The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

IOW you need to introduce red herrings to try to dodge the point that the NT writings were circulated fairly quickly after they were written and people did indeed have Matthew to compare to Luke, yet didn't find them contradictory.

It's not a red herring when it relates to your assertions.

I've pointed out contradictions in the Gospel accounts. Your counter-thesis is that it's just not possible there could have been any contradictions because Christians would have been aware of them and wouldn't have believed them if that had been the case. Therefore, your logic seems to be, that there either must be an undefined very good reason for the contradictions or else historians must be wrong about the dates.

This is not just ad hoc reasoning but the ad hocs themselves aren't even proposed or defined. It's furthermore based on the bare assertion fallacy that the early Christians were all very well-educated and knew the dates of events like the death of Herod the Great with pin-point accuracy. You conclude with an argument from incredulity that it's impossible for you to imagine that the early Christians would have believed in such faulty history and so therefore there are no contradictions even when they can be shown to you.

Your reasoning only serves to underscore my point that religious people can believe almost anything when they really want to, then and now.

But brushing past your bare assertions and arguments from incredulity, I have pointed out that, according to the very Bible, there were early Christians during the lifetime of John who didn't believe Jesus was a flesh-and-blood being, surely a historical reality more obvious than the trivia of when a certain political leader died. Hence, a counter-example has been offered that does not conform to your thesis that the early Christians were both skeptical and fully educated about history.

I have also pointed out that early Christianity was deeply divided over what Jesus was, what he taught and when he lived and died. The early divisions among Christians would make modern Christianity vs. Islam seem like petty nit-picking in comparison. This too is a counter-example to your thesis of the early Christians being deeply skeptical and savvy about their history over the previous hundred years.

These are not red-herrings. These are contrary examples that debunk your bare assertions about the nature of the early Christians which you have used to support your argument from incredulity.

Now you are free to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Jesus Loves Me" all you like. But your argument, fallacy-ridden as it ever was to begin with, is fully debunked.

I don't regard the Iliad as such because there's no evidence that the authors themselves regarded it as any more than fanciful tales.

You don't regard the Iliad as history for the same reason you don't regard the mythology of other religions, currently practiced and otherwise, any differently than I do. You and I both are skeptical of fanciful tales when they are outside your religion. I just believe in one less collection of myths than you do.

We do have evidence that the NT writers considered their works to represent actual events.

Tell that to GC, who seems to think they were intended as parables.

It's a philosophical position that can't be proven right or wrong.

The burden is on you.

And regardless, you too make the same assumptions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You regard the extraordinary claims of others with as much skepticism as I do, except when they're part of your faith.

If I'm wrong about you, my dead father just spoke to me and told me to tell you that Jesus isn't real and you should worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now prove me wrong.

[Minimalist]

1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

See, D-P in the special definition of the words....which god himself has given to only these xtian fuckheads....what that actually means is that "we had butt sex in the dark....we know each other well."

Trying to make this shit say whatever they want it to say is part of their game.

[Godscreated]

Well if you insist DP can you prove it's not history?

A slaughter of all the infants around Jerusalem with no mention of it anywhere else.

Yeah, sounds like a history book to me.

First of all I did not say the Gospels were books of history, I've never said the Bible is a book of history, what I have stated was that it contains history and archaeologist have used the Bible to find many places because there were no other reliable sources. No the Bible is not meant to be a history book, yet it contains history within it.

Let's take a look at Herod the Great and the infants that were killed and why there was no supposed recording of the event.
First we'll look at Josephus and his lack of good historical record keeping. Josephus writing at the end of the first century AD may have not heard of the slaughter of the boys. Also, there was pivotal events in the first century AD Josephus did not record.
1) The Golden Roman Shields in Jerusalem which was the cause of the bad blood between Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate, Philo of Alexandria recorded this event. ( Embassy to Gaius 38:299-305; Maier 1996:109-121)
2) Josephus got some of his information from Nicolas of Damascus, who was Herod the Great's friend and personal historian. Nicolas may not have recorded such a tragic event to protect his friend and his own life. ( Brown 1993:226, footnote 34)

Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus birth to be around 300 people. (Albright and Mann 1971:19) The number of male children from new born up to 2 years old, 6 or 7. (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25) The killing of these boys would not be very note worth considering what was going on at the time.

Herod's reputation by history: Josephus did not record the murder of the boys by Herod the Great, however he recorded a number of murders by Herod the Great in order to keep his throne secure.
Herod's killings after he captured Jerusalem- his Hasmonean predecessors- Mattathias Antigonus executed, Herod killed 45 leading men of Antgonus party in 37 BC. (Antiquities 15:5-10; LCL 8:5-7)
Herod killed by strangling the elderly John Hycanus II in 30 BC. (Antiquities 15:173-178; LCL 8:83-85)
Herod killed his brother-in-law Aristobulus who was an 18 year old High Priest. He had him drowned in 35 BC. (Antiquities 15:50-56; LCL 8:25-29; Netzer 2001:21-25)
Herod killed his mother-in-law, Alexandra in 28 BC (Antiquities 15:222-236; LCL 8:107-113.
Herod setup a spy network to eliminate people suspected of revolt, most disappearing at Hyrcania. (Antiquities 15:365-372; LCL 8:177-181)
Herod killed three of his sons, two in 7 BC, one five days before Herod's death. (Antiquities 16:392-394 and 17:182-187)
Herod became very paranoid the last 4 years of his life, (8-4 BC) in 7 BC he had 300 military leaders executed. (Antiquities 16:393-394; LCL 8:365)
On another occasion Herod killed several Pharisees for a prophecy against him. (Antiquities 17:42-45; LCL 8:393)
Herod tried to kill many notable Jews upon his death, however his sister Salome rescind the order to kill them at the moment of his death.
Herod had a historical/psychological analysis and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder. (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431) In the early 1980's psychiatrists and psychologists examined Herod's life and diagnosed him as a paranoind schizophrenic.

Now for what you said was never recorded in history: Macrobius in 400 AD, who was one of the last pagan writers in Rome wrote: When it was heard that, as a part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his son killed, he the Emperor Augustus remarked, it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son. Herod would not kill a pig because he kept kosher among the Jews; yet he had no problem killing his own sons.

I believe it's more reasonable to believe Herod did murder those boys because of the history recorded and expert diagnosis of his mental health, than to believe Joseph had a house in Bethlehem. Can you bring this kind of evidence about the house you suppose Joseph owned in Bethlehem.

GC

---

There is no unbroken day-by-day chronology of events in the Johannine Gospel which would prevent Jesus from having been out in the wilderness prior to John 1:29.

What Bible are you reading? JtB makes it clear he is seeing JC for the first time at that point. JC couldn't have had his wilderness adventures with Satan prior because the Synoptics maintain this happened after his meeting with JtB.

John
1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me
1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

I don't know how he could be more clear that this is the day the two met and the next day...

You Both are reading the same Bible, you DP need to carefully read those passages again, they do not state that John is meeting Jesus for the first time. What John is saying, that at some past point they met and he saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus and he says this is when he knew this was Christ the Son of God. There is no reference to the Holy Spirit coming upon Jesus at the time of these verses, it's clear the experience happened some time earlier than this. These verses most likely occupy the time right after the 40 days in the desert and the ministry of Jesus by the angels.

GC

[Lion IRC]

Agreed.
Clearly past tense testimony.

[DeistPaladin]

You Both are reading the same Bible, you DP need to carefully read those passages again, they do not state that John is meeting Jesus for the first time.

I guess JtB was in the habit of always greeting Jesus with "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

"You need a shorter greeting, John." said Jesus after the 10th time, "Try, 'Hey Jesus' like everyone else."

[Tonus]

"You need a shorter greeting, John." said Jesus after the 10th time, "Try, 'Hey Jesus' like everyone else."

I think Jesus was grateful that JtB hadn't adopted the "'sup bitch" greeting that Judas was fond of using.

[Godscreated]

You Both are reading the same Bible, you DP need to carefully read those passages again, they do not state that John is meeting Jesus for the first time.

I guess JtB was in the habit of always greeting Jesus with "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

"You need a shorter greeting, John." said Jesus after the 10th time, "Try, 'Hey Jesus' like everyone else."

That was not a greeting, it was an introduction to others, indicating John had met Jesus on a previous occasion.

GC

[John V]

It's not a red herring when it relates to your assertions.

Yes, but it doesn't relate, so it is a red herring.

I've pointed out contradictions in the Gospel accounts.

You've alleged contradictions.

Your counter-thesis is that it's just not possible there could have been any contradictions because Christians would have been aware of them and wouldn't have believed them if that had been the case.

No, my main argument was that there was no contradiction based on the text alone. You needed to add to the text to create contradiction. Then regarding historical events I noted that I take the word of people who lived close in time to the events over the word of some historians thousands of years later. It was only when you misunderstood this argument and said that early Christians didn't have both Matt & Luke for comparison that I had to show you're wrong on that count, too.

Therefore, your logic seems to be, that there either must be an undefined very good reason for the contradictions or else historians must be wrong about the dates.

This is not just ad hoc reasoning but the ad hocs themselves aren't even proposed or defined. It's furthermore based on the bare assertion fallacy that the early Christians were all very well-educated and knew the dates of events like the death of Herod the Great with pin-point accuracy.

Bullshit. You're alleging a difference of ten years. They didn't need pinpoint accuracy. If Luke were off on the rulers by ten years, people of the time would have known. Your desperation is showing in the pinpoint accuracy exaggeration.

But brushing past your bare assertions and arguments from incredulity, I have pointed out that, according to the very Bible, there were early Christians during the lifetime of John who didn't believe Jesus was a flesh-and-blood being, surely a historical reality more obvious than the trivia of when a certain political leader died. Hence, a counter-example has been offered that does not conform to your thesis that the early Christians were both skeptical and fully educated about history.

Again, a theological position has nothing to do with knowledge of mundane history. Non sequitur and poisoning the well fallacies.

If I'm wrong about you, my dead father just spoke to me and told me to tell you that Jesus isn't real and you should worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now prove me wrong.

Until I have reason to believe that you've provided extraordinary evidence, you're not on the level of Jesus and the apostles.

[DeistPaladin]

That was not a greeting, it was an introduction to others, indicating John had met Jesus on a previous occasion.

OK, let's for the sake of argument accept your explanation.

The Gospel of John then says that he began to gather certain disciples the next day:

John 1:40-44 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

So Jesus called Peter and Andrew, who lived in Bethsaida, All this happened prior to the arrest of John the Baptist.

John 3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

This does not sync with the Synoptic accounts, which establishes that Peter and Andrew lived in Capernaum.

Mark 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. [...]
Mark 1:29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

And they were called after the arrest of John the Baptist

Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.

Kind of a different story too, wouldn't you agree? In one case, one hears Jesus speaks and goes to tell the other. In the other case, they're fishing and Jesus greets them. And how did Peter find out Jesus was the messiah, again? John tells the story (above) about how his brother told him so. Yet, Matthew tells the story of how no man (or flesh) had revealed it to him but the father that was in Heaven.

Matt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And then there's the temple tantrum at the beginning of his ministry (John) instead of at the end (Synoptics). There's the fact that JtB didn't have to be arrested first before Jesus started his ministry (John). Then JC even beats JtB at his own game (what a guy). Jesus bases his ministry around Jerusalem in John but around Galilee in the Synoptics, eventually making his way to Jerusalem. Jesus is the "I am" character in John's Gospel, baring little resemblance to the more modest and human character in the Synoptics. On and on it goes...

There's a reason the first three are called "Synoptic" (similar). John wrote a different story about a different Jesus.

[Minimalist]

He sure as shit, did.

In fact, the earliest commentary on the so-called gospel of john comes from the Valentinian school which was later denounced as heretics.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm

Irenaeus, in his work The Detection and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Gnosis (written c. 180, also called Adversus Heraeses or "Against Heresies"), recorded a commentary written by the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy (second century) on the Prologue to the Gospel of John (Irenaeus, Adversus Heraeses 1.8.5). In this commentary, Ptolemy interpreted the prologue of John's gospel (John 1:1-14) as it related to the first octet of Aions, the initial "outflow" of divine emanation from the First Source.

Now if it were just one writing perhaps it could be dismissed.....but it isn't.

http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm

The first known Gospel commentary was a commentary on the Gospel of John written around 170 AD. It was authored by a prominent Gnostic Christian and disciple of Valentinus, Heracleon. Heracleon was one of the most important Biblical exegetes of his day. His writings were carefully read by orthodox theologians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria.

It seems that Irenaeus and his ilk decided to reclaim "john's" bullshit in the same way that "paul" was reclaimed from the Marcionites. Let's face it, this shit is all so poorly written that a few minor edits can make it say whatever the fuck you want it to say and who's the wiser?

I'm afraid that our resident xtian pals have falled for the Eusebian version of church history in which they think their shit was the way it always was.

It wasn't. And the early church did its fucking dead-level best to suppress any evidence to the contrary.

And failed. What a wonderful find was made at Nag Hammadi. Without it we might not know what the gnostics were saying as opposed to proto-orthodox horseshit.