Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[Purplundy]

"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

That's an if-then.It applies only to assulted ladies that are with child.

Not really. There are several other instances where the OT writers told stories of the Jews fighting against peoples who had wronged them and even God himself stepping down to kick the asses of nations or individuals who had done something he didn't like. Any atheist can tell you that.
Jesus' teachings on forgiveness were a clear contradiction of what the OT writers taught.

[The Grand Nudger]

If Jesus existed, you would expect to see some historical accounts. We have historical accounts. Scholars have poured over these historical accounts and the vast majority (according to many many source) agree that Jesus lived. In fact, most believe that he was crucified.

Appealing to authority won't help you. Are you ready to accept the historical documents that establish the existence of Thor and Perseus?

3 Minutes from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus:
-------
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[48]
-------
According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote "If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[50]
-------
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."[54]
-------
Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua,born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."[55]
-------
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs[56] has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."[57]

3 wasted minutes. Was the initial appeal to authority not enough for you? Show me their evidence. It's that simple.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 15:24 (CEB) = Jesus replied, “I’ve been sent only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”

So unless you are one of the clique there's no reason to care what he said. After all, the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem doesn't have a gate for Gentiles.

[SteveII]

You must see the distinction between a scientific fact and historical fact. One, by definition is repeatable. The other, by definition, it not. The standards of evidence are vastly different with many historical facts falling closer to "more probable than not". So your appeal to authority rebuttal is without merit since who is more qualified to weigh subjective context, evidence, and accounts?

I do see the distinction. I've read the essays by Bart Ehrman. All he offers is ad hominems and other logical fallacies. This is not evidence by any standard. So "the scholars say so" is meaningless unless you can pony up some evidence aside from "stupid mythers".

But let all that go, since I'm a Jesus Mooter. Your burden is not simply to prove that some guy named Yeshua was a doom crier and after he died his followers deified him like those who saw Elvis and urban legends about miracles and wonders began to grow. Your burden is to prove that he actually worked miracles and rose from the dead.

The Gospels are four accounts of the events from the same time period.

Four hopelessly contradictory accounts.

Why aren't these counted in the evidence?

Because even if we're so generous as to omit discussion of the miracles and other supernatural events, the accounts are anonymously written (attributed by "tradition") that record hearsay testimony (they are written by non-witnesses, sometimes about things even with witnesses they quote couldn't have witnessed, making it hearsay on hearsay) that were subjected to all manner of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation (we know of at least one undisputed and major revision in Mark 16) and they contradict one another and what we know of actual history. In some cases, as with Matthew, they contain blatant lies and so are uncredible testimony. I can elaborate on each of these points as you like.

What other series of ancient events have 4 near-contemporary accounts?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great is within the realm of what we understand to be the natural universe. The miracle-working godman is extraordinary. I hold such claims about Jesus to a higher standard.

Can you give me examples of meaningful contradictions that would shake any of the basics of Christianity?

Let's begin at the beginning. What decade was Jesus born?

If the accounts were perfect, wouldn't that be evidence of a conspiracy?

No because nobody that I know of suggests a conspiracy.

And did those that saw Elvis quickly meet together and write the most complicated and original body of religious writings, travel the world convicing others of the truth of their new religion, and suffer for their beliefs? If so, then you might have an analogy.

You're using folklore to prove mythology.

The rise of Christianity was unique. It spanned national boarders, races, and cultures in one-two generations and it continued to grow for 2000 years.

That's not unique. Islam did the same.

What tomb today is irrelevant. The people at the time knew which one because the account was specific.

Did people look for a tomb back then?

Making appearances for 40 days does not conflict with Luke 24:50ff.

Yeah, it does.

24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Your reference to others who might have denied Christ on pain of death is also irrelevant. The argument only works when you are discussing the actual people who you say made up the religion and knew it to be false.

I never said anyone made up the religion.

Can you prove that the original "witnesses" to the resurrection of Jesus went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Your comparison to Jim Jones et al is also a poor analogy. Your examples had psychological problems, control issues, ego maniacs, etc.

Ah, OK. So David Koresh and Jim Jones went to their deaths for what they sincerely believed because they were crazy but the disciples of Jesus did so because they knew The Truth.

Special pleading.

The apostles were about the opposite in character. In addition, these cult leaders pointed to themselves as important, whereas Christianity's early leaders never did.

Jim Jones and David Koresh could also be charming and appear not to be crazy. They did so well enough to draw a following. Not all crazy people seem crazy.

We'll let go how the only detailed accounts of Jesus and the apostles only come to us through scripture and Christian folklore. We'll also let go how we don't have nearly enough information to psycho-analyze them as you have done.

All of that granted and taking your scripture and folklore at face value, you are committing confirmation bias. These are saintly men to you and so you see them as saintly.

Would it surprise you that I see the Paul of Galatians as a bombastic bully, thinking of himself on a mission from his god and accountable to no one? Would it surprise you that I see Jesus as an egotistical cult leader, indistinguishable from David Koresh or Jim Jones? Would it surprise you that I see the early Christians as fanatics, viewing them the same way you would these crazy cultists that you dismiss?

---

The Jews have always looked for a political messiah--even to this day.

Clearly, not all Jews bought it. Those who don't today have good reason to think Jesus was not the Messiah, even as the story is written.

Revelation was not first.

Yeah, it was. Even Christian scholars say so. I'll look up the annotations to my Bible when I get home. If you disagree, get a plane ticket to London and take it up with Oxford.

Jews were almost uniquely monotheistic. Making up someone who claimed to be God or equal to God was the exact opposite of what they would expect or want.

...and hence Christology was a divisive issue for a long time, leading to the many factions of Christianity. Today, you have papered over it with the doctrine of "The Trinity".

How did Mark bring Paul down to earth?

Jesus. Not Paul.

Docetics taught that Jesus' body was not real but only seemed real. It does NOT teach that Jesus was a myth.

I didn't say they did.

I merely bring them up to show there was anything but consensus on who and what Jesus was and what he taught. Even when the Bible was penned, Jesus seems a mysterious character.

Sorry, missed your responses earlier.

You mention that the authors are anonymous. It seems that after Mark, each of the other gospel writers knew of the existence of Mark and then contributed sources from that particular group that followed the disciple for which the book was named. How does that affect the historicity of the account? If anything, no glaring contradictions strengthen the argument for the gospels.

I would like to know how the gospels contradict each other in some meaningful way. When police question people and they have exactly the same story, it is suspicious. Why do you think that the events spanning 3 years from four different groups of people would not have some minor differences. You are holding these documents to insane standards.

I would love to discuss a serious matter and not who went where after what. I think you "hopelessly contradictory" is a ridiculous assertion.

Later on, you mention that the miracle stories need to be held to a higher standard. How many accounts would make you feel comfortable that miracles really happened and there was a God?

Jesus is thought to have been born between 6-4 BC. If you are going to mention the census thing and Herod, read this article. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

Islam was spread by the sword. Hardly a good analogy.

Your listing of versus in Luke does nothing to suggest that this all happened in one day. In fact, Acts 1:3 (written by the same author) clears up the timeline quite nicely.

Your continued comparison of the apostles and the cult nut jobs illustrates your lack of understanding the bigger picture of how all this works together to form a consistent message and theological framework.

How did Jesus bring Paul down earth?

So if the apostles and early church leaders met and weeded out the heresies, we can be even more confident that what we have today is what was intended by Jesus.

---

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 15:24 (CEB) = Jesus replied, “I’ve been sent only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”

So unless you are one of the clique there's no reason to care what he said. After all, the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem doesn't have a gate for Gentiles.

It was very clear throughout the gospels that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. He was fulfilling their law, their prophesies, arguing with their teachers, etc. After all that was complete, he also gave the "great commission" which clearly includes gentiles. Again, you cannot take a sentence or even passage without looking at the complete framework in which these events happened and the systematic theology that results from including all the material.

---

If Jesus existed, you would expect to see some historical accounts. We have historical accounts. Scholars have poured over these historical accounts and the vast majority (according to many many source) agree that Jesus lived. In fact, most believe that he was crucified.

Appealing to authority won't help you. Are you ready to accept the historical documents that establish the existence of Thor and Perseus?

3 Minutes from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus:
-------
Biblical scholar John Dominic Crossan, highly skeptical with regard to the Gospel accounts of miracles, wrote in 1995
That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.[48]
-------
According to classical historian Michael Grant the idea that Jesus never lived is an "extreme view". He wrote "If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[50]
-------
Graeme Clarke, Emeritus Professor of Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology at Australian National University[53] has stated "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming."[54]
-------
Historian Donald Akenson wrote "Yeshua,born in Nazareth,...after his death, was transformed into Jesus-the-Messiah, or, if you like, Jesus Christ."[55]
-------
Co-director of Ancient Cultures Research Centre at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Alanna Nobbs[56] has stated "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."[57]

3 wasted minutes. Was the initial appeal to authority not enough for you? Show me their evidence. It's that simple.

You're the skeptic and the one that decided not to accept the conclusions of history scholars. You can spend the next hundred years redoing all of their research if you like. Deal with it. Jesus lived, was crucified, his followers believed 100% that he rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.

[Mr.wizard]

I do see the distinction. I've read the essays by Bart Ehrman. All he offers is ad hominems and other logical fallacies. This is not evidence by any standard. So "the scholars say so" is meaningless unless you can pony up some evidence aside from "stupid mythers".

But let all that go, since I'm a Jesus Mooter. Your burden is not simply to prove that some guy named Yeshua was a doom crier and after he died his followers deified him like those who saw Elvis and urban legends about miracles and wonders began to grow. Your burden is to prove that he actually worked miracles and rose from the dead.

Four hopelessly contradictory accounts.

Because even if we're so generous as to omit discussion of the miracles and other supernatural events, the accounts are anonymously written (attributed by "tradition") that record hearsay testimony (they are written by non-witnesses, sometimes about things even with witnesses they quote couldn't have witnessed, making it hearsay on hearsay) that were subjected to all manner of pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation (we know of at least one undisputed and major revision in Mark 16) and they contradict one another and what we know of actual history. In some cases, as with Matthew, they contain blatant lies and so are uncredible testimony. I can elaborate on each of these points as you like.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great is within the realm of what we understand to be the natural universe. The miracle-working godman is extraordinary. I hold such claims about Jesus to a higher standard.

Let's begin at the beginning. What decade was Jesus born?

No because nobody that I know of suggests a conspiracy.

You're using folklore to prove mythology.

That's not unique. Islam did the same.

Did people look for a tomb back then?

Yeah, it does.


I never said anyone made up the religion.

Can you prove that the original "witnesses" to the resurrection of Jesus went to their deaths for their beliefs?

Ah, OK. So David Koresh and Jim Jones went to their deaths for what they sincerely believed because they were crazy but the disciples of Jesus did so because they knew The Truth.

Special pleading.

Jim Jones and David Koresh could also be charming and appear not to be crazy. They did so well enough to draw a following. Not all crazy people seem crazy.

We'll let go how the only detailed accounts of Jesus and the apostles only come to us through scripture and Christian folklore. We'll also let go how we don't have nearly enough information to psycho-analyze them as you have done.

All of that granted and taking your scripture and folklore at face value, you are committing confirmation bias. These are saintly men to you and so you see them as saintly.

Would it surprise you that I see the Paul of Galatians as a bombastic bully, thinking of himself on a mission from his god and accountable to no one? Would it surprise you that I see Jesus as an egotistical cult leader, indistinguishable from David Koresh or Jim Jones? Would it surprise you that I see the early Christians as fanatics, viewing them the same way you would these crazy cultists that you dismiss?

---

Clearly, not all Jews bought it. Those who don't today have good reason to think Jesus was not the Messiah, even as the story is written.

Yeah, it was. Even Christian scholars say so. I'll look up the annotations to my Bible when I get home. If you disagree, get a plane ticket to London and take it up with Oxford.

...and hence Christology was a divisive issue for a long time, leading to the many factions of Christianity. Today, you have papered over it with the doctrine of "The Trinity".

Jesus. Not Paul.


I didn't say they did.

I merely bring them up to show there was anything but consensus on who and what Jesus was and what he taught. Even when the Bible was penned, Jesus seems a mysterious character.

Sorry, missed your responses earlier.

You mention that the authors are anonymous. It seems that after Mark, each of the other gospel writers knew of the existence of Mark and then contributed sources from that particular group that followed the disciple for which the book was named. How does that affect the historicity of the account? If anything, no glaring contradictions strengthen the argument for the gospels.

I would like to know how the gospels contradict each other in some meaningful way. When police question people and they have exactly the same story, it is suspicious. Why do you think that the events spanning 3 years from four different groups of people would not have some minor differences. You are holding these documents to insane standards.

I would love to discuss a serious matter and not who went where after what. I think you "hopelessly contradictory" is a ridiculous assertion.

Later on, you mention that the miracle stories need to be held to a higher standard. How many accounts would make you feel comfortable that miracles really happened and there was a God?

Jesus is thought to have been born between 6-4 BC. If you are going to mention the census thing and Herod, read this article. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

Islam was spread by the sword. Hardly a good analogy.

Your listing of versus in Luke does nothing to suggest that this all happened in one day. In fact, Acts 1:3 (written by the same author) clears up the timeline quite nicely.

Your continued comparison of the apostles and the cult nut jobs illustrates your lack of understanding the bigger picture of how all this works together to form a consistent message and theological framework.

How did Jesus bring Paul down earth?

So if the apostles and early church leaders met and weeded out the heresies, we can be even more confident that what we have today is what was intended by Jesus.

---

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 15:24 (CEB) = Jesus replied, “I’ve been sent only to the lost sheep, the people of Israel.”

So unless you are one of the clique there's no reason to care what he said. After all, the gaudy bejeweled golden cube called New Jerusalem doesn't have a gate for Gentiles.

It was very clear throughout the gospels that Jesus' ministry was to the Jews. He was fulfilling their law, their prophesies, arguing with their teachers, etc. After all that was complete, he also gave the "great commission" which clearly includes gentiles. Again, you cannot take a sentence or even passage without looking at the complete framework in which these events happened and the systematic theology that results from including all the material.

---

Appealing to authority won't help you. Are you ready to accept the historical documents that establish the existence of Thor and Perseus?

3 wasted minutes. Was the initial appeal to authority not enough for you? Show me their evidence. It's that simple.

You're the skeptic and the one that decided not to accept the conclusions of history scholars. You can spend the next hundred years redoing all of their research if you like. Deal with it. Jesus lived, was crucified, his followers believed 100% that he rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.

You don't understand, scholars accept that a historical jesus existed based on the gospels not based on any actual evidence. Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man. You are simply making an appeal to historical scholars and what their opinion is and he is asking you to provide some evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're the skeptic and the one that decided not to accept the conclusions of history scholars. You can spend the next hundred years redoing all of their research if you like. Deal with it. Jesus lived, was crucified, his followers believed 100% that he rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.

Or- you could just present the evidence.

[Natachan]

Where are the execution records?

There are two records I know of, and Min can correct me if I say anything wrong:

1. The Neronian Persecution
According to second century accounts, Seutonius I believe, Rome burned under Nero and Nero needed a scapegoat. He allegedly blamed the Christians and a melodramatic description of their persecution follows. Even taking these tales at face value, I am skeptical that they are evidence of anything. The fire was in 64 CE, a good generation or two after the alleged resurrection and well removed from the place. It's unlikely any witnesses to the resurrection would have been there at all. Such Christians would have been converts.

Additionally, there would have been no opportunity to deconvert. This would have been a pogrom. Christians would have been rounded up and executed. There was no reason to think the Christians would have either seen it coming nor had any opportunity to disassociate from the religion, since Nero would have needed to make them publicly suffer for the crime of arson.

2. The Letters of Pliny
Pliny details his inquiries into some captured Christians, discussing their rituals at the time. Under the lash, they were willing to curse Christ and renounce their faith. Interestingly, Pliny writes about the Christians as if he has no freaking clue who they are or what to do with them. Did he not know they burned Rome some 50 years prior? It would be like 40 years from now a U.S. official not knowing what Islam was.

That's all I know of.

Frankly, I find it likely the tales of persecution to be exaggerated. Rome never persecuted a religion unless it directly threatened their authority. Christianity preached a message of "render unto Caesar" and their kingdom was in another, higher world. This would have been the kind of religion Rome would have encouraged (and finally they did).

I think I've actually read some of these. What I've been looking for is records of Jesus's trial and execution. I took a course in roman law and legal proceedings when I was 19 and we had to pour through a lot of legal papers. I find it odd no mention of his trial ever appears in contemporary records, since Romans were meticulous record keepers and the early church would have leapt at copying and preserving that. Much more so than erotic poetry.

[DeistPaladin]

Or- you could just present the evidence.

The way this dance goes, you have to go through at least seven posts of "scholars say" before he'll go to phase 2: The Usual Suspects.

You'll know you're there when Tacitus, Josephus and one other are trotted out.

I'll respond to his post tomorrow. Sweet Reason, how anyone can read the Gospels and say "sounds like a consistent account to me" is just amazing.

---

What I've been looking for is records of Jesus's trial and execution.

You'll wait forever.

The best piece of historical evidence to indicate there was a man behind the myths is an oblique 2nd century reference in the Annals of Tacitus.

So oblique Jesus isn't even mentioned by name.

[Ryantology]

More probable is that since circumcision was a sign of the conenant between God and Israel, early church fathers saw no logical need to extend the practive to Christians (who were not Jews). Making this even more probable is that the Jewish dietary laws (and other requirements) were not ported over to Christianity either which would not be quite the marketing headache that circumcision was.

Most probable is that these early church fathers wasted no time in establishing Christianity's most defining trait (other than all the violence, hate and oppression): quietly agreeing to ignore all the parts of the Old Testament law they found personally difficult or inconvenient. This is a practice which Jesus warned in the Sermon on the Mount would immediately rule one out of a heavenly reward, but that has stopped approximately zero Christians, as best I can tell.

[Aractus]

Paul taught that circumcision and dietary laws (and other things) do not pass on to the gentile Christians.

That's right, but Jesus did not teach that. My point is that until 50 AD the teaching of Jesus was to return to the whole of the Law of Moses. What was decided in 50 AD and after that time is after the teachings of Jesus and is not the teachings of Jesus.