"Gospel Quest" (or The Jesus Timeline)

[SteveII]

See this link for a in-depth look at the facts surrounding the census. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

[Minimalist]

That's why they derisively call it apologetics, Steve.

The desperation of jesus freaks to save their gospels leads to some astounding mental gymnastics but none of it works.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richa...inius.html

Conclusion

There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of at least one of the two New Testament accounts of the birth of Jesus.

[Mudhammam]

My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when.

Your parents are also perfectly capable of being completely wrong about what they think they saw, heard, felt, or thought 40 years ago.

[Simon Moon]

My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when.

Your parents are also perfectly capable of being completely wrong about what they think they saw, heard, felt, or thought 40 years ago.

Which is exactly the way the human mind works.

When people tell stories from long in their past, they build them out of fragments as the tell the story. It's not like the entire story is stored in one place in the brain.

There is story after story of people that heard relatives tell family stories multiple times , believe they were involved, whet they weren't.

[Mudhammam]

Your parents are also perfectly capable of being completely wrong about what they think they saw, heard, felt, or thought 40 years ago.

Which is exactly the way the human mind works.

When people tell stories from long in their past, they build them out of fragments as the tell the story. It's not like the entire story is stored in one place in the brain.

There is story after story of people that heard relatives tell family stories multiple times , believe they were involved, whet they weren't.

Which is why I find it astonishing that Christians think citing "eyewitness" testimony from the first-century is somehow supposed to count as "evidence" for the absurdity of their ideas.

1. When an event occurs that we are witnesses to, the process of our sensations acquiring the knowledge of said event is often distorted when it actually takes place, as in "I swear I saw a man in my bedroom...but then realized it was the shadow of the coat rack." Or, "I'm sure I heard a voice... ah, but it was just the wind."
2. Time accrues and our memories (for most of us) automatically begin to distort the nature of those events that we experienced.
3. Then we try to convey the story to someone else, and we can't quite put it into words, or if we can, the listener interprets it however they're inclined to.

On top of all this, we have presuppositions and a generally awful track record of properly determining underlying causes of ALL phenomena we perceive, even everyday events.

Hence, NOTHING can match the evidence that amounts from peer-reviewed research that is testable in multiples ways. Unfortunately, Christians have nothing when it comes to scientific research, and considering the nature of their claims and the scientific knowledge we do have about the human brain and phenomena "outside" the mind, it's all but certain that Christianity requires as much delusion as literally any other "miraculous," i.e. unsubstantiated or misunderstood, claim that DEMANDS our time and energy (oh, and money--isn't that convenient).

[Minimalist]

My parents are perfectly capable of telling me about events that happened 40 years ago in great detail down to the color of the carpet and who said what when.

Your parents are also perfectly capable of being completely wrong about what they think they saw, heard, felt, or thought 40 years ago.

http://phys.org/news139159412.html

The work by psychologists at the University of St Andrews shows that the human memory can be remarkably fragile and even inventive when it comes to remembering past events, often completely rewriting 'autobiographical belief'.

[Mudhammam]

Your parents are also perfectly capable of being completely wrong about what they think they saw, heard, felt, or thought 40 years ago.

http://phys.org/news139159412.html

The work by psychologists at the University of St Andrews shows that the human memory can be remarkably fragile and even inventive when it comes to remembering past events, often completely rewriting 'autobiographical belief'.

I mean, it seems so basically obvious to me that it hardly needs explaining to people, yet it does.

That reminds me that recently my brother did a sit-down interview with my 104 great-grandmother, who is of sound mind (though she can't hear for shit--my brother had the questions pre-prepared for her) and after the interview my grandma (her daughter) leaned in to my brother and said something to the effect of, "You know, I don't think she's remembering such and such correctly. Such and such event didn't happen, or it didn't happen like that." And like you said, that's in a person's own life, to say nothing of the transmission of stories, the "telephone game."

[Minimalist]

I've noted this before but if you've ever served on a criminal jury there is a good chance that you've watched a defense attorney rip an "eye-witness" to shreds on cross examination.

[DeistPaladin]

See this link for a in-depth look at the facts surrounding the census. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

We'll get to the issue of apologetic responses once we're done with the cross-examination.

When we do, could you please do me the courtesy of presenting your arguments (linking to website sources as you like) instead of just flippantly posting, "your arguments have already been debunked, here" and posting a link? You can even quote and paste your favorite highlights of the counter-argument from the website if you don't feel like rephrasing the counter-argument in your own words. It shouldn't be my job to read through several pages on an apologetic website, find the argument I think you're referring to and then respond to it.

As we say in my state, I'd be much obliged.

I'm working on my cross-examination of John now...

[DeistPaladin]

Last and least, we have the Gospel of John.

And you thought Matt and Luke were incompatible...

John's Jesus first makes his appearance at his baptism but John still hints that Jesus is almost 50.

8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Now Christian apologists will object saying they priests don't specify that Jesus is almost 50 years old, they just say he's not yet 50. He could be 30. However, saying such a thing to a 30 year old would solicit a "LOL, Wut?" response. Conversationally, such a line makes no sense except that Jesus was pushing 50. Even so, I was reluctant to point out this verse as a decisive proof until I found there was extra-biblical material that indicated that John may have believed Jesus was indeed pushing 50 at his crucifixion, as outlined in this video.





Iraneus, alleged disciple of Polycarp who was an alleged disciple of John, wrote in "Against Heresies" that "...the Gospels and all the Elders testify; those who were in Asia conversant with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirmed that John conveyed to them that Jesus of Nazareth lived until and was crucified at or about the age of 50."

Edit: Thanks to ProfMth for this video and the information.

I have not yet dug up that quote myself but I trust ProfMth as a thorough researcher. Nonetheless, I plan to try to find a copy of this apologetic publication and be ready to cite the page and paragraph.

So when was John's Jesus crucified? That was easier to determine to the exact year. We can know this because John reports an argument Jesus had with "the Jews" during the first Passover holiday of JC's ministry.

2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

The temple in question had begun construction in 20 BCE, placing the date of the argument during the Passover holiday of 27 CE (there was on year 0). John's Gospel specifies that there were 3 Passover holidays during the course of JC's ministry. Therefore, John's Jesus was crucified in 29 CE.

So here's when the different Gospels say Jesus was born:

• Matt's Jesus was born before 6 BCE
  
• Luke's Jesus was born after 6 CE.
  
• John's Jesus was born circa 20 BCE.
  

Now the Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus began his career after John the Baptist was put into prison. But JtB didn't even START his career until 28/29 CE, which means that John's Jesus would have gotten crucified potentially before JtB could even get started.

Further, John begins his record of the life of Jesus with his baptism by JtB and then follows with his "Cleansing of the Temple" when he has that very quoted argument with "the Jews". This very argument happened in 27 CE, a year before JtB could have even started his baptism ministry.

Other contradictions between John and the Synopics are legion, but two of the most prominent are (1) whether or not John the Baptist was jailed before Jesus started his ministry and (2) what Jesus immediately did after the baptism.

The Synoptics tell us that John the Baptist was jailed before Jesus started his ministry. However, according to John, Jesus' ministry was already well under way before JtB was arrested.

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

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus, after his baptism, immediately went into the Wilderness for 40 days.

1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

...but John's Gospel tells us that Jesus spent the next two days gathering disciples and the third day going to a wedding.

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;
...
1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
...
2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

So having established that the timeline is a mess, we now turn to the feeble excuses, flimsy rationalizations and endless stream of ad hoc hypotheses that the apologists propose to square the circle.

To be continued...