslating the OT which inevitably exposes the whole thing as a fabrication.

Also consider Paul's epistles which were written first; he mentions Jesus being "born of a woman". Nowhere does he say "born of Mary the Virgin" which once again exposes the Gospels as being at odds with the rest of the Bible.

[Minimalist]

Learn about Marcion.... but try to absorb what this is saying.

http://www.marcion.info/

Christians like to tell us that Marcion changed the Bible to suit his theology. However it appeared to me from the beginning that before Marcion there was no documented history of Christianity as we know it. So for example there are no reliable historical contemporary accounts of Paul, Peter, Luke, Mark or even the Jesus that we think of today. Likewise archaeological New Testament fragments have been dated starting around 190 AD, again consistent with the first New Testament being written 140 AD.

In addition Bible scholars who actually question things have come to the conclusion that some of the Pauline epistles were added later than whoever wrote the first ones. Their conclusions are consistent with Marcion's Bible being the original text.

The longest intact early xtian writings we have are Justin Martyr's Apologies. He wrote one to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD. In it, he has never heard of any "paul" or any 'matthew', mark, luke, or john. But he had heard of Marcion. And from what scholars have been able to piece together of Marcion's canon it included a watered-down version of "luke" ( or perhaps it was the original and which was later "watered-up" by xtian forgers?). It also included a handful of epistles which were attributed to some guy named paul and which were most likely written or at least edited by Marcion.

In any case, the xtian literature factory begins in the second half of the second century and Greco-Roman writers start to take serious notice of them at that time.

[Undeceived]

My point is that we have clear examples of fabrications by the early Christians, yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact, as you demonstrated with the post before this one.

It doesn't matter if 100 hearsay accounts had recorded it, why, because the OT doesn't claim any such thing. It's a clear indication of Christians mistranslating the OT which inevitably exposes the whole thing as a fabrication.

Woah, slow down. Let me see if I can state your argument. You're saying that there are clear fabrications by early Christians and the virgin birth described by Matthew is one of them. Your argument, as close as I can come to:
1) The old Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, making the translation "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a [young woman] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
2) Matthew in 1:23 writes “The virgin [parthenos] will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”
3) almah "young woman" and parthenos "virgin" have two entirely different meanings
C) Matthew purposely mistranslated Isaiah's words.
The trouble here is you're using inductive reasoning-- you don't have all the information. Matthew did not translate from the Hebrew Old Testament. He used the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. It is the Septuagint, not Matthew, that swaps parthenos for almah and shifts the meaning. And I would guess that these 2nd century BC Jews (who predated Jesus) had good reason for making the translation. Meanings of words evolve over time. Now I'm speculating, but in ancient Jewish times "young woman" had always entailed the woman being a virgin. Therefore, translators decided to transliterate the word in order to preserve its intended meaning over its literal meaning. Even if you disagree, it is clear that Matthew harbored no dishonest intentions.

If I misinterpreted your thoughts, please state your argument. You merely asserted "we have clear examples of fabrications... yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact" and kind of left me out to dry. We may not be engaging in formal debate, but if you want to get any of your words across (and I hope that is their goal) you must communicate effectively. Write for your reader, not for yourself. That way you'll at least have the appearance of open-mindedness. If you don't intend to convince me, why post replies at all? Convincing requires evidence. Provide some. What other "clear fabrications" do you have up your sleeve?

Also consider Paul's epistles which were written first; he mentions Jesus being "born of a woman". Nowhere does he say "born of Mary the Virgin" which once again exposes the Gospels as being at odds with the rest of the Bible.

"At odds" is a strong misuse of words. "Lacks explicit accordance with" is more accurate. While Paul did not specifically mention the virgin birth, his doctrine fits like a glove. He writes that Jesus "though existing in the form of God" emptied himself and took on human form, "being made in the likeness of humankind" (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the "riches" of Jesus' pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes "In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . ." (Galatians 4:4), referring only to Mary, ignoring the usual way of naming a son by his father. The implication of these texts is that Jesus' mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus' pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God--eliminating any necessity for a human father. The virgin birth is necessary to God's triune nature, but not so important that every Christian have the facts repeated to them. Recall that Paul mentions few other Gospel events. His letters are meant to be accompaniments to the eyewitness accounts that were already circulating. They addressed practical issues within the church, and focused almost exclusively on Jesus' death and resurrection and what that victory means for us. Paul even professes, "I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle," (1 Cor 15:9) drawing a line between he, who persecuted the church, and the disciples who personally knew and followed Jesus. He preached only what had been revealed to him, as 15:3 states, "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me." In short, 1) Paul's teaching on God's nature welcomes the virgin birth; 2) Joseph is never mentioned; and 3) Paul didn't feel it was his place, nor necessary, to discuss the virgin birth.

---

Learn about Marcion.... but try to absorb what this is saying.

http://www.marcion.info/

The website's argument seems to be that Marcion is the first, largest canon in its time, so therefore it predates all the Gospels and letters it contains (correct me if I'm wrong). But it overlooks the dozens of quotes by early church fathers of other Gospels and letters. Christians had already circulated and accepted much that Marcion did not include: http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCan...rences.htm
If you wish to read more about your latest conspiracy theory: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-canon-of-marcion.htm

[Confused Ape]

The longest intact early xtian writings we have are Justin Martyr's Apologies. He wrote one to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD. In it, he has never heard of any "paul" or any 'matthew', mark, luke, or john. But he had heard of Marcion. And from what scholars have been able to piece together of Marcion's canon it included a watered-down version of "luke" ( or perhaps it was the original and which was later "watered-up" by xtian forgers?). It also included a handful of epistles which were attributed to some guy named paul and which were most likely written or at least edited by Marcion.

I've invented a conspiracy theory about why Justin Martyr never mentioned Paul.

Marcion lived (c.85 – c.160) and he was still busy with his school of theology after he'd been excommunicated.

In 144, Marcion became one of the first declared heresiarchs for his deviations from the orthodox viewpoints of the apostolic church. The suppression of the Marcionist form of Christianity, if it can be called "a form of Christianity," is thus viewed[9] as a catalyst for the development of the New Testament canon, the establishment of a centralised church law, and the structuring of the Church.

The church that Marcion founded had expanded throughout the known world within his lifetime, and was a rival to the orthodox Christian church. Its adherents were strong enough in their convictions that the Marcionite church retained its expansive power for more than a century. It survived Christian controversy, and imperial disapproval, for several centuries more.[10]

Marcion was promoting Paul as being the only apostle who knew what Jesus had taught. Letters which scholars consider to be 'authentic Paul' could well be 'authentic Marcion' because he forged them - First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD), Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD), Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD), First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD), Galatians (ca. 55 AD), Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD), Romans (ca. 55-58 AD) These undisputed epistles aren't all that undisputed.

See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.

3: The Roman faction decided to keep the forged Paul letters and rewrite them Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225 AD) seems to have been involved in this.

In his work against Marcion, which he calls his third composition on the Marcionite heresy, he gives its date as the fifteenth year of the reign of Severus (Adv. Marcionem, i.1, 15)—which would be approximately the year 208.

Book Five of Tertullian's work refers to all the letters in the 'authentic Paul' list and says how Marcion had pruned and mutilated them. This kind of report would be essential for a faction which was rewriting the letters and adding extra bits to them so they're 'authodox Paul'.

Justin's First Apology refers to Marcion. The estimated date of writing is 155-157.

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

Now to something very odd about Justin's writings when he never mentioned Paul. Sources - Letters

Reflecting his opposition to Marcion, Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John.

I then went to jesusneverexisted.com and discovered that doing a browser search for Justin turned up an interesting bit of information tucked away at the side.

"It was unfortunate that Marcion had made himself the champion of Paul. Paul's letters composed more than half of his new Scripture.

This is the explanation of the curious reticence about Paul that characterizes Justin in the two works of his that have come down to us: the Apology and the Dialogue. He uses Paul freely in them, it is true, but never once mentions his name."

– Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, 1937, xxi.

A mystery indeed. There were all kinds of texts around in those days and people sometimes borrowed or paraphrased bits and pieces in other texts. What if Marcion's forged letters didn't include the content that Justin quoted and this was added later by Tertullian's faction who were rewriting the letters for their own purposes? It would be a great idea if they could promote the idea that Paul said these things first.

Justin's own work was concerned with Prophetic Exegesis and the Memoirs Of The Apostles.

Justin may have preferred the designation "memoirs of the apostles" as a contrast to the "gospel" of his contemporary Marcion to emphasize the connections between the historical testimony of the gospels and the Old Testament prophecies which Marcion rejected.[30]

Justin was only interested in writing about Old Testament prophecies and how he thought they'd been fulfilled in the "memoirs of the apostles" who were Jesus's disciples. No reason at all to mention Paul because he wasn't one of Jesus's disciples so maybe that was exactly what Justin intended.

Justin was regarded as a great guy by a lot of the Church Fathers.

The earliest mention of Justin is found in the Oratio ad Graecos by Tatian, who calls him "the most admirable Justin," quotes a saying of his, and says that the Cynic Crescens laid snares for him. Irenaeus[17] speaks of his martyrdom and of Tatian as his disciple. Irenaeus quotes Justin twice,[18] and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian, in his Adversus Valentinianos, calls Justin a philosopher and martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. Hippolytus and Methodius of Olympus also mention or quote him. Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length,[19] and names the following works:

The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;[20], a Second Apology addressed to the Roman Senate; the Discourse to the Greeks, a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods; an Hortatory Address to the Greeks; a treatise On the Sovereignty of God, in which he makes use of pagan authorities as well as Christian; a work entitled The Psalmist; a treatise in scholastic form On the Soul; and the Dialogue with Trypho.

Eusebius (AD 263 – 339) implies that other works were in circulation; from St Irenaeus (2nd century – c. 202 CE) he knows of the apology "Against Marcion," and from Justin's "Apology"[21] of a "Refutation of all Heresies ".[22] Epiphanius[23] and St Jerome[24] mention Justin.

From Early Christian Writings introduction to Justin Martyr's Works.

Justin's first work seems to have been his treatise Against all Heresies [now lost]

Irenaeus tells us that Justin Martyr wrote a work against Marcion, which is now lost. Some authentic materials are preserved in the fragments of Justin quoted by other writers, although some of these fragments may be suspect.

The 'orthodox church' tended to cherish books against heresies but Justin, although he was praised by all, wrote two anti-heresy books which mysteriously disappeared. Eusebius has heard of one from Justin's First Apology.

But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

Eusebius doesn't include the treatise against all the heresies in his list of Justin's works either because he'd only heard about it from Irenaeus who died not long before Tertullian published his own five books against Marcion, written in 207 or 208.

I wonder what Justin said in his texts against heresies. Could he have complained about Paul being promoted as more important than Jesus's disciples? If so, it's possible that his texts were whisked away when Tertullian's faction decided to promote their own version of Paul as being super-apostle

[FallentoReason]

My point is that we have clear examples of fabrications by the early Christians, yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact, as you demonstrated with the post before this one.

It doesn't matter if 100 hearsay accounts had recorded it, why, because the OT doesn't claim any such thing. It's a clear indication of Christians mistranslating the OT which inevitably exposes the whole thing as a fabrication.

Woah, slow down. Let me see if I can state your argument. You're saying that there are clear fabrications by early Christians and the virgin birth described by Matthew is one of them. Your argument, as close as I can come to:
1) The old Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, making the translation "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a [young woman] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
2) Matthew in 1:23 writes “The virgin [parthenos] will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.”
3) almah "young woman" and parthenos "virgin" have two entirely different meanings
C) Matthew purposely mistranslated Isaiah's words.
The trouble here is you're using inductive reasoning-- you don't have all the information. Matthew did not translate from the Hebrew Old Testament. He used the Septuagint, or Greek Old Testament. It is the Septuagint, not Matthew, that swaps parthenos for almah and shifts the meaning. And I would guess that these 2nd century BC Jews (who predated Jesus) had good reason for making the translation. Meanings of words evolve over time. Now I'm speculating, but in ancient Jewish times "young woman" had always entailed the woman being a virgin. Therefore, translators decided to transliterate the word in order to preserve its intended meaning over its literal meaning. Even if you disagree, it is clear that Matthew harbored no dishonest intentions.

Let's go with this for a second. It is still clear that the story as a whole is a fabrication because the bit Matthew is quoting isn't even a prophecy to begin with. Even if it was, it hasn't been fulfilled. Notice Matthew's cheeky sleight of hand:

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.

Matthew has changed it from being the mother who will call the son Immanuel, to the general public calling him Immanuel "which means God with us", because quite clearly, the "messiah" isn't called Immanuel. The simple explanation to this is, as I stated, that Isaiah isn't talking about some messiah. He's talking with king Ahaz about his enemies and what not. So clearly, when one reads the chapter properly, the entire aura surrounding this verse as a "messianic prophecy" vanishes.

If I misinterpreted your thoughts, please state your argument. You merely asserted "we have clear examples of fabrications... yet none of you are capable of accepting this fact" and kind of left me out to dry. We may not be engaging in formal debate, but if you want to get any of your words across (and I hope that is their goal) you must communicate effectively. Write for your reader, not for yourself. That way you'll at least have the appearance of open-mindedness. If you don't intend to convince me, why post replies at all? Convincing requires evidence. Provide some. What other "clear fabrications" do you have up your sleeve?

My apologies. At times, I post when I'm on my way into the city and I don't take much care in writing an in depth post.

"At odds" is a strong misuse of words. "Lacks explicit accordance with" is more accurate. While Paul did not specifically mention the virgin birth, his doctrine fits like a glove. He writes that Jesus "though existing in the form of God" emptied himself and took on human form, "being made in the likeness of humankind" (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further "though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the "riches" of Jesus' pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes "In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman . . ." (Galatians 4:4), referring only to Mary, ignoring the usual way of naming a son by his father. The implication of these texts is that Jesus' mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus' pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God--eliminating any necessity for a human father. The virgin birth is necessary to God's triune nature, but not so important that every Christian have the facts repeated to them. Recall that Paul mentions few other Gospel events. His letters are meant to be accompaniments to the eyewitness accounts that were already circulating. They addressed practical issues within the church, and focused almost exclusively on Jesus' death and resurrection and what that victory means for us. Paul even professes, "I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle," (1 Cor 15:9) drawing a line between he, who persecuted the church, and the disciples who personally knew and followed Jesus. He preached only what had been revealed to him, as 15:3 states, "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me." In short, 1) Paul's teaching on God's nature welcomes the virgin birth; 2) Joseph is never mentioned; and 3) Paul didn't feel it was his place, nor necessary, to discuss the virgin birth.

There's a lot there which isn't really on topic. All I will say is that Paul could have easily used the word for "virgin" when referring to his birth. Only then I might believe you that he was referring only to Mary, but the fact that he simply says "a woman" (not even a "young" woman at that) seems to show he was unfamiliar with Jesus' alleged miraculous birth, let alone anyone by the name of "Mary". I just don't see how you could think he was somehow explicitly referring to Mary. Only through wishful thinking...