Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this.

I appreciate that. The others here may be a bit more short because, whether you realize it or not, these are arguments we've heard over and over. Some people tire of making the same points repeatedly and find it easier to go straight to derision or dismissal.

One way we could approach a discussion of why I find Christian arguments unconvincing or why you find them compelling is through a debate. You can pick any topic you like, though I favor a discussion of the Bible.

I debated one Christian on the topic of "whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story". Unfortunately, he thought he was debating the Jesus myth and was completely unprepared for the actual topic of discussion. I'm a "Jesus Mooter", not a "Jesus Myther". It's a subtle distinction, one lost on my then opponent who apparently abandoned the debate in frustration.

Just so I don't make the same mistake with you, I want to be clear on my view of the Bible and in particular Christian claims about Jesus. I couldn't care less whether or not there might have been some mortal man named Yeshua who was perhaps a messiah wannabe who ran afoul of either the Romans or the Jewish priests. Such a vague person slips through the cracks of our, at times, fuzzy knowledge of the ancient world. I can't prove a negative or that someone of this generic description did or did not exist.

My concern is whether or not we can know much of anything about this character. Since the only detailed accounts we have come from the Gospels (putting the controversial TF of Josephus aside for a moment), the question is whether or not we can dependably place the label "based on a true story" on all four of the Gospel accounts.

What "based on a true story" means exactly is subjective. I'm willing to be quite liberal on that phrase and even throw out the divinity and the miracles, even though doing so kind of guts the story (it would be like The Historical Clark Kent, only without the costume, super powers or alien ancestry). If we can't use this term even with the most generous of license, then the existence of a "Historical Jesus", whatever that even means, is moot.

Hence, I'm a Jesus Mooter.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I for one would like to see that debate happen. Props for suggesting it.

[Minimalist]

By the way, there is no mention of Noah's Ark having a propulsion system because it more than likely did not have a propulsion system.

Yes. Yet another indication that the desert-dwelling shitheads who wrote it had no conception of what it meant to sail a ship in a storm.

[discipulus]

DeistPaladin I perceive you, more so than anyone else here that I have talked with, have the ability to present your arguments clearly and concisely. I also think you make some points that are worthy of a thoughtful response.

Is there a way that we can have a formal debate here on this forum just between you and I for all to view? If so I would like to extend a cordial invitation to you to debate on whether or not the four gospels constitute a reliable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Think over the matter and let me know what you think.

Thank you for considering this.

I appreciate that. The others here may be a bit more short because, whether you realize it or not, these are arguments we've heard over and over. Some people tire of making the same points repeatedly and find it easier to go straight to derision or dismissal.

One way we could approach a discussion of why I find Christian arguments unconvincing or why you find them compelling is through a debate. You can pick any topic you like, though I favor a discussion of the Bible.

I debated one Christian on the topic of "whether or not the Gospels are based on a true story". Unfortunately, he thought he was debating the Jesus myth and was completely unprepared for the actual topic of discussion. I'm a "Jesus Mooter", not a "Jesus Myther". It's a subtle distinction, one lost on my then opponent who apparently abandoned the debate in frustration.

Just so I don't make the same mistake with you, I want to be clear on my view of the Bible and in particular Christian claims about Jesus. I couldn't care less whether or not there might have been some mortal man named Yeshua who was perhaps a messiah wannabe who ran afoul of either the Romans or the Jewish priests. Such a vague person slips through the cracks of our, at times, fuzzy knowledge of the ancient world. I can't prove a negative or that someone of this generic description did or did not exist.

My concern is whether or not we can know much of anything about this character. Since the only detailed accounts we have come from the Gospels (putting the controversial TF of Josephus aside for a moment), the question is whether or not we can dependably place the label "based on a true story" on all four of the Gospel accounts.

What "based on a true story" means exactly is subjective. I'm willing to be quite liberal on that phrase and even throw out the divinity and the miracles, even though doing so kind of guts the story (it would be like The Historical Clark Kent, only without the costume, super powers or alien ancestry). If we can't use this term even with the most generous of license, then the existence of a "Historical Jesus", whatever that even means, is moot.

Hence, I'm a Jesus Mooter.

Excellent! So good so far.

Before I enter into debate, I generally go over some things with my fellow debater so that we both can kind of get an idea of what each other's views are on subjects relating to the actual debate topic. Since the debate topic will be focused on the gospels and Jesus of Nazareth I think we can begin there and go over some preliminary points.

I would like to know your view on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. My view regarding the matter can be summed up in several quotes that I have provided from from "LiveScience". The article quotes Marcus Borg a fellow of the Jesus Seminar which represents the views of the most critical biblical scholars.

The following "facts" about Jesus would be affirmed by most history scholars, Borg said:

"Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class." -Marcus Borg, a retired professor of religion and culture at Oregon State University and current fellow of the Jesus Seminar. http://www.livescience.com/3482-jesus-man.html

Before I go any further do you agree with the above?

[Ryantology]

If that is how I came to the conclusion that the truth claims of Christianity were true, then your point might have validity.

Since that is not how I arrived at my conclusions, nor have I stated that was how I went about my investigative research, your argument is a strawman.

I didn't say you did. You do, however, partially justify your conclusion on the assumption that the Gospels are historical documents rather than goofy stories. They are what passes for evidence in your eyes, because you have lower standards for evidence than I do.

And, to be perfectly honest, they aren't really worth anything to you, either. If the Gospels were revealed to be complete fakes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would that diminish your faith or alter your core beliefs? I think it's safe to say not. You personally require no evidence and mistrust the very idea of it. You want it to be true and you're going to convince yourself it is, no matter what.

[discipulus]

I didn't say you did. You do, however, partially justify your conclusion on the assumption that the Gospels are historical documents rather than goofy stories. They are what passes for evidence in your eyes, because you have lower standards for evidence than I do.

The gospels are historical documents. You may not think they are reliable accounts of the events they purport to report, but they are historical documents.

And, to be perfectly honest, they aren't really worth anything to you, either. If the Gospels were revealed to be complete fakes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would that diminish your faith or alter your core beliefs? I think it's safe to say not. You personally require no evidence and mistrust the very idea of it. You want it to be true and you're going to convince yourself it is, no matter what.

I personally require no evidence? I mistrust the very idea of evidence?

What makes you think that?

[Ryantology]

The gospels are historical documents. You may not think they are reliable accounts of the events they purport to report, but they are historical documents.

They are about as historical as the Odyssey. Less interesting, as well.

I personally require no evidence? I mistrust the very idea of evidence?

What makes you think that?

You're a Christian. It's a defining trait.

[discipulus]

The gospels are historical documents. You may not think they are reliable accounts of the events they purport to report, but they are historical documents.

They are about as historical as the Odyssey. Less interesting, as well.

I personally require no evidence? I mistrust the very idea of evidence?

What makes you think that?

You're a Christian. It's a defining trait.

Oh ok.

[DeistPaladin]

Before I go any further do you agree with the above?

In a word: no.

Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C.

Not according to the Gospels.

• Luke has Mary pregnant during the administration of Qurinius, which began in 6 CE.
  
• According to Luke, Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry.
  
• According to Luke, John the Baptist started his ministry during the 15th year of Tiberius, 28/29 CE.
  
• Matt, Mark and Luke agree that JC began his ministry after JtB was put in prison. Details are sketchy here but I will argue this couldn't have been much before 34 CE.
  
• If JC had been born before 4 BCE, he would have been too old by the time of JtB's arrest.
  
• There was no census in 4 BCE. The closest BC census was in 8/9 BC.
  
• In 4 BC, under Herod the Great, Judea was a ally of Rome, not subject to direct taxation and census.
  
• Luke's timeline is the best fit for JC, since "about 30" allows for a 6 CE birth and a 34 CE beginning of his ministry (28 = about 30) and it allows three Passover festivals outlined in John before Pilate is recalled to Rome in 36 CE.
  

If I WERE to speculate on a birthdate, 6 CE seems more likely.

The one glaring problem with Luke's timeline is the 10 year pregnancy of Mary. Mary's pregnancy began under the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). Then again, those sons of god may take longer to bake in the oven.

He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class.

Falsifiability is a pretty important part of making assertions and claiming them to be proven. How might I disprove this assertion, were I inclined to argue against it? There were no detailed records of what peasants were born and raised where and Yeshua was a common name.

It may be so and what then?

Continuing with that linked article:

Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life. His intention was not to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as doing something within Judaism.

Certainly consistent with the "Synoptic Gospels" (Matt, Mark, Luke). Their Jesus was a holy man who was clearly separate from and subordinate to his father god. He had less knowledge than his father ("No man knows the day, not even the Son, but the Father alone"), he has a subordinate will ("Not my will by thine be done") and he speaks about his Father in third person and to him in second person.

Not so much with John.

• Jesus in John claims to be one with his father ("I and my Father are one"), wholly blasphemous to the Jewish faith.
  
• Jesus claims to be an intercessor to God ("no man commeth unto the Father but through me"), a role forbidden in strict Jewish monotheism (Isaiah 43:10-12, "I, even I am Lord. Beside me there is no savior. I have saved. I have Judged.")
  
• "The Jews", named as such, are a separate and hostile religious group in John.
  

In all Gospels, Jesus preaches a message about salvation and Hell, something unknown to the OT. However, by JC's day, Judaism had likely morphed and incorporated pagan concepts. Many Jews chaffing under Roman rule, wondering where the heck was Yahweh's promise to the seed of David, may have decided their kingdom was in a higher place.

He left Nazareth as an adult, met the prophet John and was baptized by John. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision.

The Jesus of the Gospel of John never baptizes Jesus. In the others, the vision is shared by all present. JtB supposedly bore witness and the booming voice should have been heard by everyone there.

Shortly afterwards, Jesus began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God."

That's the story though the itinerary is fuzzy. The Synoptics say that Jesus was "immediately" taken into the wilderness for 40 days. When he came back, JtB was put in prison. The Gospel of John says that JC spent the next three days gathering disciples and attending a wedding. JtB was not arrested right away and Jesus opens a rival baptism franchise and beats JtB at his own game. What a guy!

He became a noted healer, teacher and prophet. More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.

"Scholars" don't take these supernatural accounts seriously, do they?

He was executed by Roman imperial authority.

This part we can gleen from Tacitus. However, the entry is oblique and 2nd century. It doesn't even mention Jesus by name. Clearly, this religious leader wasn't well known outside his cult following and insignificant to the authorities. I'm not saying he wasn't crucified and fanciful stories weren't told of his resurrection afterwards. People claimed to see Elvis long after his death. I am saying that notables didn't seem to take much notice of him until later centuries.

His followers experienced him after his death. It is clear that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "Lord" or "the Son of God."

Such is the folklore of the supposed "early church". The only 1st century Christian persecution I'm aware of is the Neronian fire, and even this was more of a scapegoating of a small minority, who likely had neither warning nor opportunity to escape.

The letters of Pliny the Elder run contrary to the folklore established by Hollywood, with early Christians holding their heads high, refusing to renounce their savoir as they were horribly tortured and killed at the hands of pagan Romans as the background orchestra swells. In reality, Rome was apathetic to different religions and only turned on them when their proponents rebelled against Roman authority. More to the point, Pliny seems to have no idea who these Christians are or what to do with them. Putting them under the lash, these Christians renounce Jesus, contrary to the heroic folklore.

As if the picture weren't muddy enough, the very "early church" is a dubious organization. Actual history shows that there were a wild variety of early Christianities. They disagreed on how many gods there were, whether Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person, when Jesus lived, what Jesus was, what Jesus died for or even whether he died at all. The modern distinction between Christian and Muslim would look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

Echoes of this early struggle within the Church can be read in the Bible itself. Read 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7. These verses are supposedly written by "John the disciple" (in reality, pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation were serious problems and half the epistles of "Paul" are of dubious authorship). Yet this man who knew Jesus rails against the Docetic Christians as anti-Christs who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. Rather than appeal to recent history, this "John" appeals to faith, imploring the reader to "believe" and "confess" that Jesus had come in the flesh. The fact that not one but two canonical letters deal with the Docetics helps to underscore that these heterodox Christians were not simply minor schismatics. Clearly, Jesus wrote nothing down and made nothing clear to his followers.

To me, "based on a true story" should have three components.
1. The miracles.
2. The ministry.
3. The message.

The miracles? Seriously?

The ministry? Clearly the stories of it being such a politically and religiously earth moving force that spread like wildfire are gross exaggerations. Nobody seemed to give a scribble on a parchment, not even the Jews, until later centuries. John the Baptist had a much bigger following and historical accounts outside Gospel propaganda indicate he wasn't a modest forerunner but a candidate for messiah. To this day, he has followers that reject Jesus in favor of JtB. If JtB had seriously knelt before Jesus, you'd think his followers would have gotten the message and Jesus would have made a bigger splash.

The message? What was it again? Canon wasn't established until the 4th century under the weight of imperial authority. Until that time, there was no one Christianity.

What's left?

• Some guy
  
• named Yeshua
  
• who was some kind of religious leader
  
• or something.
  

[discipulus]

---

Before I go any further do you agree with the above?

In a word: no.

Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C.

Not according to the Gospels.

• Luke has Mary pregnant during the administration of Qurinius, which began in 6 CE.
  
• According to Luke, Jesus was "about 30" when he began his ministry.
  
• According to Luke, John the Baptist started his ministry during the 15th year of Tiberius, 28/29 CE.
  
• Matt, Mark and Luke agree that JC began his ministry after JtB was put in prison. Details are sketchy here but I will argue this couldn't have been much before 34 CE.
  
• If JC had been born before 4 BCE, he would have been too old by the time of JtB's arrest.
  
• There was no census in 4 BCE. The closest BC census was in 8/9 BC.
  
• In 4 BC, under Herod the Great, Judea was a ally of Rome, not subject to direct taxation and census.
  
• Luke's timeline is the best fit for JC, since "about 30" allows for a 6 CE birth and a 34 CE beginning of his ministry (28 = about 30) and it allows three Passover festivals outlined in John before Pilate is recalled to Rome in 36 CE.
  

If I WERE to speculate on a birthdate, 6 CE seems more likely.

The one glaring problem with Luke's timeline is the 10 year pregnancy of Mary. Mary's pregnancy began under the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BCE). Then again, those sons of god may take longer to bake in the oven.

He grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class.

Falsifiability is a pretty important part of making assertions and claiming them to be proven. How might I disprove this assertion, were I inclined to argue against it? There were no detailed records of what peasants were born and raised where and Yeshua was a common name.

It may be so and what then?

Continuing with that linked article:

Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life. His intention was not to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as doing something within Judaism.

Certainly consistent with the "Synoptic Gospels" (Matt, Mark, Luke). Their Jesus was a holy man who was clearly separate from and subordinate to his father god. He had less knowledge than his father ("No man knows the day, not even the Son, but the Father alone"), he has a subordinate will ("Not my will by thine be done") and he speaks about his Father in third person and to him in second person.

Not so much with John.

• Jesus in John claims to be one with his father ("I and my Father are one"), wholly blasphemous to the Jewish faith.
  
• Jesus claims to be an intercessor to God ("no man commeth unto the Father but through me"), a role forbidden in strict Jewish monotheism (Isaiah 43:10-12, "I, even I am Lord. Beside me there is no savior. I have saved. I have Judged.")
  
• "The Jews", named as such, are a separate and hostile religious group in John.
  

In all Gospels, Jesus preaches a message about salvation and Hell, something unknown to the OT. However, by JC's day, Judaism had likely morphed and incorporated pagan concepts. Many Jews chaffing under Roman rule, wondering where the heck was Yahweh's promise to the seed of David, may have decided their kingdom was in a higher place.

He left Nazareth as an adult, met the prophet John and was baptized by John. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision.

The Jesus of the Gospel of John never baptizes Jesus. In the others, the vision is shared by all present. JtB supposedly bore witness and the booming voice should have been heard by everyone there.

Shortly afterwards, Jesus began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God."

That's the story though the itinerary is fuzzy. The Synoptics say that Jesus was "immediately" taken into the wilderness for 40 days. When he came back, JtB was put in prison. The Gospel of John says that JC spent the next three days gathering disciples and attending a wedding. JtB was not arrested right away and Jesus opens a rival baptism franchise and beats JtB at his own game. What a guy!

He became a noted healer, teacher and prophet. More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.

"Scholars" don't take these supernatural accounts seriously, do they?

He was executed by Roman imperial authority.

This part we can gleen from Tacitus. However, the entry is oblique and 2nd century. It doesn't even mention Jesus by name. Clearly, this religious leader wasn't well known outside his cult following and insignificant to the authorities. I'm not saying he wasn't crucified and fanciful stories weren't told of his resurrection afterwards. People claimed to see Elvis long after his death. I am saying that notables didn't seem to take much notice of him until later centuries.

His followers experienced him after his death. It is clear that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "Lord" or "the Son of God."

Such is the folklore of the supposed "early church". The only 1st century Christian persecution I'm aware of is the Neronian fire, and even this was more of a scapegoating of a small minority, who likely had neither warning nor opportunity to escape.

The letters of Pliny the Elder run contrary to the folklore established by Hollywood, with early Christians holding their heads high, refusing to renounce their savoir as they were horribly tortured and killed at the hands of pagan Romans as the background orchestra swells. In reality, Rome was apathetic to different religions and only turned on them when their proponents rebelled against Roman authority. More to the point, Pliny seems to have no idea who these Christians are or what to do with them. Putting them under the lash, these Christians renounce Jesus, contrary to the heroic folklore.

As if the picture weren't muddy enough, the very "early church" is a dubious organization. Actual history shows that there were a wild variety of early Christianities. They disagreed on how many gods there were, whether Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person, when Jesus lived, what Jesus was, what Jesus died for or even whether he died at all. The modern distinction between Christian and Muslim would look like petty hair-splitting in comparison.

Echoes of this early struggle within the Church can be read in the Bible itself. Read 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7. These verses are supposedly written by "John the disciple" (in reality, pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation were serious problems and half the epistles of "Paul" are of dubious authorship). Yet this man who knew Jesus rails against the Docetic Christians as anti-Christs who denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. Rather than appeal to recent history, this "John" appeals to faith, imploring the reader to "believe" and "confess" that Jesus had come in the flesh. The fact that not one but two canonical letters deal with the Docetics helps to underscore that these heterodox Christians were not simply minor schismatics. Clearly, Jesus wrote nothing down and made nothing clear to his followers.

To me, "based on a true story" should have three components.
1. The miracles.
2. The ministry.
3. The message.

The miracles? Seriously?

The ministry? Clearly the stories of it being such a politically and religiously earth moving force that spread like wildfire are gross exaggerations. Nobody seemed to give a scribble on a parchment, not even the Jews, until later centuries. John the Baptist had a much bigger following and historical accounts outside Gospel propaganda indicate he wasn't a modest forerunner but a candidate for messiah. To this day, he has followers that reject Jesus in favor of JtB. If JtB had seriously knelt before Jesus, you'd think his followers would have gotten the message and Jesus would have made a bigger splash.

The message? What was it again? Canon wasn't established until the 4th century under the weight of imperial authority. Until that time, there was no one Christianity.

What's left?

• Some guy
  
• named Yeshua
  
• who was some kind of religious leader
  
• or something.
  

---

I am glad I asked you what I did. I did not intend for you to go through the trouble of responding to the entire article though....

Very thorough you are!

We need to come to a consensus on this issue before we go any further. I maintain that Jesus was a man of history. He was born around 6BC-4BC. He was from Galilee and around 30AD He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Can we agree on these three things?