Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[DeistPaladin]

Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

No skeptic that I know of has ever suggested a group of people met in some dark corner of a tavern one day and conspired to make up Jesus or create a false religion.

While it is true that some cults are born of the imagination of a con artist or a group of them, sometimes religions start by a less deliberate process. The "embarrassment" and continuity gaffes are a natural process of this development.

Frankly, it's not up to the skeptic to explain how Christianity came to be. Our burden is simply to cast sufficient doubt on Christian sources. That said, one compelling scenario is that the ancient Jews were chaffing under the rule of one empire after the next. This was a theological crisis for them as some of them must have wondered "what the hell happened to Yahweh's promise regarding the seed of David, that it shall rule for all time."

Under such duress and the mingling of pagan ideas into their culture, some might have decided their "promised kingdom" existed in some higher world. Reading the books of the NT in the order of their publication provides some insight into the process. Jesus was a warlord in Revelation, the first book, who came from Heaven to rule upon earth. Paul wrote his epistles about the sacrifice of Jesus and his role as a divine intercessor, a concept wholly foreign to Judaism. Mark brought him down to earth, perhaps as stories originally intended as parables. Later Gospels fleshed out the story further, adding an account of his birth, though they contradicted each other as fan fics of separate authors are wont to do. John refined the ideas further, in ways more consistent with modern Christianity. The rest is history.

Different early Christians had wildly different ideas about who and what Jesus was and what he preached. Their differences were so great as to make Christianity vs. Islam look like hair-splitting. Echoes of this early struggle can be found even in holy scripture, as 1John and 2John condemned the Docetics.

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

Mark wasn't written until 70 CE at the earliest.

[Tonus]

Regarding the criterion of embarrassment, why is that a bad argument when used with other arguments? Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

This seems to gloss over the part where god arranged exactly this end, in order to complete his plan to provide a redemptive sacrifice for humanity. So he got a bunch of rubes to do his bidding, and this is embarrassing how, exactly?

[SteveII]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars. And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

I don't believe in evolution because Richard Dawkins says so. If you argue against evolution, the counter is not just "all the scientists say so" but also includes a mountain of evidence for it.

The logical fallacy with The Historical Jesus is called "appeal to authority" or saying something is true only because some smart people say so. Even experts in their field of expertise are required to produce evidence for what they believe and why.

Speaking personally, I now advocate for "The Jesus Moot" theory. The only detailed accounts we have on The Historical Jesus come to us through the Gospels and if they Gospels aren't reliable as historical documents or they don't tell a coherent, compatible-with-itself story, we'll never know anything about this mysterious figure and so his existence is moot.

Bart Ehrman and other divinity scholars are welcome to pursue this elusive Historical Jesus in their Ivory Towers and get back to me if they find anything.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened.

Please define "important events".

If you mean the supernatural events, such as the resurrection or the healing miracles, it's fair to say such public displays of divine power would have gotten attention. The best we have outside the Bible is an oblique 2nd century reference in the Annals of Tacitus.

If you mean the more mundane events, we can only assume they happened for want of any extra-Biblical confirmation.

There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down.

Elvis.

That one word.

Elvis.

How many "Elvis sightings" were there in the immediate aftermath of his death? How many people believed them? How many tabloid publications were there on this subject? And we live in a more skeptical time where fact checking is relatively easy.

Want another word?

Reagan.

How many conservatives today are unaware that Reagan raised taxes, negotiated with our adversaries, cut and ran in Lebanon, compromised with Democrats and did other things contrary to the GOP's iconic representation him. And this was within the lifetimes of those who remember him. I was one of his supporters as a young Republican.

How about Washington? He was barely in his grave before the ridiculous stories about the cherry tree were circulated.

Davy Crocket, a legend from my state. He existed. Do you think he really "killed him a bear when he was only three" as the song goes? That song dates to the same century as his life. Nobody cried "false" that we remember today.

There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen. People and places were named. Their children would still be around.

...and yet there were Docetics who thought Jesus was a spiritual apparition. Apparently this rival faction of Christianity was so significant as to get not one mention but two in the NT.

1John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Note that John doesn't appeal to obvious recent history or family that might have known Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. He doesn't dismiss the Docetics as crazy for denying an obvious recent historical fact. He condemns them with the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess".

Why?

The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Religions spread quickly all the time, sometimes even in the face of prejudice and persecution.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

In reality, pseudo-epigraphy and interpolation were serious problems with written holy documents, never mind oral tradition.

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story.

What do you base that on?

As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

...and?

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

Which empty tomb? There were at least two that we know of today, both claiming to be the real deal. That's not counting James Cameron's.

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

We have four contradictory accounts.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--

...or he rose up into the sky on the day of his resurrection according to the last chapter of Luke.

It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

Even if you could prove that, and prove that they were given the opportunity to renounce their Christ and refused (see letters of Pliny to Trajan where the Christians did curse Christ under threat and torture), it would prove nothing.

Jim Jones.
David Koresh.
The Hale Bopp, Heaven's Gate cult.

Fanaticism proves nothing.

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?

The Gospels are four accounts of the events from the same time period. Why aren't these counted in the evidence? What other series of ancient events have 4 near-contemporary accounts? The accounts were accepted at the time as accurate. Can you give me examples of meaningful contradictions that would shake any of the basics of Christianity? If the accounts were perfect, wouldn't that be evidence of 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.

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.

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

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

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

[vorlon13]

What does The Christ say ??

Ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
Gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding!
What the christ say?

Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
Wa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pow!
What the Christ say?

Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
Hatee-hatee-hatee-ho!
What the Christ say?

Joff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
Tchoff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!
Joff-tchoff-tchoffo-tchoffo-tchoff!

[The Grand Nudger]

Historical "facts" are not immune to science. If you say that a nation lolligagged in the desert for years, for example....science could help you establish that. No ones asking anyone to reproduce history, you're being asked to present evidence that we would expect to see - if- your narrative of "history" were accurate.

-If- you want to keep using the word "probable"...you're going to have to do some math. Please, for the class - show your work-.

The rise of christianity was not unique, and you've already been given an example of a faith that has done "what christianity did" even better than christianity...even if we accept obvious christian propaganda as fact.



Fail....fail, and fail. Understand?

[SteveII]

Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

No skeptic that I know of has ever suggested a group of people met in some dark corner of a tavern one day and conspired to make up Jesus or create a false religion.

While it is true that some cults are born of the imagination of a con artist or a group of them, sometimes religions start by a less deliberate process. The "embarrassment" and continuity gaffes are a natural process of this development.

Frankly, it's not up to the skeptic to explain how Christianity came to be. Our burden is simply to cast sufficient doubt on Christian sources. That said, one compelling scenario is that the ancient Jews were chaffing under the rule of one empire after the next. This was a theological crisis for them as some of them must have wondered "what the hell happened to Yahweh's promise regarding the seed of David, that it shall rule for all time."

Under such duress and the mingling of pagan ideas into their culture, some might have decided their "promised kingdom" existed in some higher world. Reading the books of the NT in the order of their publication provides some insight into the process. Jesus was a warlord in Revelation, the first book, who came from Heaven to rule upon earth. Paul wrote his epistles about the sacrifice of Jesus and his role as a divine intercessor, a concept wholly foreign to Judaism. Mark brought him down to earth, perhaps as stories originally intended as parables. Later Gospels fleshed out the story further, adding an account of his birth, though they contradicted each other as fan fics of separate authors are wont to do. John refined the ideas further, in ways more consistent with modern Christianity. The rest is history.

Different early Christians had wildly different ideas about who and what Jesus was and what he preached. Their differences were so great as to make Christianity vs. Islam look like hair-splitting. Echoes of this early struggle can be found even in holy scripture, as 1John and 2John condemned the Docetics.

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).

Mark wasn't written until 70 CE at the earliest.

Regarding your theological crisis hypothesis, I think there are several problems with that.

The Jews have always looked for a political messiah--even to this day. The idea of a spiritual messiah was even confusing to the disciples until after the death and resurrection. Revelation was not first. Mark seems to be followed by Matthew and Luke. 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.

How did Mark bring Paul down to earth?

Docetics taught that Jesus' body was not real but only seemed real. It does NOT teach that Jesus was a myth. The debate was whether Jesus was indeed human or just appeared to be human. This is a theological question (with theological consequences) and certainly does not call into question any historical facts about Jesus.

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[SteveII]

Historical "facts" are not immune to science. If you say that a nation lolligagged in the desert for years, for example....science could help you establish that. No ones asking anyone to reproduce history, you're being asked to present evidence that we would expect to see - if- your narrative of "history" were accurate.

-If- you want to keep using the word "probable"...you're going to have to do some math. Please, for the class - show your work-.

The rise of christianity was not unique, and you've already been given an example of a faith that has done "what christianity did" even better than christianity...even if we accept obvious christian propaganda as fact.



Fail....fail, and fail. Understand?

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.

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]

[Natachan]

Where are the execution records? I've seen a great deal of tax records from this time, poured over some court records. And a few death declarations. I've always wondered where the execution records or trial records of Jesus are. Granted I KNOW the gospel portrayal is wrong due to my knowledge of the character of Pontius Pilate.

And I'm one of those who believe there actually was a historical person at the root of the Jesus myth.

[Ryantology]

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.

I am personally not concerned about whether Jesus existed. If he did, that just makes him the most famous deranged lunatic who ever died thinking he was something special.

You mention the distinction between historical and scientific fact, but history is remarkably quiet about this man's alleged ties to the creator of the universe, to say nothing of all the magic and miracles he is credited for, and science describes to us a universe in which no trace of any miracles has ever been shown to exist.