The Gospels....or Bullshit Makes The Flowers Grow

[Minimalist]

Short excerpt from On The Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier:

As we shall see through the rest of this chapter, the Gospels also cannot
be classified as eyewitness testimony or even the collection of it.20 They
do not read as such, and they do not identify themselves as such. Even
John, who alone cites what we shall see is a fabricated unnamed witness,
claims to have been using something that witness wrote, in other words a
prior Gospel, perhaps the Gospel our John is redacting; but more likely,
as with Luke, this is again just a ruse (see §7). Instead, the Gospels look
like the edifying but fictional biographies composed for many other heroes
and sages (see Element 44). As David Gowler observes, they appear to be
an assembled network of vignettes (pericopes in the language of biblical
studies) that were already identified i n ancient schools as chreiai, a standard
rhetorical device that was extensively taught to all students of literary
Greek (and as the authors of the Gospels wrote in literary Greek, we know
they attended those schools).

Students were actually taught to invent narratives about famous and
legendary persons, and to build a symbolic or moral message out of general
rules or proverbs. 21 As Gowler explains, 'the composition of the stories
in the Synoptic Gospels is very similar to such exercises as the expansion
and elaboration of chreiai found in other ancient literature and delineated
in ancient rhetorical handbooks', in which authors 'were free to vary the
wording, details, and dynamics of chreiai according to their ideological and
rhetorical interests', and in fact they 'were taught and encouraged' to make
both minor and major changes even to traditional stories in order to make
whatever point they desired.

-- Pg. 397

And before some jesus freak starts whining that David Gowler is just some atheist who hates fucking jesus, do know that he is the

Dr. Gowler is Dr. Lovick Pierce and Bishop George F. Pierce Chair of Religion; Founding Director, The Pierce Institute for Leadership and Community Engagement, Oxford College of Emory University; and Senior Faculty Fellow, the Center for Ethics, Emory University.

[Fake Messiah]

Sure is this a big news that Gospels and other NT books contradict each other? I mean take Jesus' resurrection that is only witnessed by small group of people so you if you want to believe that you must rely on testimonies of people that saw supposedly saw him, but on which one?

Here are some:
For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary.

At what time did the women visit the tomb? Mark says at the rising of the sun; John says when it was yet dark.

Whom did they see at the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says the angel; Mark 16:5 says a young man; Luke 24:4 says two men; John 20:11-12 says two angels.

Were these men/ angels inside or outside the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says outside, while Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, and John 20:11-12 say inside.

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen? Luke 24:8-9 says yes; Mark 16:8 says no.

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Matthew 28:9 says yes; John 20:14 says no.

Luke says Jesus Ascended at Bethany; Mark say the actual location was a room in Jerusalem, and Acts 1:9-12 say it took place on Mount Olivet. These three could hardly be the same location.

Christians obviously don't bother with these "little" inconsistencies. What is important is that someone somewhere resurrected and ascended although nobody knows who or who saw him or where exactly, but hey it happened, because they feel it. This has nothing to do with 'faith in the Word of God', it just shows you disastrous prejudice that Christian faith is only possible in connection with historical dishonesty.

[vorlon13]

Sure is this a big news that Gospels and other NT books contradict each other? I mean take Jesus' resurrection that is only witnessed by small group of people so you if you want to believe that you must rely on testimonies of people that saw supposedly saw him, but on which one?

Here are some:
For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary.

At what time did the women visit the tomb? Mark says at the rising of the sun; John says when it was yet dark.

Whom did they see at the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says the angel; Mark 16:5 says a young man; Luke 24:4 says two men; John 20:11-12 says two angels.

Were these men/ angels inside or outside the tomb? Matthew 28:2 says outside, while Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, and John 20:11-12 say inside.

Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen? Luke 24:8-9 says yes; Mark 16:8 says no.

Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her? Matthew 28:9 says yes; John 20:14 says no.

Luke says Jesus Ascended at Bethany; Mark say the actual location was a room in Jerusalem, and Acts 1:9-12 say it took place on Mount Olivet. These three could hardly be the same location.

Christians obviously don't bother with these "little" inconsistencies. What is important is that someone somewhere resurrected and ascended although nobody knows who or who saw him or where exactly, but hey it happened, because they feel it. This has nothing to do with 'faith in the Word of God', it just shows you disastrous prejudice that Christian faith is only possible in connection with historical dishonesty.

So,


with Jesus experiencing at LEAST 2 crucifixions, on consecutive days, we see that it  solves all kinds of details in scripture that would otherwise be considered inconsistencies !!!!



PRAISE JESUS !!!    PRAISE JESUS !!!

[Caligvla XXI]

"For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary."

You might want to toss this. Golgotha is based on the Hebrew/Aramaic word for skull, while Calvary is based on the Latin word for skull.

[Minimalist]

I always thought the calvary was what was riding to the rescue.... a tad late in jesus' case!

[vorlon13]

considering the imprecision in time in which the crucifixion is said to have occurred, doesn't Heisenberg guaranty the Christians should have the EXACT location of the crucifixion ??


If they don't, they are really screwing up.

[Minimalist]

Depends on how you picture the process for creating the canon.  It seems to be that this bullshit was cobbled together centuries after the events in question.  Many "gospels" were never even considered and others gradually lost favor over the centuries as the doctrine evolved.

What is fairly obvious is that the bare bones story, Mark, was later amended first by Matthew and then by Luke and then re-written by John.  There are in excess of 50 so-called gospels and even the fucking church dismissed most of them as bullshit.  Now, just 4 more pieces of bullshit to dismiss!

[Fake Messiah]

"For starters Matthew, Mark and John say Jesus was killed at Golgotha, while Luke says it was Calvary."

You might want to toss this. Golgotha is based on the Hebrew/Aramaic word for skull, while Calvary is based on the Latin word for skull.

Actually there are more "explanations" what Golgotha means, from wiki article:

A number of alternative explanations have been given for the name. It has been suggested that the Aramaic name is actually Gol Goatha, meaning mount of execution, possibly the same location as the Goatha mentioned in a Book of Jeremiah passage, describing the geography of Jerusalem. An alternative explanation is that the location was a place of public execution, and the name refers to abandoned skulls that would be found there, or that the location was near a cemetery, and the name refers to the bones buried there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary

and so on... So why would I settle that it simply means the same word when it can also mean other words (like mount of execution) and not two different places?

[vorlon13]

Jesus wouldn't necessarily have been crucified in the same place on both days.

Sheesh.

Scripture says He was crucified at Calvary, He was crucified at Calvary. Scripture says He was crucified at Golgotha, He was crucified again at Golgotha. If Scripture says He was crucified a third time at the Piscataway New Jersey Burger King, then dammit, He was crucified at the Piscataway New Jersey Burger King.

God said it, Scripture records it, believers damn well better fucking believe it.

[Fake Messiah]

God said it, Scripture records it, believers damn well better fucking believe it.

Yeah believers believe no matter how much Gospels contradict with each other, with history and reason. It's really not a hard job to look at gospels and Crucifixion to see contradictions not only to gospels themselves but history, so it's obvious that Jesus life was not just a forgery but a bad one indeed.

Mark 14:65 describe, "Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him." Yeah this is fantasy as it gets because Sanhedrin and Roman courts held high to the law, dignity, and decorum. This kind of turmoil would not have been permitted. And yet John even said Jesus suffered indignities at the hands of a Roman court.

Mark 14:54 says, "Peter followed Jesus afar off, even into the palace of the high priest." No trial ever was ever held at the residence or palace of the high priest.
Then Jesus apparently had no lawyer and this would have been against Jewish law.
The trial lasted only a few hours. Yet Jewish law required at least two days for a capital offense - one day for the prosecution, one day for the defense. No trial for a capital offense was ever allowed to begin on the day before the Sabbath. Matthew and Mark even say it started during the night and yet Jewish law prohibited the opening of a trial at night.


Matthew 27:38 says, "Then there were two thieves crucified with him..." Yet it is widely known that thieves were not crucified. Theft was not even a capital offense in the Roman Empire, being contrary to both Jewish and Roman law.

Mark 15:46 says, "So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body..." Isn't the crucifixion supposed to be happening during Jewish holiday of Passover? So how could he buy anything? Even if there was some non-Jew selling stuff Joseph was a Jew which meant he desecrated the Passover. And Jews themselves desecrated the Passover by allowing crucifixion during that holiday in which dead human body is looked as a desecration.

Luke 23:12 states, "Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day..." Pilate and Herod were always enemies.