Jesus was a good man but his biographers got it wrong?

[estesbob]

I** don’t know that, very true; but I have little reason to doubt there was a good man and teacher named Jesus walking around first-century Judea.** That this man was God in mufti, now, that’s something it’d make sense to reserve judgment on without some kind of backup.
I !

The only way you could know this is if you accepted the writings you already rejected. Once you call in to doubt any of the Gospels then the rest are likewise unreliable. It appears to me you are a “cafeteira” Atheist

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Were it proven beyond doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, I would believe that he is more than human, possibly still alive, and certainly exists/existed on a level we cannot hope to reach as we are now. Whether that makes him a deity – I cannot say.

I already accept Jesus as a moralist and teacher with few equals, and one whose humanist philosophy I endeavor to follow in my own way; were it shown that the gospels are entirely factual, I would add ‘savior’ with a small s to those titles. That doesn’t make him a Savior, and it doesn’t mean I have an immortal soul to be saved – though both are, I suppose, possible.

So if you have a time machine, let’s go already!

Yes, i see, thank you Mir. So what evidence would you accept? What proof, if i were to give it, would demonstrate to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this dead guy is now walking?

 

[Mirdath]

The only way you could know this is if you accepted the writings you already rejected. Once you call in to doubt any of the Gospels then the rest are likewise unreliable. It appears to me you are a “cafeteira” Atheist

I’m agnostic and I know at least many good things when I see them, so yeah, I suppose ‘cafeteria atheist’ makes some sense?

What makes a non-cafeteria atheist? Sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and shouting LA LA LA THERE IS NO GOD CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA all the time, and denying that any good whatsoever has come out of religion? That just makes a stupid atheist.

It doesn’t matter one whit to me if the gospels turn out to be entirely fabricated. The Sermon on the Mount will still be one of the greatest works of language, and the moral philosophy expressed in them will still be one worth following.

Socrates4Jesus:

So what evidence would you accept? What proof, if i were to give it, would demonstrate to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this dead guy is now walking

It basically comes down to John 20:25. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Unless you have that time machine or are on good enough terms with Jesus to get him to pay me a visit, I doubt you can provide that evidence.

 

[estesbob]

Unless you have that time machine or are on good enough terms with Jesus to get him to pay me a visit, I doubt you can provide that evidence.

I am on good enough terms with him that several times a week I hold him in my hands and then follow his intructions to eat his Body. You have the same opportunity if you only open your eyes. He is already provided more than ample evidence-you just dismiss it. I

 

[Mirdath]

I am on good enough terms with him that several times a week I hold him in my hands and then follow his intructions to eat his Body. You have the same opportunity if you only open your eyes. He is already provided more than ample evidence-you just dismiss it. I

Poking a piece of bread just isn’t the same, you know? Unless it reaches out and smacks me upside the head…

What would convince me is direct evidence and conversation with Jesus – not being shown what I am told is his living flesh but which looks to me like so much flour, water, salt, sugar, et cetera.

What would it take to convince you that there isn’t a God, or that we are incapable of knowing such a being without personal revelation?

 

[MerryAtheist]

“The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary critical scholarship.”

Brown, Raymond E., “Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible,”
(Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1990), 59.​

Given the above possibility, I think it quite conceivable that the gospel writers got it wrong. Further, I don’t think they were attempting “biography” in the sense of a dispassionate portrayal of his life. They were men with an agenda; their writings were not the least bit objective. They were propagandists, pure and simple.

Let me summarize all that I have been saying: This proclamation of Gospel material flowing from the ministry of Jesus does not have a biographical intent and does not bring about literal preservation; it has as its goal adaptation to the needs of the living audiences, and within that framework it may be called historical.

Brown, Raymond E., “Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible,”
(Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1990), 63.​

“Adaptation to the needs of the living audiences.” Hmmm, sounds a lot like mythmaking to me:

"Hey, first century Christian Jews, are the Romans sacking your city? No problemo! Here’s a story about how Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, so it’s coool, man!.. "

Catholic Tradition did not spring whole-cloth from one point in time. It developed. The Bible is part of that Tradition, so I completely understand why the stories don’t match up, why the latest gospel included (John) has the most advanced christology. I see the gospels as distinctly human stories with the intent to preach to their audiences and give them reasons to believe; stories that show within themselves a changing and growing understanding of the man.

So it’s entirely possible that very little of the gospels is true. They are nice stories (except for the parts where Jesus says I’m gonna burn in Hell, of course), but they are just stories, from my point of view.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… It basically comes down to John 20:25. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

Unless you have that time machine or are on good enough terms with Jesus to get him to pay me a visit, I doubt you can provide that evidence.

Yes, but i said prove it beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Mir, lets be serious, you and i have never met George Washington or Julius Caesar. But if either of us tried to argue in a college history class these men never did the things they did and possibly never existed at all, we would be laughed out of the classroom!

Now how do you and i know that George Washington was a general in the Revolutionary War and that Julius Caesar was the general who conquered the Gauls and then was victorious in the Roman civil war and become the first emperor of the Roman Empire?

 

[Mirdath]

Now how do you and i know that George Washington was a general in the Revolutionary War and that Caesar was the general who conquered the Gauls and then was victorious in the Roman civil war and become the first emperor of the Roman Empire?

We have a very large body of records concerning both men which are not attempts to deify them. We do have some that do that in the case of Julius, but we are able to tell the difference between myth and history because of the existence of the latter. We don’t have that kind of record for Jesus.

There are myths about both Washington and Caesar. George didn’t chop down that famous cherry tree; that was made up. Julius, contrary to what later Romans would say, probably isn’t a god. But both of them had to be portrayed as charismatic rulers, and for that, sometimes, you need legends.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

“The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary critical scholarship.”

Brown, Raymond E., “Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible,”

(Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1990), 59.
Given the above possibility, I think it quite conceivable that the gospel writers got it wrong. Further, I don’t think they were attempting “biography” in the sense of a dispassionate portrayal of his life. They were men with an agenda; their writings were not the least bit objective. They were propagandists, pure and simple.

Let me summarize all that I have been saying: This proclamation of Gospel material flowing from the ministry of Jesus does not have a biographical intent and does not bring about literal preservation; it has as its goal adaptation to the needs of the living audiences, and within that framework it may be called historical.

Brown, Raymond E., “Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible,”

(Paulist Press, New Jersey, 1990), 63.
…

Who is Raymond Brown and why should i have confidence that what he writes is true? Is he a renowned historian or archaeologist or curator of a prestigious museum? What credentials does he have?

 

[Mirdath]

Who is Raymond Brown and why should i have confidence that what he writes is true? Is he a renowned historian or archaeologist or curator of a prestigious museum? What credentials does he have?

He was a Catholic priest appointed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, president of the Catholic Biblical Association, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Society of New Testament Studies. He has 24 honorary doctorates. Google is your friend.

Not to be confused with the football player.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We have a very large body of records concerning both men which are not attempts to deify them. …

Do you know how many extant ancient copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars exist, Mir?

 

[Mirdath]

Do you know how many extant ancient copies of Julius Caesar’s Gaulic Wars exist, Mir?

Nope. How many?

It doesn’t particularly matter though – its existence is a matter of record, and most everything the author says can be verified independently.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

10

Compare this to 24,970 extant ancient manscript copies of books of the New Testament.

Which is the larger body of records?

 

[MerryAtheist]

Now how do you and i know that George Washington was a general in the Revolutionary War and that Julius Caesar was the general who conquered the Gauls and then was victorious in the Roman civil war and become the first emperor of the Roman Empire?

We have letters written by Washington in his own hand. We have records of property owned by Washington. We have eye-witnesses who wrote about Washington while he was still alive. We have paintings, etchings, drawings, etc. all contemporaneous with his lifetime. Need I go on?

As for Julius Caesar, I offer the following refutation in one sentence:

“All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in ours Gauls, the third.”

- Caius Julius Caesar​

Caius Julius Caesar wrote several books (the sentence above is the first line from his Gallic War Commentaries. There were contemporaries of Julius Caesar who wrote about him (Cicero). We have accurate representations of what he looked like (busts, coins, etc.).

Jesus never wrote anything. No contemporaries wrote about him. The only writings about Jesus come from decades later, written anonymously, and are full of contradictory information. What did Jesus look like?

 

[MerryAtheist]

10

Compare this to 24,970 extant ancient manscript copies of books of the New Testament.

The vast majority of which are dated no earlier than the fourth century, I believe. It only demonstrates the copying industriousness of religious fanatics.

edited because I originally had the third century, which is too early for most manuscripts.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We have letters written by Washington in his own hand. We have records of property owned by Washington. We have eye-witnesses who wrote about Washington while he was still alive. We have paintings, etchings, drawings, etc. all contemporaneous with his lifetime. Need I go on? …

We have letters written by men who lived with Jesus Christ the last three years of his life, and who wrote that he rose from the dead. We have the historical record of Luke who provided many names and dates and places that coincide with the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. We have eyewitness accounts of many New Testament authors; one of whom records that Jesus was seen by a crowd of more than 500 people after his resurrection. We have the witness of martyrs who claimed to have seen Jesus after his resurrection and who chose death over denying that Jesus was their Lord, when all that they needed to say to save them was, “Caesar is Lord.” Need i say more?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The vast majority of which are dated no earlier than the third century, I believe. It only demonstrates the industriousness of religious fanatics.

The earliest extant copy of Caesar’s Gallic Wars was penned 1,000 years after his death (c. A.D. 900). Yet you do not doubt the historical record of his life?

 

[Mirdath]

The earliest extant copy of Caesar’s Gallic Wars was penned 1,000 years after his death (c. A.D. 900). Yet you do not doubt the historical record of his life?

Why should that make any difference? There is no want whatsoever of independent verification of Julius Caesar’s life.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I myself am extremely fond of Plato’s dialogs of Socrates. No college ancient history or philosophy professor would listen to a student who claimed Socrates never said that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Yet there are only 7 extant ancient copies of Plato’s works. ONLY 7.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why should that make any difference? There is no want whatsoever of independent verification of Julius Caesar’s life.

Sorry. I don’t understand. What do you mean by “independent verification”?