Badmovies.org Forum

"Who do men say that I am?" Jesus asked his disciples once.
To this day, answers to that question vary.  There are a wide variety of viewpoints on this forum;
so I am interested in your answers.  I'm not going to try to convert you*, but I would like it if you
added why you think what you do about Him.
So - who was Jesus?












*much

I'll reply first to my own poll.
I believe He was the Son of God, as most of you know if you've been here any time at all.
The four Gospels in our Bible were all written well within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses,
and the events they describe, and the teachings of Jesus they record, all sound like the Son
of God to me.  To top it off, I am convinced the Resurrection is a real historical event, and
if He truly returned to life after being flayed with a whip, nailed to a cross, and skewered with
a spear, then Who else could He be?


Your turn!

I don't know. the thing I think most about Jesus is something Andrew Greely said. While we all know Jesus today,  in his own time he was in a sense irrelvent.  He was saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand while people were arguing about the roman occupation, the end times, and how to interpret biblical law. He was above the fray in other words. His message was the real message, not the political message. 

Are those the only choices?  Could your answers be limiting?  Or repetitive?

A guy who, like many others of the time, was dissatisfied with the religious establishment and its corruption.  He also had, again like many others, some religious/political ideas that differed from the mainstream, so he gained his own following.  And I think it can't be denied that he really liked to be the center of attention.   :smile:

Kind of amazing really - considering how many people back then were doing the exact same thing, they were forgotten while he rose to be a defining figure in Western civilization.

Hmmmm...I dunno.
A dead guy a lotta people get on their knees and pray to.

Indy, out of respect for the Easter holiday, I will do naught but cast my vote. You and I have gotten into this before. If you truly would like to discuss it again, I will be happy to via PM.

I respect your choice, but I do hope you know I find your beliefs more fascinating than offensive!

I meant to add the choice of "a great natural philosopher" to the poll, but I forgot.  Thomas Jefferson once referred to Jesus as the "greatest natural philosopher who ever lived."

I'll agree with the philosopher part-he was a smart man-waaay ahead of his time in his thoughts. And a good man.

I'm with RC, but I guess the hip thing to say is he was a "Zombie". But I'm no hipster.

I went with "A First Century Political Revolutionary" as the most likely answer to who Jesus was.

What Jesus has become is a far more interesting topic. I view the idea of "Jesus" as a human construct that has become an incredibly loaded zeitgeist of idea and meaning. Of course, if you've been here any time at all, you know that I do not believe any of the religious ideas that have sprung up around him as being "true."

However, "Jesus" is one of the prime movers of history and human consciousness over the past few millenia. In that sense, the historical truth does not matter, the effect of the idea of Jesus is much more powerful than what the reality may have been. The idea is now a greater reality than the truth could be.

But that's my take, and I certainly don't want to convert anybody to my way of looking at things*.





*much

I went with a myth -- just my personal belief, however that does not mean that that idea of a Jesus-like figure or Jesus himself cannot inspire people to live better lives or to evaluate their lives. In fact I believe that to be the case with many religious folks.

The trouble with this point of view is that he can't be a good man who claimed to be God.

He DID claim to be God become man.  Many times and in many ways he stated this.

So is he a "good" man who falsely claimed to be God?  (Some of the most dangerous people in history have been people who declared themselves to be God.)   You can't claim to be God (and not be) and still be by any definition "good."

So he was God, or he wasn't.  It's true or false, really simple.  He *was* God, and he was a good man (as I believe), or else he was most, most definitively NOT a good man, because in the other case he'd be a tremendous liar.

Not trying to attack you personally, RC.  I  think you have seen me around here enough to know that I care about you and would not attack you personally even in word.  But I've heard that particular point of view and I just have to pipe up.  Most of the stuff we argue in this world is not of any long term consequence.  On the internet, that is trebly the case.  But this point is, pardon my awesome understatement, important.

That seems a false dichotomy. I can think of at least five other possibilities under which Jesus could be a good man and not be the son of God.

1. A man could be good but be deluded.
2. Maybe Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, and this is only a claim his disciples made for him after his death.
3. His divinity could be a "noble lie," known to be literally untrue, although it is believed that more good will come from telling the lie than from telling the truth.
4. Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally.
5. Jesus was misunderstood and misquoted by his disciples.

The first possibility - that Jesus was a good but deluded person who sincerely believed in His Godhood - is certainly plausible.  I don't buy it, but it would make sense.

2 and 5 are fairly similar, and have been posited by a number of skeptical scholars over the years. But there is no motivation for 2, and no real reason to believe 3 - especially when we consider the early dates for the three synoptic Gospels.
4 - That one is hard to make a case for. Again, assuming the quotes are accurate, Jesus claimed to be divine in pretty clear and unambiguous terms. He forgave sins, accepted worship, said that He would judge the dead on the last day, and claimed to have known Abraham and others who lived long before He was born.
3 - a "noble lie" - I have a hard time with.  A group of men who were too cowardly to defend Jesus when He was arrested, or to stand by His side as he died, suddenly cooked up this story and were willing to face a martyr's death for something they KNEW to be false?  And what "greater good" would their lie really accomplish if it encouraged people to entrust their souls to something that was fundamentally false?
As for 5, I think that is the case that many modern critics, from Bart Ehrman to the "Jesus Seminar," have tried to make -that the Gospel writers got it wrong. There I think you again have to look at it from this perspective - the Biblical gospels are the earliest, and most reliable, accounts of Jesus' life we have.  Everything else dates from much, much later, long after the eyewitnesses were dead. The earliest Gnostic Gospels, those attributed to Thomas and Judas, are both between AD 150 and 200.  That's 120 years, minimum, after the crucifixion.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke were most likely all composed before 70 AD, and probably a decade or so before that.  That puts them well within the lifetime of the ones who knew Jesus.  In short, if the Biblical gospels do not present an accurate picture of Jesus, then no such picture exists.  They are the best we have to go on.
I think, in evaluating the claims of Jesus, you eventually come back to the trilemma first pointed out by C.S. Lewis - Jesus of Nazareth may have been a liar, or a lunatic, or the Lord.  But a good man He was not.

Going down the list:

The Son of God:

This is my answer. One is hard-pressed to come up with any reason why the Pharisees and Sadducees would have wanted him dead if he hadn't claimed to be this, and he certainly couldn't have raised himself from the dead if he weren't one with God the way he claimed to be.

A First Century Jewish Mystic

One can make a case for this, but only in the sense that God is the ultimate mystic: "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares YHWH. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+55%3A8-9&version=NIV)"

God is so transcendent that He can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift, and then lift it anyway. That's because as with space, time, matter, and the laws of physics, God created logic and therefore rules over it. While The Resurrection was definitely His greatest miracle in that it was the most beneficial to us, I'd say making free will and predestination coexistent in defiance of all logic was the greatest miracle in terms of being the greatest show of power: compared to being able to transcend logic, all other miracles in the Bible are mere child's play.

A Lunatic

Definitely not. However, if Jesus were not God as he claimed, he would have to be this to be as deluded as some skeptics try to make him out to be. As C.S. Lewis puts it, he'd have to be roughly on the same level as a man who believes himself to be a poached egg.

A Prophet

At least one blind man thought this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9:17&version=NIV) of Jesus after being cured of his blindness, mainly because that was all he could think of. (Apparently he'd been paying attention in the synagogue when the rabbis read out loud about prophets and some of the miracles they'd done.) Prophets, however, are mere predecessors to Jesus; he's only this in the sense of being the master of the prophets, just as the King is a noble in the sense of being the master of all the nobles. The description is accurate, therefore, but inadequate.

Mainly a Myth

The evidence is overwhelming that he cannot be this. While Jesus did inspire some mythology, particularly in apocryphal works and in far-flung parts of the world where native peoples have not completely understood the Gospel as presented to them, doubting his existence is beyond absurd. Moreover, one would have to wonder what all the fuss was about had he not done something impressive enough to infuriate his enemies and inspire his disciples to action.

In view of these disciples' absolute conviction and the success of their message, every new attempt to explain away their claims concerning Jesus' miracles and teachings is more pathetic than the last. Near-death would not have left Jesus presentable enough to be proclaimed a risen God, the disciples were in no physical or psychological condition to rifle a tomb and steal a body, mass hallucination and shared dreaming is impossible, and people don't get themselves persecuted and martyred for anything they know to be a lie. About the only way Jesus could be a mere myth would be if he were actually some kind of fantastic ruse pulled off by very technologically advanced space aliens or time travelers; skepticism that requires one to imagine a story even more incredible than the story one is trying to debunk is too absurd even to consider.

A First Century Political Revolutionary

Here's another somewhat accurate, but mostly inadequate description. Jesus never called for an armed revolt against Rome, for any reform to government, or for any government support for his teachings. The only sense in which he was politically revolutionary is in having fulfilled the second chapter of the book of Daniel (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+2&version=NIV), in which Christendom overthrew all previous kingdoms and empires and filled the earth. While Jesus did get this process started, our history attests that this has been a gradual process, and isn't even finished yet. One should always maintain a healthy level of skepticism toward any politician who claims Jesus as a political mentor or--worse--a constituent.

A Misunderstood Rabbi

Definitely not. While his disciples themselves admit to finding his words confusing on several occasions, they went on to tell us how this all came to make sense to them once Jesus came back from the dead and gave them their instructions. As for his enemies, while they did not believe him, they can hardly be said to have misunderstood the gist of his teachings; if he hadn't really been God the Son as he claimed, they would certainly have been justified in executing him for blasphemy, not to mention sorcery and idolatry.

Bonus: A Great Natural Philosopher

As mentioned concerning his Jewish mysticism, this is also an accurate but inadequate description: the God who created logic and transcends it surely finds science (originally known as "natural philosophy"), another creation He transcends, mere child's play. To give a charitable assessment, Thomas Jefferson may have had a good classical education, but in grasping the extent of God's power, he was seriously lacking in imagination. Jesus was not bound to any chemical formula or laws of physics in turning water to wine, let alone coming back from being dead.

That's fine, I didn't want to get into a debate on fine details. My main point was I don't really like the "Jesus was either Lord or a liar---you're not calling Jesus a liar, are you?" line of argument.

No offense to Zapranoth, I'm sure his opinion is more nuanced than that---I suspect that like you, he's rejecting the other alternatives as implausible. However, the way the dilemma (or trilemma) is phrased skips a step.

(http://i2.listal.com/image/1235872/500full.jpg)


That is one Jesus you don't want to 'mess' with.

[Went with the political activist as I feel it most accurately describes who he was]

Jesus was the Son of God....and I thank God for His precious forgiveness through Jesus.

     Hummmm....did you ever consider WHY?

     He is Who He said He is, and He did what He said He would do.

(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo265/TransformedCharlotte_2008/seasonal/Heisrisenindeed.jpg)

Of the few simple rules I live by, there is only one that truly never fails me:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I don't hold anybody exempt from that requirement. As such, after a few years of being a Christian, and many years of contemplation, I have yet to justify the Bible as extraordinary proof of the events it depicts.

I have no good reason to believe he even existed.
But even if he did, and he was anything like that in the bible, he was not a good man. He's perfectly okay with slavery. He never said it was wrong.

He say in Matthew:10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
This wouldn't be a problem, but he also said that he is the only way to the father (and heaven).
So, the gentiles and samaritans are condemned to hell. Eternal torment. By Jesus.

Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. Matthew:24:37

"His blood be on us, and on our children." This verse blames the jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25

Jesus criticizes the jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark:7:9-10

10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.-Mark
So, abandon your friends and family. You'll be rewarded.

Luke:12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

I'm pretty sure I could find even more examples of injustice or cruelty.

Virtually every verse you cite is lifted out of context and twisted to mean the opposite of what Jesus taught.

The FIRST time Jesus sent his disciples forth, he sent them to His own people.  Later on, He Himself led them
to minister among the Samaritans (John 4).  And then, when he left them for heaven, he told them to go and "teach ALL nations." Kinda blows the first one out of the water.

His comment on "the days of Noah" refers to the fact that just as those people long ago ignored Noah's warnings and calls for repentance until the flood came, in the last days people will go on ignoring His message until it is too late.

"His blood be on us, and on our children," while definitely misused by the church in later centuries to justify anti-Semitism, was what the mob actually cried out to Pilate when he tried to acquit Jesus, and washed his hands of the whole affair.  Matthew simply recorded what they said without commentary.  The verse does not "blame the Jews."  It records the fact that that particular angry mob of Jews, at that moment, accepting responsibilty for what happened at that moment.  Any interpretation beyond that is over-reaching.  After all, the disciple who heard the remarks, and recorded them, was also a Jew.

Jesus does not command all His followers to leave their families and possessions, but says that, if they do, they will be rewarded for what they lose.  Saving souls for eternity is more important than earthly attachments.

And last of all, the verse in Luke - not a command but a simple comment: The teachings of Jesus will cause division because some will accept them and others will reject them.
He was dead on right about that, as this thread demonstrates.

He also said "Peace I give unto you, my peace I leave with you - not as the world gives."
He does not promise peace to a sinful and war-torn world, but He does promise true and inner peace to those who embrace Him.

To say that there is "no good reason to believe he even existed" is to ignore history.  Not only the Gospel narratives, but non-Biblical histories such as Josephus and Suetonius record that he was a real person.

You see, this is just one of the many, many contradictions in the bible. Jesus says something here, and something completely opposite somewhere else.

Okay. That makes sense.

The new testament is full of anti-semitism. This really isn't the worst, but it is quite exploited. John blames the death of Jesus on jews. 19:7


And this is moral how? Give up everything for me, I'll make it worthwhile?


One of the prophecies that actually came true. Although I'm not stunned by the prediction that: "People will disagree in the future."


This implies that one needs him in order to achieve inner peace. Many would disagree.

The gospels were written 30 to 60 years after the events have supposedly took place. The story was passed on by word of mouth, by uneducated, superstitious people.
Josephus's source was written in about 94.
Suetonius's source wasn't contemporary either.

I noticed that you haven't addressed the issue of slavery, and Jesus condemning the jews for not killing their children for being disobedient.

Josephus' references to Jesus and the crucifixion by Pilate is the closest that anybody has ever come to finding non-Biblical evidence from the time of the events, and they were were produced about 100 years afterwards. Further, there is a good deal of debate over the authenticity of those references. A Christian will point to any justification that they are authentic, while an atheist will do just the opposite. I will do neither.

The authenticity of Suetonius' references to Christians and Christ are similarly questionable.

I'm not saying they are immaterial, only that they are far from being moving historical evidence, at least when compared to evidence of other historical figures from late antiquity. I make no claims as to whether Jesus existed or not. I'm only saying that for all the digging done in the name of Christianity to find non-Biblical evidence of Jesus, the two examples you use are the best that exists. You clearly accept them as historical concretes, while I am saying they prove nothing either way.

Lots of arguments are made over precepts in the bible.  If LUKE suggested he brought division and not peace, he made a savvy observation.  Truth and justice are often absent and the oppressor wants it that way.  JESUS certainly believed in the "old GOD" and was consistent in most if not all regards.  JESUS' story is remarkable because he was impoverished, obscure, villified then executed.  If men did that, there must be something worthy of a second look here.  I have no problem with GOD or JESUS.  It's mankind that worries me.  

Same here. It seems to me that the life of Jesus, his identity and meaning, were essentially established far more by his followers than by him. I remain convinced that the man and what he really did or stood for are shrowded in mystery. The events were not even deemed noteworthy enough by contemporaries of the time to warrant an historical record. Yet, obviously the events lead to the establishment of what is today the dominant faith in the world. I still have no idea who Jesus was or what he intended. If he had had widespread impact on his contemporaries, there would be a historical record of note, but there isn't. It certainly is a mystery that deserves attention, and despite my leanings I find the subject fascinating.

He did not contradict himself; he gave them new instructions.

Not inner peace, salvation.  There is a difference.  You can be at peace with yourself, but still offend others, or God.  Assuming that God exists and that he created humanity (how doesn't matter), he would have expectations to determine if his creation was worth keeping.  Think of it this way: you make a machine.  One day it breaks, and can no longer do everything you need.  Now, you made this machine; you don't want to just throw it away.  Still it is impractical to keep something that doesn't work.  What do you do?  First you will probably try to fix it.  If that doesn't work, you will scrap it.  Jesus is God's attempt to fix humanity.  

Paul was an educated Jew, and a Roman citizen.  Acts and Luke were written by one of his fellow travelers.  Acts was partially written in 1st person, and someone who was with Paul would have had access to people who saw the events in Luke, like Jesus's mother.

Yes, the people that called for His death were Jewish, and John points that out.  John was written later, after Christians considered themselves a separate religion, so he avoids calling Jesus's followers Jews.  He does not ask that people kill, hate, or discriminate against Jews; he was merely trying to give the Christians a separate identity.  The other gospels are more even, they put the blame on the Jewish leaders, not the Jews in general.  

Slavery in the 1st century was not the same as the 1800s.  It was done to captives of war, or to pay extreme debts. In the latter case it, was only allowed for a limited time.  Slaves were to be freed every 7 and every 50 years.  Even then, wether or not the New Testament supports slavery can be debated.  It depends on how you understand a few short passages.  
Jesus never said people should kill disobedient children; He said the Pharisee's put their traditions God's law.  The law he used as an example did advocate executing children who cursed their parents, but the emphasis was on the Pharisees ignoring God's laws for their own interpretations of said laws, not on the law itself.

I bet there would be more records if Jerusalem hadn't been razed.

Probably.

OK, let's address your points.  
First of all, going first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, is NOT a contradiction.  Jesus started his disciples off by sending them to a local audience, which was more likely to be receptive, then LED them to a more hostile audience, then SENT them to all the world.  That's not contradictory, it's just a solid tutorial approach. Start local, go global. Good business sense.

  Now, on the issue of Jesus' death, he was a Jew, he died in a city of the Jews, and it was Jewish religious leaders who pushed a Roman governor into sentencing him to death.  That's not anti-Semitism, it's simply what happened.  There weren't any blond-haired blue-eyed Norwegians in the crowd. Other than the Roman garrison and maybe a few merchants and Greek tourists, everybody in Jerusalem for Passover was Jewish!  The deeds and words of Jesus that inspired such hostility had their roots in his interpretation of Jewish law, and would have inflamed NO ONE but a Jew.  So of course the Jews of Jerusalem - particularly their religious and political leaders, were responsible for his death.  Since Jesus and every one of his 12 disciples were Jews, making such a claim is NOT anti-Semitic.  It simply records what happened.

  Jesus injunction about putting God first, ahead of even family, is moral in the context that serving God is superior in every way to serving human purposes.  However, again, taken in context of Jesus' entire moral philosophy, to serve God in the broader sense IS to serve man - albeit in a different way.  A good Christian will be a better husband, a better father, and a better employee by virtue of his faith - IF he allows the teachings of Christ to govern his conduct. And, the more effectively we serve him, the greater will be our reward.  Look at it this way - if Peter and John had stayed at their fishing nets, the entire Christian movement might never have started.  Following Jesus, and passing down what he taught, was more important than catching and selling fish.  Jesus also taught: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you."  In other words, as long as God comes first, other needs will be provided for, one way or another.

And of course, the usual slander of the early Christians: "uneducated, superstitious" etc.  Jews of the First Century were one of the most literate peoples governed by Rome.  From the age of six until they were men, they divided their time between learning their trade and studying under their rabbis.  Most of them were bilingual, speaking Greek and Aramaic.  Many had a smattering of Latin also.  They were a hard-working people, close to the earth, who lived through some very rough times.  It's easy for us to be dismissive of them 2,000 years later, but I daresay they were not the ignorant rubes you make them out to be.
      As far as the Gospels go - Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written within the same decade, between 30 and 60 AD, by men who knew each other.  Matthew was one of the original 12 disciples and an eyewitness of most of the events he described.  He would have known not only Jesus Himself, but His mother and His brothers as well.  His material would be regarded as a primary source, by historical standards.  Mark was too young to have been one of the Disciples (although he apparently witnessed Jesus' arrest at Gethsemane), but according to Papias (writing about 110 AD, fifty years after the three Synoptic Gospels were written), Mark was the companion of Simon Peter, who made the journey to Rome with him and acted as Peter's interpreter to the Latin-speaking audience there.  His Gospel is made up of the stories of Jesus that Simon Peter told, and he had ample opportunity to make sure those stories were faithfully recorded.  Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and by his own admission not a disciple of Jesus.  However, in his own words, he gathered the testimony  "as it was passed down to us by those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning,  it seemed good to me to draw up an account for you . . ."  With those words he begins a Gospel that features painstaking attention to historical detail, and follows it up with a careful history of the formative years of the church that followed, which we know as the Book of Acts.  Luke obviously consulted Mark's and probably Matthew's gospels, and in his travels would have had the chance to meet John, Peter, the brothers of Jesus, and probably the aging Mary, Jesus' mother, as well.  One other note, while I am on the topic - you will note that the Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, awaiting trial before Nero.  We know from the letter of I Clement (about 90 AD) that Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome after the Great Fire of 66 AD but before the end of Nero's reign in 68.  Since Luke makes no mention of these significant events, it is most likely they had not happened at the time he wrote his gospel, or the book of Acts.  That puts the terminal date for Acts around 62 AD, when Paul was awaiting trial.  Which means Mark and probably Matthew were completed earlier still, around 60 or before.  So you are talking about a gap of some 27 years after the Resurrection, if 33 is the correct date, which most scholars now feel certain it is. As someone who graduated high school nearly 30 years ago, I can tell you that I have a pretty good memory for events that happened in the early 1980's.  Particularly events that were of great importance to my own life.

OK, that went long, Sorry.  Let me touch on your last two points - Josephus indeed wrote around 90-95 AD, compiling his notes from earlier sources and from his own experience.  That puts his writings about 60 years after the Crucifixion. While some have disputed his comments about Jesus, in his next passage he mentions James, the brother of Jesus, and his death at the hands of the High Priest's faction in 62 AD.  (Gasp! More anti-semitism from a Jew! And not even a Christian one at that!)  Since he makes that passing reference to Jesus there, it stands to logic that the passage mentioning Jesus in the preceding chapter was what he was indicating.  Also, Suetonius, you are correct, wrote nearly 100 years later - but he drew his histories from earlier sources that no longer exist.  There is also a letter from about 90 AD that refers to the Jews' "crucifying their wise king," not to mention all the Christian sources you completely discount because, well, they are Christian. That includes the works of the New Testament and the Apostolic fathers, like Clement.  Do I wish there were more sources outside Scripture, that mentioned Jesus?  Yes, I do.  BUt if you look at all the extant documents from the first half of the first century AD, the fact is that there are very, very few of them and none of those focus on Judea.  Most of the surviving writings from that era are either from Greece, Rome, or Egypt - and again, there are maybe a half dozen at most.  Flick is right that the life and ministry of Jesus made little immediate impact.  But their influence continued to grow, like ripples on a pond, as His disciples spread their message.
  Good grief, I'm writing a book here.  ANOTHER book, instead of the one I should be working on right now!  But, in for a penny, in for a pound.  I beg your indulgence while I address your last two points.
  On slavery - Jesus did not come into the world to change the political or social system.  His  mission was to reconcile Holy God with sinful man, through passing on His Father's teachings, and in his own flesh fulfilling the requirement of perfect justice by sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world.  In the world in which He was born,  slavery was a universal reality.  Jesus could not have done much against it if he tried, without exercising Divine coercion which would have unraveled the whole concept of human free will.  What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery.  
  Now, as to your last reference, I had to look it up tpo figure out what you were referring to.  I did not recognize it for the simple reason that you took it so far from its clear meaning!  Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for ducking the ancient commandment to "honor father and mother" by simply pledging to give their earthly goods to the Temple (at some point in the future), and then using that as an excuse not to take financial care of their aging parents.  While he does briefly cite the ancient Mosaic code: "Let him who speaks evil of his mother or father, be put to death," there is no hint that he was advocating killing anyone - simply shaming the Pharisees for using a hollow religious oath to duck out on their responsibility for taking care of their parents as long as they lived.  In an age with no nursing homes or social security, abandoning elderly parents was considered an egregious sin - especially for people who held themselves up as spiritual leaders.

  Wow.  I had no intent of going on this long when I started, and I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep.
  BTW, Flick, I know that you and I have batted this back and forth a good bit before, but I do appreciate your position about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.  The difference between us is that I believe the Gospel accounts do measure up that standard, and you believe that they do not.  It's a difference I love to debate, but always with respect and affection. :cheers:

There are very, very few scholars that reject the existence of Jesus.  Even some rather rabid atheists acknowledge that he more than likely really existed.  The scholarly debate centers on questions of his divinity and if not the divine Son of God, what about him made him stand out (in an historical sense) from the many others at the time who had "similar" ministries.

(Similar ministries if you reject divinity).

The resurrection itself holds considerable scholarly interest since it was witnessed by such a broad spectrum of people.  I'm struck by the significance of Paul's conversion; he was not exactly "friendly" to the early Christians.

If we reject the four Gospels as "historic evidence" for whatever reason, we are still left with Paul's conversion and subsequent ministry.  This is not easy to explain away either and is much better documented.

I agree that there is, indeed, an awful lot of mystery (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,137606.msg463749.html#msg463749) about this story.  I'm not sure it's meant to have the kinds of explanations we seek to ascribe to it.

Well said!

One other point - then I MUST go to bed.
There was apparently a Roman document that confirmed, to some degree, the Gospel narratives about Jesus.
Justin Martyr, around 140 AD, wrote an apologia for Christianity that he dedicated to the Emperor Antoninus Pius.
After describing the arrest and crucifixion - and the Resurrection - he told the Emperor: "That these things happened, you may ascertain for yourself from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."  It makes sense that an event which threw all of Jerusalem into tumult would have merited a report to Caesar.  And, given Pilate's stormy relationship with his subjects, it might well have been a pre-emptive strike against any report the High Priest sent back to Rome.  Unfortunately, the original "Acts of Pilate" was lost by the fourth century when Constantine legalized Christianity.  But it must have existed, and corroborated the Christian narrative to some extent, or Justin would not have appealed to it so confidently.  There was, I might add, a forged "Acts of Pilate" written sometime in the Fifth Century which circulated in the Medieval church but is now universally condemned by scholars as a forgery.

I have three choices there: from the top, 1, 4 and 6. In other words, he is the Son of God, a prophet and a revolutionary.  :smile:

Okay, I'm willing to accept that. However, I could get into why that doesn't make any sense if Jesus was of divine origin.


Yes, indeed they were jewish, but they have accepted Jesus as their master. They believed he was the son of god. Other jews have not, since the religious tension. Although take what I'm saying here with a grain of salt, as I'm not as well versed in early church history as I'd like to be.

You see, I'm also skeptic about the writers of the gospel.

Possibly, but I need more proof than a source that may have existed sometime.

[quote What He could do, and DID do, was teach a moral and ethical code, which, when perfectly followed. spelled the death knell of slavery.  How can you "love your neighbor as yourself" while buying or selling him at the auction block.  Christ came to end man's spiritual slavery to sin, which, in the eternal scale of things, was a far worse problem than the human labor system known as slavery.  [/quote]
Well, obviously, that didn't work.
Also, how hard would've it been for him to say: "Slavery is an abomination."?
That would've cleared a few things up.

Also, Jesus said that:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is what Leviticus says:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that the old testament requires you to kill/beat disobedient children, and as the quote above shows(5:17), Jesus approves of this sick and immoral law.
I must add though, the new testament's morals are an improvement over that of the old's. I really like the golden rule, but Jesus wasn't the first one to say it.

Also, let me clarify my point: I don't think that it's impossible that a man named Jesus existed. He may have been a rabbi/philosopher in his age. But even if he existed, I think most of what we know about him is a myth.

We can agree on that. :cheers:




Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."

Or you coud look at it this way: If you choose to voluntarily separate yourself from God throughout this life, he will HONOR YOUR CHOICE by separating you from Him for eternity.  After all, to forcibly impose Himself on you for eternity after you have rejected Him altogether - wouldn't that be the spiritual equivalent of rape?

Is this directed at me? And by seperating himself from me, you mean I'll go to hell? Pitchforks, lake of fire and all?
Just to make it clear, I'm not mad, or mocking you, I'm just curious.

The argument depends on the idea that God made humanity.  If you made something, should you not be able to do whatever you want with it? 

The Jews were God's chosen people; he came to them first to fulfill prophesies sent specifically to them.

Indy,

I understand you are a man of faith, and therefore, you believe with all of your heart that the gospels are historically accurate and written at the time of the events they depict. You HAVE to believe that, because if you don't, then your beliefs can be questioned. I get it. It doesn't make it so.

It is because of your faith that you must reject any scholar or historian who proposes a theory or possibility that contradicts it.

It is likewise because of your faith that you must endeavor to discredit any who would do so, and accept without question authors who cherry-pick history to serve their agendas. I'm not saying that some historians who question Jesus' divinity, the historical accuracy of the Bible, or even his existence, also do not have an agenda, some of them do. However, as a man of professed and deep faith, you are at an objective disadvantage from the start, because you HAVE to believe the Bible as the truth. This is evident in the fact that you would trust the agendad-driven historical observations of a man like David Barton, who cherry-picks history in the interest of serving his evangelical activism. Because of this, secular historians are always going to be more objective evaluators of history by default.

You have every right to be offended by that, just like I have every right to be offended that you consider yourself a better family man than me by default because of your faith.

Cthulu,

I understand that you have difficulties with Christianity. So do I, but then I have significant problems with religion in general. I have to say, however, that you do appear to be driven by an agenda as well. I’m not saying that my research or evaluation of history does not get influenced by my disdain for religion. I admit it sometimes does. But I do my best to be driven primarily by reason, though I sometimes fail in that endeavor.

As for my own take on the historocity of Jesus, I don’t really take a position because this is a topic that is just far too obscured by time, missing history, and distortion (not just by Christians) to even begin to know the real story. I do believe that the stories presented in the four Gospels have evolved and been embellished by those of faith. I don’t know how anybody with a reasonable bone in their body could refute that as a perfectly reasonable assumption. ALL history has been manipulated and massaged to serve agendas to some degree, so why would Christian history be any different? I would propose that religious agendas outweigh political agendas in terms of how far-reaching and tenacious they are. Is it a shame that non-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life is so thin? Yes it is, because I would love to know more about the events surrounding his life, if for no other reason than they have had such lasting impact on a significant portion of recorded history. Some will say that it is because of this impact that I SHOULD believe, because if it has had such impact for as long as it has then it MUST be the work of God. I guess there is a certain kind of logic to that thinking, and not something that I reject outright, but wouldn’t that suggest I should be a Jew rather than a Christian? I mean, Judaism has been around and impacting the history of the world for far longer, hasn’t it?

That’s it, where’s the nearest synagogue?

Glad we got that all sorted out and everyone's in agreement now.  :tongueout:

By your logic, child abuse and slavery is perfectly okay. You "made" your child, so you can do whatever you want with him.
You own your slave, so do as you please.

As for jews being god's chosen people-your god has a sick sense of humor, looking at the history of the jewish people.

But we're straying off topic. This thread was about Jesus. Let's stop arguing.


Trust me, I too have a problem with religion in general .
However, I'll be the first to admit that there is still a lot of research ahead of me on the topic of Jesus. As I said, he may have existed, but there are just too many similarities with other messiahs. (Is that how you  spell that?)
I'm no expert on this topic. I still have books to read, and articles to browse. I try to gather as much information as I can.

Well, obviously, that didn't work.
Also, how hard would've it been for him to say: "Slavery is an abomination."?
That would've cleared a few things up.

Also, Jesus said that:
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And this is what Leviticus says:
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Possibly, but that still doesn't change the fact that the old testament requires you to kill/beat disobedient children, and as the quote above shows(5:17), Jesus approves of this sick and immoral law.
I must add though, the new testament's morals are an improvement over that of the old's. I really like the golden rule, but Jesus wasn't the first one to say it.

Also, let me clarify my point: I don't think that it's impossible that a man named Jesus existed. He may have been a rabbi/philosopher in his age. But even if he existed, I think most of what we know about him is a myth.

We can agree on that. :cheers:




Hitchens puts it really well: "I will not be told, "I have a supernatural offer for you, and you can be redeemed if you believe just in me, and if you don't like it you can be tortured forever." I won't be talked to like that. That is the language of fascism and dictatorship."


[/quote]

     You're forgetting one thing; you're not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, who would indeed be dictatorial if he made such a statement, but GOD, sinless, perfect, all-powerful.

     God does not "send people to Hell", but if they don't want to be with Him, He must put them somewhere.  What makes Hell "Hell" is the fact that it is separated from God.

     You're forgetting one thing; you're not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, who would indeed be dictatorial if he made such a statement, but GOD, sinless, perfect, all-powerful.

     God does not "send people to Hell", but if they don't want to be with Him, He must put them somewhere.  What makes Hell "Hell" is the fact that it is separated from God.
[/quote]
YOU are saying that I'm not dealing with a sinful, imperfect man, but god.
I, on the other hand, don't believe a word of that.

hi
I must confess having read the title for  this thread i was somewhat concerned that it may invoke an argument between some of you guys.Religion is a notorious subject to debate and being such a personal subject i could see quite a few snide remarks surface. How pleased i am to admit that this was not the case,all who have answered Indy's question has done so with respect and admiration.You guys really are a rare breed of people and it is because of your respect and diversity that Andrew should feel proud of bringing you together on this site.
       

       KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND LONG MAY YOUR FRIENDSHIP CONTINUE.

Indy is a gentleman. He is also a fellow Navy vet, so I cut him a little extra slack.  :wink:

Indy and I have been able to swat the ball back and forth on more occasions that I can count anymore, and I can only hope that he has gained as much these experiences as I have. He's still usually wrong though.  :teddyr:

Good comments from all concerned.
Flick - your comments about "cherry picking history" a la David Barton are intriguing.
   If you are looking for historical quotes about a particular subject; i.e. our earlier discussion about religion and our founding fathers - the simplest way to do it is to find an index of their writings and look up "religion."  There you have everything they said on that particular topic.  Is that "cherrypicking," or is that simply confining your search to the subject at hand?  As for the early dating of the Gospels, agenda aside, the early dates actually seem to best fit most of the archeological and historical facts we have. The reason the so-called "higher critics", starting at Tubingen in the mid-19th century (Julius Wellhausen and others) argued for dating the Gospels much later than the events they describe is because they were following a rather self-fulfilling logic: Miracles are impossible.  Therefore, any story that records a miracle CANNOT be eyewitness testimony, but rather MUST be a myth made up long after the actual event.  Since myth formation is known to take a long time, therefore the Gospels MUST be dated much, much later than the events they record.  They dated Mark to the 80's AD, Matthew and Luke to the late 90's, and John to around 180 AD, NOT because of archeological or historical evidence, but rather because their ideological bias required those dates.  20th and 21st century archeological and historical discoveries have pushed the Gospels further back, although those who reject the miraculous still have a knee-jerk tendency to want them to date later, for the same reason that the "higher critics" did - because they are UNWILLING to allow the possibility that maybe miraculous events really did occur.  So I think you will find that secularists can be just as agenda-driven as religious people.

     Here is something for you and Cthulhu to both mull over; I'm not demanding any sort of rebuttal or response, although (as always) I will welcome one if it is offered.  The origins of Christianity as a belief system are centered around a very strong belief that Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead on the third day.  This belief was so strong in the early church that Paul, writing in I Corinthians (a book that is FIRMLY dated to 54-55 AD by virtually all Bible scholars, both secular and religious) said that "If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins, and your faith is worthless .  . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (I Corinthians 15: 17a & 19).  Earlier in the same chapter, he gives a list of eyewitnesses who personally saw the risen Christ, and mentions that most of them are still living.  Not only that, the formula he uses to introduce this list: "For I passed on to you, as of first importance, that which I also received" is a verbal formula used by rabbis to introduce something that they had memorized, taught by someone else.  If you back trace Paul's career, you find that he visited Peter in Jerusalem some six to eight years after Jesus' crucifixion and spent about two weeks there.  That would have been the prime opportunity for him to have been taught the primitive catechism he recites in I Cor. 15: 3-7 - the list of resurrection eyewitnesses.  What am I getting at?
  Whether you accept or reject the events recorded in the Gospels, it is inarguable fact that just a few years after Jesus was crucified, his followers in Jerusalem were publicly proclaiming that He rose from the dead, and passing on and memorizing a list of all the eyewitnesses who had seen Him after His Resurrection. Even if you reject the Resurrection as fact, SOMETHING happened after the Crucifixion which created an unshakable conviction that Christ was not only risen from the dead, but that He also was, in fact, God in human flesh, now ascended to heaven after teaching His disciples the message they were now spreading.
  This begs a very simple question: if not a resurrection, then WHAT?  These people may have been primitive by some standards, but they did grasp one simple truth: DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD (George A. Romero was not around to convince them otherwise).  Something as simple as a missing body alone would not have been able to convince them all that Jesus had returned - especially not a pragmatist like Thomas, who said "Unless I see the nail prints in His hand, and put my finger where the spear pierced his side, I will NOT believe!" 
  So again, if not a Resurrection, then WHAT created a movement that would ultimately change the ancient world forever?

:bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Every person interested in examining the concept of damnation and salvation with a modern interpretation should read INFERNO by LARRY NIVEN and JERRY POURNELLE.  This is a wonderful book of speculative fiction that you won't soon forget and likely will reread and reread. 
(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2NY0iDxztQirxbDK2Qdh_PNiR2LNwEw1WyqWHalaI5rrp2suY)

I have not read that one, but they are a VERY strong writing team.  I'll have to check that one out.

“Cherry picking,” or at least what I am implying with the term, refers to the classification of researched information into what supports one’s belief and what does not, and then rejecting the latter. I’m not talking about refining one’s search. I’m talking about the outright rejection of contrary evidence. David Barton is well known as an evangelical activist. This does not mean that the whole of his research is wrong, it simply means that his conclusions must be questioned because he holds supernatural claims that he must prove. While secular historians may be more skeptical, I trust their objectivity more. What is saddest of all is that traditional approaches to analyzing history often do not work for religious history. Objectivity is a challenge from the outset. All historians can view an archeological bit of evidence that has no religious significance on pretty much equal footing, regardless of spiritual leanings, but once the bit becomes evidence of something concerning a commonly embraced religious belief, look out. Nobody can be trusted to be objective.


Well, my rebuttal here would first be that this is pretty sound logic. I myself rule out miracles because they are a contradiction to natural law. I myself have also seen, firsthand, religious interpretation of events that had no supernatural cause, so how can I trust the eyewitness testimony of the gospels from 2000 years ago, even if they WERE written in the lifetimes of those that supposedly witnessed them? Researching this is an abolute mess because I cannot trust the objectivity of most of what I come across. I will be willing to bet that if I ask you for a listing of your sources, that most if not all of them will be from the perspective of a religious agenda. I am very curious which archeological discoveries you are referring to because I would love to research them for myself. I wonder if you are being swayed by evangelical interpretation of discoveries or if the discoveries themselves are self-evident. Finally on this point, I think I said already that secularists can be just as agenda-driven as religious people. What I said is that I tend to trust secular objectivity moreso than religious objectivity. I find the words "religious" "objectivity" to be at least somewhat mutually exclusive.


Yet, if I read the resurrection passages in Mark (the oldest of the four gospels as I understand it), it is not an angel, but a man, sitting in a tomb that is already opened, yet in the other three, he is an angel, or two angels, or the tomb was witnessed as opened BY an angel. This is not minor variation in eyewitness testimony. This is a significant departure by supposedly later versions of the story. Later in Mark, somebody appears to Mary and the other disciples, and he bears no resemblance to Jesus, to the point that they don’t believe it is him. It is only after he berates them for their non-belief that they accept the idea. I have read the Mark version of the resurrection many times, and it’s like looking at one of those pictures where you have to stare at it until the picture emerges, but once you see it you can’t get it out of you mind. If I were religious minded, I would call that a revelation. Since I am not, I simply call it reason.

I know you are a man of faith, but haven’t you ever questioned the Mark version of the resurrection, and the subequent level of embellishment present in the other three gospels? I don’t know. I’ve never seen a resurrected body, but I have no idea if that makes the body looks differently, so I am left with using my reason to read between the lines. Isn’t it possible that it was no more than another man that appeared and claimed to be Jesus resurrected, and that they were so desperate to believe it that they accepted it? I know what you will say, that it is not possible, but of course it is perfectly possible. I’m not saying it happened that way, but I am saying that it is more likely to the laws of nature than it being a risen dead man. Call me crazy.


I don’t think I ever questioned that SOMETHING happened. SOMETHING happened to the prophets of Islam too. SOMETHING happened to Buddha as well. SOMETHING happened to Zoroaster. Christianity is not the first religion to believe that somebody was resurrected and embodied divinity, but it was the first faith to put so much focus on this aspect. I don’t say that Christianity borrowed this from older religions, but I do accept that it is possible. I mean, you’re asking me to consider the possibility that Jesus was raised from the dead. I’m asking you to consider the possibility that the concept of a deity raised in the flesh of a man was borrowed.

 

See above for the possibilities I have considered.


Fantastic joke, but I’m not convinced of that at all. People of that time were eager to buy into supernatural explanations for that which they did not understand. As I’ve said in earlier debates with you, I do not reject the importance of religion. I think religion was an extremely important part of the development of the human mind. I actually believe that science owes alot to religion, because religion caused the human mind to contemplate bigger things, things beyond the pragmatic everyday survival needs of the hunter/gatherer.


Again, this is dependent upon the gospels being the truth, and Acts being the truth. I know you are certain they are. I am not. I accept them as religious doctrine. So call me Thomas, until I see it, I won’t believe either. According to virtually every Christian I have talked to, I am going to burn in hell for using the reason that God gave me.
  

Well that’s a pretty simple answer: BELIEF in a resurrection. Are you saying that older religions that believed in resurrection were mistaken but that that the early Christians were not?

You'll be glad you did.   :smile:

As always, friend James, a very well thought out and thought provoking rebuttal.  I thoroughly enjoy these conversations with you.  I really don't want to write another dissertation for you tonight, because writing all this is keeping me from writing on my actual book that I hope to publish! (Well, that and the incredible two part episode of NCIS that was on tonight!)

Really briefly - Mark's commentary uses the phrase "young man," but the other gospels refer to angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear unrecognized in human form.  And, while it is generally thought that Mark predates the other gospels (I'm not 100% sure that it does, but I'll accept that for the sake of argument!), nearly all scholars agree that the very end of Mark does not. From 16:8 onward, does not appear in the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts.  It appears that Mark's original ending may have been lost, and the last few verses (9-20 in most Bibles) tacked on later based on the other Gospel accounts.  Now, considering that it is very likely all three Synoptic gospels were composed within the same decade, the difference in details is not as significant as if the accounts were written 30-40 years apart. And, oddly enough, the account that resembles Mark the most is John's, which was written LAST of all - about 60 years after the crucifixion and 30 years after the Synoptics Gospels, by the Apostle John during his final years.

  A few examples of the kind of archeology I mentioned - the Tubingen scholars unanimously asserted that John could not have been written before about 180 AD because that kind of "advanced Christology" did not exist in the First Century Church.  Yet the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, discovered in the 1920's and dated in the 1960's, is part of a copy of John's work that is firmly dated to about 120 AD.  It was discovered in the Egyptian desert over 900 miles from Ephesus, where John wrote his Gospel (we have that bit of info from the writings of Polycarp, who knew John as an old man).  For the gospel to have been copied and circulated that far would probably involve a span of about 15-20 years - which pushes the date for the writing of John's gospel back to the tail end of the First Century, which is when the church said it was written all along.  So the Tubingen scholars were off by almost a century!

  As far as miracles go - any medical doctor who has practiced for a decent amount of time can tell you stories of "clinical miracles" as they call them - patients who should have died but didn't, diseases that should not have gotten better that did, and tumors that simply disappear overnight.  This world is brimming with events that have absolutely no scientific explanation, but are documented and known to have occurred.  So can we conclusively, absolutely say that miracles NEVER happen?

  One other thing - I hear a lot about dying and rising Messiahs in various pagan religions, but every time I have looked into them I find that the differences with the Christian narrative are far greater than the similarities.  Christianity alone has a contemporary historical figure who was seen and known by those who recorded the accounts rising from the dead.  Other legends, like those of Osiris and Mithras, deal with shadowy figures who lived - if they lived at all - centuries before the chronicles of their experiences were written.

I don't know the order in which the four gospels were recorded, nor does anybody for that matter. Postulation is the best we have. I'm not sure either, I'm just pointing out that there is a decent consensus in that regard. Whatever the case, I'm guessing that you have never questioned the degree of discrepancy in the resurrection versions then. I consider the assumption that Mark is the older narrative a reasonable one based on the simplicity of the narrative. A part of human nature is to embellish stories over time, and I can't imagine that Christian stories would be different in that regard. The nature of embellishment is that a simpler or more mundane story becomes more fantastic and detailed the further along it goes. The other three versions follow this embellishment tendency pretty well.


That is a distinct possibility. I appreciate you providing the examples. I looked up the Rylands Fragment. I think I've seen an article or two on it before at some point. The 120 A.D. date seems probable, and I think the most promising determinant is that it was written strongly in the Hadrianic style, which would put it right around then. The 15-20 year span you speak of is a reasonable assumption. I consider the dating of the gospel narratives important to a degree, but I think you will find that most of my critiques are not based on that. I think that's more Cthulu. It could be that the narratives were written by eyewitnesses at the time of their occurence, it could be that they were written primarily a hundred years later or more, or they could have been basic narratives that were embellished over time in an effort to make them more fantastic. All of these are perfectly plausible.


Okay, we may be arguing semantics here. The word "miracle" often gets applied liberally. If you mean that it describes an event or situation that impossible or difficult to explain in conventional means, then I suppose you could call it a miracle. I'm also willing to accept that there may be a supernatural influence of some kind, but I don't commit to anything I cannot see for myself or quantify in some way. Whatever the case, then these things happen. However, clinical miracles do not equal the idea of Lazarus being raised after four days of death. Given the embellishment tendency that I spoke of earlier, I find it perfectly plausible that the Lazarus story, if founded on a real event, would be stretched into four days very easily. Clearly you do not entertain that notion, but I do.

Historical analysis of documents is FAR more complicated than this.  One common method is linguistic analysis, where spoken language experts analyze the vocabulary, grammar and writing style of the author.

Such analysis has been done on a lot of the documents you guys are discussing, and while these things are never 100% "certain" (what in life is, anyway?), the conclusions Indy mentions are widely held.  That alone does not make it true, of course, and also of course that does not mean "universally" held.  I'm not going to make the 'consensus = right' argument any day of the week.

But my point is that these things have been studied at GREAT length and the pieces of the puzzle and conclusions drawn from them are nowhere near as simplistic and some of the discussion in this thread makes it seem.

A LOT of people with the agenda to disprove even the existence of Jesus have applied their craft to these documents.  Almost all have concluded the gist of what Indy is saying about the dating and importance of the documents. 



This is true, but it applies FAR more to oral traditions than written word.  This is why it was written down in the first place.



Again, the problem is that critical analysis, even by skeptics, reveals several key points that cannot be ignored:

(1) The embellishments that you mention take time to become "canon" if I may use that term.  In other words, if you tell me a common story, and I repeat it with embellished details, my version does not 'take over' yours overnight.  These spreading rates are fairly well known, at least to the degree that minimum / maximum limits can reasonably be placed on just how different a story should be in a given geographic region in a given period of time.

You've studied advanced statistics, so you know the math behind this type of analysis.  These are not "guesses," but based on data. 

(2) The differences between the Gospels are minor on a scale defined by the magnitude of the story they relate.  We can quabble over which day of the week something happened or what someone was wearing or where they were sitting, etc.  Those kinds of detailed embellishments spread quickly.

A dead guy rising from the dead and being witnessed by a BUNCH of people in a fairly geographically diverse region (given travel rates of the day) is not something that told once grows fast.  The level of skepticism, disbelieve and abject fear (for the tellers) prevent rapid spreading.

On major points, the scholarly conclusion is that they are far more alike than different.  SOMETHING happened in the Jewish community during the adult life of the man Jesus, and one version of it was recorded. 

(3) Is there a competing version?  If you acknowledge Jesus lived and there was something even remotely remarkable occurring during his life, whether it was him or not, is there ANY evidence of it being something other than as recorded in the Gospels?  Do you discount eyewitness testimony outright, or only in the face of other competing versions of the same history.

In other words, what we have is what we have.  In the absence of any other evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts (at least the historical facets of these accounts), you are no more justified by reason to reject them than I am to accept them. 

(4) Finally, Paul had no motivation to become complicit in the embellishment process.  His was a TOTAL conversion. 

Here's an interesting presentation regarding the existence of Paul (http://www.harvardhouse.com/apostle_paul.htm) with some additional remarks concerning evidence for his greater ministry.

If one rejects the historical significance of the Gospels, Paul remains a problem; Luke's version of the story is just too similar to be assigned on the basis of general acceptance and embellishment.

About the only thing I truly agree with you on is that neither of us is any more justified in either accepting or rejecting the gospels, or any degree in between, than the other. But I would say that there is both evidence for and against the veracity of the gospels, and too many holes to know the true story. Therefore, I am driven by reason to not accepting them based on a simple rule of not accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof. I don't truly reject them outright either, I simply reject the interpretations and distortions of them by human beings and their emotional limitations.

And that's a reasonable conclusion, albeit a different one than mine . . . and therefore wrong!  :wink: :bouncegiggle:

Seriously, though, may I pose one more question?

Jesus had four brothers whose names are recorded in the Gospels.  (Half brothers or adopted brothers, depending if you are Catholic or Protestant).  Anyway, all the Gospel narratives agree that his brothers were very skeptical of His ministry and His claims.  Yet one of them, James, after the Resurrection, becomes an outspoken Christian, a "pillar of the church," according to Paul, and a martyr, according to Josephus. Another, Jude, writes a remarkable short letter near the end of the church decrying the influence of false teachers and urging the audience to "contend once for all" their faith in Jesus as God and Messiah.

  These guys knew Jesus better than anyone.  They grew up with him.  They most likely shared a room with him. Like brothers through the ages, they would have spent more time in His company than anyone else in His life.  And at least two of them became convinced He was the Son of God.

  What would it take for YOU to believe that your brother was the Son of God?

  The only clue we have is from that very early list of eyewitnesses Paul records in I Corinthians 15 - "then He appeared to James, then to all the Apostles."

  The conversion of James is for me an even stronger proof than Paul's conversion that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

All fair.

Regarding the emphasized part, however, what if "proof" as you define it cannot exist?

Suppose for a moment that the Gospels are true as written, including the claims of the divinity of Jesus.  Could there be PROOF of this?  Doesn't such proof transcend the testable Laws of the Physical Universe as we know them?

I admire (and agree with) your adherence to the physical laws.  But, they MAY be limiting.  That is, our understanding, our inherent ability to understand, the kind of "proof" needed to "prove" the existence of God the Son may simply not exist.

In this model, are you not preordaining the negative "proof" by demanding such proof fits OUR current models of the physical and historical universe as WE can describe them?

For my part:

I cannot prove the extraordinary claims, but I see no reason to reject them on that basis alone.  Proof is not something I require.  I cannot prove love exists, but I now that I feel something toward my wife and children that is different from what I feel toward other humans.  I cannot prove you perceive "blue" the same way I do, but we can agree that that thing over is "blue."  I cannot prove the sun will come up tomorrow.

I see miracles every day.  Perhaps that's just my interpretation, but I do see things every day that I cannot explain in a "proof" sense.

In fact, even with a very, very deep understanding of the Physical Laws of the Universe and the language of mathematics, I find the very existence of life itself to be quite a miracle.

Ulthar - a poet trapped in the body of a scientist! :cheers:

Or, a madman trapped in the body of scientist!!!   :bouncegiggle: :teddyr:
Jus' kiddin'.   :wink:

Much of this discussion involves the accusation of putting the cart before the horse. Those who claim the historical veracity of Jesus claim that the opposition a priori negate the existence of miracles/"extraordinary claims" to justify their views. Those who doubt the veracity claims say pretty much the same thing, but the roles are reversed.

I agree with Flick James here in doubting the veracity of the historical record. 2000 years is an awful long time for any history to remain unscathed; I could have a reasonably good argument about what I had for dinner two weeks ago with anybody who cared enough to think different. All this talk of statistics, or of things taking time to become canon, ignore the mercurial ways of human thought and belief. Humans are not as predictable as most natural phenomenon. Defining where an electron is at any given time would be easier than discovering what one person perceived on any given day.

ulthar brought up this very point in his discussion. Human belief lies in the realms of the subjective. If you need "objective" proof for something such as Love (with a capital L), you are going to live a very sad life. And yet the entire modern world is still built on the things that can be proved objectively, at least as far as we know them. The entirety of human thought is the flowering of our hideously complex thought processes which, as far as anybody can guess, are still built on our bodies and brains being subject to physical law.

More importantly, if the belief in Jesus is subject to laws that transcend our current knowledge, why are we wasting all our time discussing the historical Jesus? The tail end of that train of thought involves the rejection of proof in favor of Faith (with a capital F). If that's the case, then the primacy of Christianity is also called into question, as there are billions of people who follow belief systems that require the same "proof," but are drastically different in their particulars.

If you want to believe something, you will go to extraordinary lengths to prove that belief to yourself and to others. Everybody does that. I'm doing it right now. Even in this example, while I am agreeing with Flick James' arguments, I disagree with his ultimate aims. He is a self-proclaimed deist, where I even reject that belief.

I guess what I'm trying and failing to say is that the history of human thought is a life of its own. The ascent of Christianity in the Western world is a supremely important event, as is the ascendance of Islam in the Middle East. I view both as kluge. Not true, but important to anybody who wants to understand people and this history of this planet.

A salient point.  I have always said that reason, intellect, history, and archeology can take you on a journey towards faith, but in the end, belief still hinges on faith at some point.

St. Augustine nailed it:  "Unless you believe, you cannot understand."

But you agree with my arguments. Good enough for me.  :cheers:

When it comes to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, is the son of God, or if the Bible is the word of God, I think of the blip that Christianity is in the scheme of human history. Yes, Jesus carries a significant weight in the development of Western societies for 2000 years. Judaism has carried this weight for the bulk of written history. And then there is archelogical record that predates recorded history. The Gobekli Tepe temple discovered in Turkey predates all of it, and is one of the most intriguing archeological finds of all time. It is dated at almost 12,000 years old, and represents a religious temple and capability that far exceed what would have been though possible for such a hunter-gatherer society. And that is only the top of it, with only about 5% having been uncovered. It is estimated to take another 50 years before the entire thing is uncovered. To imagine that human at that time were able to erect something like that is staggering.

If Christianity is the one true faith, and Judaism as it's precedent, then what of Gobekli Tepe? What religious belief does it represent? What was behind it's building?

This clearly shows religious thought being older than anybody 100 years ago would have imagined. Whether there is a God intervening in our affairs or not, or if religion was an invention of the human mind for contemplation of the mysteries of nature, I find the topic fascinating. I hear the notion that the historical weight of Christianity should tell me something, as if it is a justification of the veracity of Biblical narratives or that it must be at least related to the work of God. The historical significance of Christianity cannot be denied, but when I put it up against the whole of historical and pre-historical record, there is way more to consider than Christianity and Judaism.

I think that God predates all of us, and has been revealing Himself to mankind throughout the ages . . . Hebrews 1:1 kinda sums that up for me.

I couldn't agree more.

There isn't a board anywhere else that would have this kind of discussion happen with such geniality.

Sorry for the smarminess, guys, but I have to say it makes me smile.  Thank you for that after a long day at work.

Just speaking for myself, my work is one of the strongest builders of my faith.   I look at the human body closely and in a lot of detail, daily, in sickness and in health.  The complexity and grandeur of what we have been made to be... it's beyond anything that could have happened by anything less than great design.  We are a master creation from someone who is incomprehensible in his skill at creation.  There is nothing that can shake that belief in me, even if I do have my moments of doubt (as all believers do).

We have our flaws, and we aren't made to last forever, but the human body is the greatest of all engineering.  I have the privilege of focusing on it each day as my career.  I rely, daily, on how the body repairs itself.  Sometimes I can help encourage processes to take a better course, sometimes not.   But what really surprises me is the strength of disbelief it takes to closely examine us and then to reject a creator.   Of all of general revelation, we are what move me the most.

Okay, I know you can see the problem with the equation of this and the Gospels.

First of all, they were recorded eyewitness testimony (at least according to the claims, which we have not alternate evidence).  This would be like saying that I saw you eat a hamburger, and someone saying "no you did not."  How can we, 2000 years ago, say what Mark did or did not see?  Or Luke?  Etc.

We can question that he saw it, and we can question that he saw what he recorded.  But again, we are no more justified in denying than accepting it.

Secondly, there is a BIG difference between remembering or recording the mundane, such as what I had for dinner, and recording big events like the Gospel stories.  This alone does not make the true, but it does remove this type of rebuttal from the equation.

You are not likely to remember what you had for dinner two weeks ago, but you ARE likely to remember that you were very nearly in a traffic collision or a family member called saying they were terminally ill...or that a friend was executed by crucifixion on a cross. 

One might also more faithfully remember that he saw a dead friend appear, with witnesses, in a room, or an "enemy" appear after death on a road than one might remember a mundane event like an ordinary dinner.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the resurrection story is true, but that the accounting of it is at least faithful.  I don't know what Mark or Luke actually saw, but again, what we have is what we have.

I will say this - the four Biblical gospels are the earliest and most detailed accounts of the life of Jesus. 
All the other stuff comes later.  So if someone claims they are not historically accurate, or authentic, or
whatever, then no historically accurate, authentic records exist.

Sure. That's a valid point. I've never had a dead person resurrected in front of me. If that ever happened, I'm sure I'd remember it more than the meatloaf I ate two weeks ago.

But then again I've never had to stump for oral histories two millenia old.

My more important point was the inconsistency of human memory and two millenia of time.

We are "no more justified in denying in accepting it"? Really? How many people do you know that have come back from the dead? Not kind of dead, fully dead.

People confabulate, and time is the greatest impetus of myth creation.

You are providing special importance to this one point of human history. Granted, that's a big part of accepting the reality of a religion, but for those who don't share the same belief it is a rather large pill to swallow.


Or the strength of belief it takes to look at the same thing and validate a creator. That conclusion is not a given. I've got my good things and you've got yours.

All I usually ask is to at least attempt to countenance the idea that you may be wrong. Give it a go.

"oral histories two millenia old" is not an accurate description.
"Written records 2000 years old" is more to the point.

Granted, we don't have the original copies, but compared to other works of similar antiquity, the abundance of New Testament manuscripts, and the gap of time that separates these copies from the originals, is negligible.  Just to give one example: No scholar disputes that the text we have of Julius Caesar's COMMENTARIES ON THE GALLIC WARS is intact and accurately transmitted and copied.  Yet this narrative, which was composed in the 50's BC, is known to us from about a dozen or so copies, the oldest of which postdates the composition of the original by over 1,000 years.  On the other hand, we have two COMPLETE texts of the NT (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) that date to about 300 years after composition of the original, and copies and fragments of individual books, verses, and passages that go back (in several cases) within less than a century of the original composition.  Textual analysis (which is actually a pretty hard science, attempting to establish original wording by analyzing later copies) says that the New Testament text has been passed down with a textual purity in excess of 98%.  While you can (and many do) dispute whether are not the events recorded in the New Testament actually happened, the idea that the text itself has been corrupted and garbled over the centuries is 98% or more untrue (my book on textual analysis is out on loan, but the actual figure may be more like 99.2% - I'm erring on the side of caution).

  We've all played or heard of the game "Telephone," where you put 20 people in a circle and whisper something in the first person's ear, and he whispers it to the person next to them, until it makes the full circle.  Then the last person stands and says out loud what he was told, and the originator of the phrase says what it was to begin with - and the last version is hopelessly garbled.  People want to say the Scriptures were like that.  But the Scriptures are more like a written note that was passed around the circle, and then copied by each person that received it.  The amount of error is far, far less, and more likely to be minor things like spelling and syntax rather than actual meaning.  Now some would say the oral transmission of the Gospels before they were written down is like "telephone," and that the "embellishment" of the narratives of Jesus occurred during that time.  However, just as in the game, at the end, the originator of the phrase is there to explain what he said to the first person, at the time the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written, most of the original apostles were still alive and could confirm the facts that were being recorded.

  So in the final analysis, the question is: Did these men, who personally knew and were instructed by Jesus of Nazareth, tell the truth?  I believe they did.  And that belief is at the heart of my faith.

I usually try to keep my part in these discussions "intellectual" (for lack of a better word), but will stray into personal territory here for just a moment.

I have given that a go.  In fact, I do all the time.  I seem to spend a great deal of time merely moving from one 'crisis of Faith' to another.

I self-identified as an atheist for many years.  I did believe in "something" but not God - a God or any God that I could not see and touch.  I put ontology ahead of everything else in my life.

While considerably less dramatic, you could say that I my "Paul on the road to Damascus" moment.  Well, it would better be described as a series of them, and they continue to today.

I once thought I "knew" faith was a waste of time and effort.  As I opened my mind, a very painful process I assure you, I realized a deeper truth was all around me.  I began to see things that I had never noticed before.  These were not "events" such as turning water into wine, but rather very open, very clear failures of ontology and "the story" it told.

What was I left with then?  All of these failures of the "here and now" (let's call it) fit with the Biblical story - the ENTIRETY of that story, what one might call "the main theme" that ties the whole book together - in a profound way.

I cannot deny I continue to have questions.  That's part of the process.  No one "knows" any of the answers on this stuff.  But I can say with 100% honesty that my faith has put me on a path of higher understanding of the universe around me (and my place in it) than I EVER had before.  Giving up myself to a higher path (again, a continual process) has led to this.

I am grossly simplifying, and I hope you understand that.  My faith is not one of dogmatic acceptance, but one of continual challenge - the challenge for ME to grow and to understand.

So to your comment, I have given considering that I am wrong a go, and would merely respectfully ask that you do so as well.

Oh, I do. Absolutely.

This is a direct response to ulthar, but I mean it to all who contribute. While it is a bit much to ask me to respect your beliefs, I respect everybody's path to those beliefs. I do not discount anything, I value every input. I disagree, and in something as highly loaded as religious belief, that's not always a comfortable place to be. But to all who contribute, I respect that you believe what you do and how you got there.

I'm not aiming the idea that "you might be wrong" at anybody in particular, I'm aiming it at everybody, including myself. I make a special effort to see everybody's point of view.

So I disagree and am vocal about it. I'm flippant by nature, but understand that I value the argument. I may attack your arguments, but I still respect you (whoever you are) as a human being.

That's been my point all along.

ulthar,

After careful consideration, I do believe that you may actually be more argumentative than I, and this is no small feat. If there were an award I was aware of I would give it to you.

Well, that's funny, but I don't think he was being argumentative so much as confessional. 

Time for a group hug! :teddyr:

I believe that was Flick James paying ulthar a compliment. I could listen to those two argue all day.

A dubious one. I was pointing out a shared tendency that also tends to contribute to my social awkwardness.

You got something there, but you need to reread his post.