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

[Mirdath]

But Jesus lived and worked among the Jews and the Romans. Both persecuted the Christians and some of them both put Jesus to death. Yet none of them denied truth of the gospel narratives of the life of Jesus. None of the Jews denied that the miracles described in the written gospels were false. Those Jews and those Romans who hated the Christians would have loved to have said “these Christians are liars, because in their writings they claimed Jesus publically performed miracles, yet no one ever saw these miracles.”
But, the Jews could not use these arguments, because these miracles were public and everyone saw them. All the Jews could say was that Jesus worked miracles by the power of the devil. Thus, even the Jews and the Romans could not discredit the four Gospel narratives.

Where are the Jewish and Roman accounts of Jesus’ miracles?

 

[dcdurel]

Where are the Jewish and Roman accounts of Jesus’ miracles?

They didn’t desire to have accounts because the gospels already had the accounts. They accepted the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts, by not denying the presentation of the facts presented in the four gospels.

Remember, they hated the Christians. They were persecuting the Christians. Even members of Christians own families turned against each other. They would have loved to hold up the four gospels and say to their family members, “these are just a pack of lies, nobody saw any of these miracles”. But they couldn’t, because all of Judea knew of the miracles. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, it didn’t exactly stay secret.
All the unbelievers could do was deny that Jesus was God and just claim he was a prophet. They could not deny that He raised people from the dead, they could not deny His miracles.

But, I will help you out in your denial, since it has already been done.

The next thing the atheists and unbelievers did was to deny that the gospel accounts were written while the witnesses to Jesus were still alive. They claimed that the gospel accounts were written after all the eyewitnesses died. They claimed that eyewitnesses did not write the Gospels, but only later Christians wrote them and embellished them. They claimed the “faith community” made up the gospel accounts after all the eyewitnesses had died. This is the version we all get in the
“New American Bible”

To pull this stunt, atheists had to convince people to accept a new method of determining authorship. In the past, and also today when dealing with secular books, authorship is determined by the eyewitness testamony of those living at the time the book is written. Thus, we know Pope JPII wrote “Reasons for Hope”, because of the eyewitness testamonies of the publishers, those who knew the Pope, those who handled his correspondance, etc. And of course, he claimed to write it and no one else said they wrote it. As time passes, we will just have the tradition handed down that he wrote this book.

What the athiests did, starting with Hobbs and Spinosa, was to reject eyewitness testamony and instead study the language, thoughts, ideas, etc presented in the writings itself to try to determine authorship. This is called using internal evidence. They then claim this is “scientific”. Then, they start out with pre-suppositions, such as, everything must have a natural explanation for events, since miracles don’t happen. Next they examine the Gospels and since they see acounts of miracles and prophesies, they claim since these events cannot occur, the gospels could not have been written by eyewitnesses, but by the “faith community” years later after all the eyewitnesses had died. Thus the gospels are unreliable, since they were written years later by the “faith community”. And they make up other ideas, such as the faith community accepted “pen names”, etc.

Of course, this really isn’t scientific at all. For the authorship of all secular books today is determined by eyewitness testamony. Internal evidence has proven extremely unreliable. It is only the gospels that the athiests use a totally different method and use internal evidence.
And of course, the “faith community” never accepted “pen names”, and never claimed that they authored the gospels. The “faith community” all claimed that these books were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Nevertheless. Since that is all athiests can go by, they insist on the primacy of internal evidence, and they continue to reject eyewitness testamony on the authorship of the Gospels. Hardly scientific.

 

[Kaninchen]

They accepted the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts, by not denying the presentation of the facts presented in the four gospels.

We’ve been denying it for 2000 years. The Gospels are not a constant theme within Judaism for much the same reasons that the Qur’an isn’t a constant theme in Christianity - they’re irrelevant.

 

[Mirdath]

They didn’t desire to have accounts because the gospels already had the accounts. They accepted the truthfulness of the Gospel accounts, by not denying the presentation of the facts presented in the four gospels.

No, no, you’re wimping out. Surely if these miracles were so great and so well-publicized they would have been written about by other sources, even if – or especially if – those sources attributed them to the devil. So where are they? Where are these records?

What the athiests did, starting with Hobbs and Spinosa, was to reject eyewitness testamony and instead study the language, thoughts, ideas, etc presented in the writings itself to try to determine authorship. This is called using internal evidence. They then claim this is “scientific”.

Spinoza was Jewish, so you know. And how is dating a text based on what it describes as current events, the language used, and other factors unscientific?

Then, they start out with pre-suppositions, such as, everything must have a natural explanation for events, since miracles don’t happen.

In other words, they’re rational and look at it objectively. In this world, we obey the laws of physics, and a claim that some guy went and violated them left and right just won’t hold water – for good reason!

And they make up other ideas, such as the faith community accepted “pen names”, etc.

Haven’t many of the non-canonical gospels been shown to have been written under pen names? I highly doubt the ‘Gospel of Judas’ was written by the Iscariot.

Of course, this really isn’t scientific at all. For the authorship of all secular books today is determined by eyewitness testamony. Internal evidence has proven extremely unreliable. It is only the gospels that the athiests use a totally different method and use internal evidence.

Because we’re here and can see it. It’s easier to date a book by asking the publisher when the manuscript showed up at the door, but for older texts – not just the gospels, by any stretch – we simply don’t have that option.

 

[jmcrae]

I think I specified that there are no independent histories verifying the resurrection, and the gospels do say Jesus was a man, as do other histories in which he is mentioned, however briefly.

To claim your religion is correct because its own holy book says it is is the height of bad form.

Each of the 27 books of the New Testament was an independant account of the events of the Gospel for more than 300 years, until they were brought together by the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the late 300s AD, translated into a common language, and then placed between the covers of the Bible in the early 400s AD.

Just because we today find them all in the same place doesn’t mean that they weren’t written independantly of one another at the time of their writing.

 

[jmcrae]

No, no, you’re wimping out. Surely if these miracles were so great and so well-publicized they would have been written about by other sources, even if – or especially if – those sources attributed them to the devil. So where are they? Where are these records?

Various different Jewish writings contain these accounts. As I understand it, they are found in a set of writings called the “Midrash.”

It’s easier to date a book by asking the publisher when the manuscript showed up at the door, but for older texts – not just the gospels, by any stretch – we simply don’t have that option.

Actually, you can also give a rough date by the fact that the publishing information doesn’t appear, since it means that that particular book was published before such things were required.

You can also look at what other works are being quoted in the book itself, what assumptions it makes, (I have a printed folio about Robert the Bruce that ends by saying, “And this is why the English have never defeated Scotland,” thus placing the work some time between the invention of the printing press and the battle of Culloden, as well as before the general practice of binding folios into hard covers came into general use.)

 

[Mirdath]

Each of the 27 books of the New Testament was an independant account of the events of the Gospel for more than 300 years, until they were brought together by the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo in the late 300s AD, translated into a common language, and then placed between the covers of the Bible in the early 400s AD.

Just because we today find them all in the same place doesn’t mean that they weren’t written independantly of one another at the time of their writing.

An independent account from members of the same group of people. How is that any different from asking two Scientologists for an explanation of Dianetics and calling that independent verification?

Various different Jewish writings contain these accounts. As I understand it, they are found in a set of writings called the “Midrash.”

Midrash is a method of exegesis of the Tanakh, or a text drawn from such a method; and I do not know of any midrashim that verify the gospel accounts – after all, the books of the Tanakh had already been compiled over four centuries earlier. Why would a Jewish history contain Jesus’ miracles anyway, if it did not condemn them as magic? If Jewish writings backed up these events as divinely-inspired, they would not be Jewish writings but Christian, and their authors would have converted.

 

[jmcrae]

Why would a Jewish history contain Jesus’ miracles anyway, if it did not condemn them as magic? If Jewish writings backed up these events as divinely-inspired, they would not be Jewish writings but Christian, and their authors would have converted.

At which point, they would be “members of the same group,” and their writings would be included in the New Testament, thus disqualifying them as “independent verification.”

Do you see the problem, now?

By the way, I haven’t read the Jewish writings about Jesus, but they do indeed condemn Him as being in league with the Devil, and that his mother was a prostitute, and that the Apostles revived Him from a coma and transported Him to India to impersonate the Apostle Thomas. (This is where it starts to get confusing …)

 

[Mirdath]

At which point, they would be “members of the same group,” and their writings would be included in the New Testament, thus disqualifying them as “independent verification.”

Unless they thought him possessed or were polytheists; yet I can think of no mention of these great works in Roman texts. Pliny, for one, condemns the worship of Jesus as baseless superstition in his letter to Trajan.

Do you see the problem, now?

A problem, but hardly an insurmountable one if these works were so great and done before so many people; just point me to a Roman writer who details how he personally witnessed Jesus’ miracles as described in the gospels, or to a Jewish writer and eyewitness who proclaims him either a prophet or a diabolical agent through whom these wonders were worked. Any of those will be enough for me to give a little credence to the idea that they might have actually happened.

By the way, I haven’t read the Jewish writings about Jesus, but they do indeed condemn Him as being in league with the Devil, and that his mother was a prostitute, and that the Apostles revived Him from a coma and transported Him to India to impersonate the Apostle Thomas. (This is where it starts to get confusing …)

If you get around to reading those, let me know what they say about the miracles he is supposed to have worked.

 

[Kaninchen]

By the way, I haven’t read the Jewish writings about Jesus, but they do indeed condemn Him as being in league with the Devil, and that his mother was a prostitute, and that the Apostles revived Him from a coma and transported Him to India to impersonate the Apostle Thomas. (This is where it starts to get confusing …)

Based on the conflation of a series of people in the Talmud (Yeshua not being an uncommon name) but I think the India thing is a Muslim belief.

Both sets of stories may well appear Stormfront edition of the Talmud, of course.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Mir:I think what you are suggesting is that it is a logical contradiction to say that God took on a human nature and now has two natures instead of just one. Now a logical contradiction is to say that A is equal to not A. An example would be to say that odd is even or night is day. So lets consider your argument to see if you have uncovered a contradiction:H. people possess a human natureD. if there is a deity, it possesses a divine natureC. It is a logical contradiction for one being to have both naturesConclusion: Jesus could not be God and man at the same time.There is no contradiction, Mir, because we are not saying that Jesus was (H) and not (H) at the same time. We are also not claiming that he was (D) and not (D) at the same time. What we are considering was that he was both (H) and (D) at the same time. No contradiction there. Your flaw is in premise (C). Since you have not proven it to be true, your logical argument fails to support the conclusion.It’s not quite like that. (H), I’m sure you’ll agree, is distinctly not (D); yet you say that Jesus possessed (H) and (D) simultaneously, and that boils down to (D) and (not-D). The hypostatic union violates the law of non-contradiction by saying that Jesus’ nature was both divine and human; the two are mutually exclusive.That’s why it’s a mystery of the faith, no? It makes absolutely no sense for a thing to possess a compound nature made up of mutually exclusive parts, and you accept it on faith.
…

Yes, Mir, it makes absolutely no sense that something might have two opposing natures, but isn’t this exactly what scientists have proven to be the case? Light has a compound nature of mutually exclusive attributes–particles and waves. Particles are never waves and waves are never particles.

For years and years physicists debated whether light was particles or waves. Those who believed light was made up of only particles had scientific experiments to back up their claims. Those who believed light was composed of merely waves had the results of their experiments to prove it. The two waring sides got together and compared notes. To their amazement, they found that light was made up of both particles and waves, which is impossible, but true.

Now think about the irony of this, Mir. What did Jesus call himself?

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”(John 8:12)Light, we find out many hundreds of years after these words left Jesus’ mouth, does not have one nature, but two opposing natures. Jesus, as he claimed of himself, did not have one nature but two opposing natures–God and man.

Tell me, Mir, if science confirms that light is both particles and waves, then how can you affirm it is unreasonable to say that one thing has two opposing natures? Does this not give you reason to doubt that your reason for rejecting Jesus as being both God and man?

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, Mir, it makes absolutely no sense that something might have two opposing natures …

Whoa, right there - the human nature and the divine nature are not “opposed” - human beings are, in fact, created in the image and likeness of God, so actually, they are similar to each other, rather than opposites of each other.

Obviously, the human nature has characteristics that the divine nature does not have (the ability to choose to commit sin, for example) and the divine nature has characteristics that the human nature does not have (that it is uncreated, for example) - but I know of nothing to suggest that they can’t co-exist.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Yes, it really is; you do not believe that based on reason but on faith. Reason tells us that when people die, it’s final; but faith tells you God can break that rule. There’s nothing wrong with being irrational, but don’t pretend it makes sense to someone who’s looking at it objectively.

Faith is trust in reason and evidence. It’s not a blind leap into a dark chasm, its a step into the light of truth.

 

[Mirdath]

Yes, Mir, it makes absolutely no sense that something might have two opposing natures, but isn’t this exactly what scientists have proven to be the case? Light has a compound nature of mutually exclusive attributes–particles and waves. Particles are never waves and waves are never particles.

Tell me, Mir, if science confirms that light is both particles and waves, then how can you affirm it is unreasonable to say that one thing has two opposing natures? Does this not give you reason to doubt that your reason for rejecting Jesus as being both God and man?

Exactly – wave-particle duality is provable! It’s both empirically demonstrable and mathematically workable. Is the hypostatic union provable in either such fashion? Not at all! The best theologians the Church has had over the centuries have called it a Mystery and leave it at that!

Faith is trust in reason and evidence. It’s not a blind leap into a dark chasm, its a step into the light of truth.

Faith is trust in that which seemingly defies reason and evidence. it is hope for the unseen, trust in the untouchable. Reason says it could never happen, faith trusts that it did.

Kierkegaard was right.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Nope, the Trilemma is incomplete; there’s always the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the gospels aren’t quite the gospel truth. Not necessarily in the sense that they are lying, but in the sense that they are corrupted over the years or in the memory of those who wrote them (there was, after all, a good long gap between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels), or simply wishful thinking.

If you buy into a legend, even one that you were around to see the more mundane beginnings of, you can believe anything.

People have died martyrs for stupider ideas than that some guy was God.

Can anyone provide evidence that they were corrupted? No. What we do know is that there is very little variation in the manuscripts available. This would tend to argue against the embellishment theory.

Yes people have died for stupider ideas but for ideas they believed to be true–not for lies they fabricated and new to be false. It is not really conceivable that all the followers of Christ who were persecuted and/or martyred where deluded–surely one of them would have been sane and said hey wait a minute and wouldn’t the Jews have used that person to discredit this new Christianity?

Peace,
Mark

 

[Mirdath]

Can anyone provide evidence that they were corrupted? No. What we do know is that there is very little variation in the manuscripts available. This would tend to argue against the embellishment theory.

In one gospel, Jesus feeds five thousand; in another, three thousand, if I’m not mistaken. The gospel accounts themselves differ in chronology, content, focus, and detail. This is nothing new; even eyewitness accounts vary – what matters is that they agree on a few salient points. However, when these particular relevant points violate reason, an objective observer is forced to eliminate each testimony as not making sense.

It is not really conceivable that all the followers of Christ who were persecuted and/or martyred where deluded–surely one of them would have been sane and said hey wait a minute and wouldn’t the Jews have used that person to discredit this new Christianity?

That one probably converted back and his or her name is lost to time. The martyrs may not have recanted, but ordinary people? Sure they did. And, being nobody special and knowing that, they are not recorded in the annals of the Church.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Can anyone provide evidence that they were corrupted? No. What we do know is that there is very little variation in the manuscripts available. This would tend to argue against the embellishment theory.

Hmmm. Don’t be to quick with that assertion, Mark. Early scribes were not above modifying the text to suit their particular theological leanings.

For instance, in Luke 2:33, the earliest manuscripts read “his father and and mother began to marvel”, but as early as the 5th century this was changed to “Joseph and his mother began to marvel”. Why? In order to take away the argument by some that Jesus had a human father. This corruption found its way into the King James Bible. These days most Bibles have reverted to the original.

In Luke 2:43, the earliest text reads “and his parents knew it not”. But again several witnesses from the 5th century on change it to “Joseph and his mother…” no doubt for the same theological reason: to destroy the adoptionist’s position that Jesus had a human father.

The first verse of Mark, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” is all that appears in several primary source manuscripts, while most others add the phrase “the Son of God”. One theory for the addition is that it was intended to confound the adoptionists who could read the shorter version and then claim that Jesus only became the “Son of God” at his baptism, since the Gospel does not refer to him that way until after the baptism.

In Mark 1:10, at the baptism of Jesus, the skies are rent asunder, and the Spirit like a dove descends “into” him, as the early manuscripts say. Later manuscripts change the word to “upon” because some adoptionist christians believed that Jesus was merely human until God “adopted him” during his baptism. This misreading of the greek “eis” is still present in many of today’s Bibles.

Luke 3:22. The statement from heaven says “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased” in most manuscripts. But a significant change occurs in the 5th century Codex Bezae, attested to and quoted by several early Church Fathers (Justin and Origen, among others), : “You are my beloved son, today I have begotten you.” Clearly this alternative form would do a lot for the adoptionist christians, who believed that Jesus only became God’s Son at his baptism.

These are just a few of the corruptions of scripture we are aware of. Other changes were made to combat the separationists, the docetists, and the gnostics, among others. The fact that some changes have been fixed today does little to refute the claim that corruptions did, in fact, occur.

 

[dcdurel]

No, no, you’re wimping out. Surely if these miracles were so great and so well-publicized they would have been written about by other sources, even if – or especially if – those sources attributed them to the devil. So where are they? Where are these records?

If the sources were opposed to the teachings of Jesus, then why would they write about the miracles? They would not want to give credence to someone whose teachings they oppose.

If the sources were accepting the teachings of Jesus, then why would they want to add to what was already written by His followers who knew much more than they did.

Of course there were other narratives of the life of Jesus written. But the early Christians selected only those that were totally true and that presented the teachings of Jesus accurately. Remember, they believed Jesus to be God. Thus, they were extremely careful to get true and accurate accounts of what happened.

Spinoza was Jewish, so you know. And how is dating a text based on what it describes as current events, the language used, and other factors unscientific?

Because anyone can make up writings at the same time and claim it was written by someone else. In that case the text, current events and other factors would be the same.
The Howard Hughes autobiography hoax, in which handwriting experts were fooled when they examined the supposed notes of Howard Hughes were a perfect example. These experts had access even to the handwriting of Howard Hughes and were fooled. It wasn’t until Howard Hughes himself, had a public telephone conference with several journalists that the notes and autobiography were proven to be fakes.
There are also the fake Hitler diaries. These and many other cases prove that ONLY external evidence, that is, eyewitness testamony by those who knew the authors and their writings can determine for certain who an author is. That is why with secular writings external evidence is first in determining authorship. It is only when there is no reliable external evidence that experts go to internal evidence and make guesses.
I repeat, it is ONLY biblical writings that people do the opposite and make internal evidence primary. The only reason they do this is to deny that the writings were made by eyewitnesses near the time the event took place.

In other words, they’re rational and look at it objectively. In this world, we obey the laws of physics, and a claim that some guy went and violated them left and right just won’t hold water – for good reason!

That is the philosophy of naturalism. You are approaching the writings with a pre-conceived view by which you judge the writings. In other words, you are judging someone elses first hand accounts by by your preconceived opinions on how things should be. Hardly objective. If God exists, then we would expect to have miracles. And even scientists like Einstein believe that there had to be a creator of everything.

Haven’t many of the non-canonical gospels been shown to have been written under pen names? I highly doubt the ‘Gospel of Judas’ was written by the Iscariot.

And that is why they were rejected.
Christians back them had forgers put to death for trying to publish in someone else’s name.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Exactly – wave-particle duality is provable! It’s both empirically demonstrable and mathematically workable. Is the hypostatic union provable in either such fashion? Not at all! The best theologians the Church has had over the centuries have called it a Mystery and leave it at that!
…

I agree it is provable that light a wave; i believe it is provable that light is made up of particles; scientists have no idea how light can be both. My point was that it is not irrational to believe in a mystery–to apprehend that something is true (because the evidence demonstrates its validity) without comprehending how it can be true (because there is no cognitive explanation for its validity).

However, think about what whether your conditions for believing are reasonable, Mir. Forgive me for paraphrasing, but it is as though you are saying, “If i can’t put God in a test tube, i won’t believe in Him!”

The scientific method deals with things you can reproduce in through scientific experiment. You cannot prove any event in history through scientific experiment. You cannot prove nor disprove Julius Caesar existed and became the first emperor of Rome using the scientific method; neither can you prove nor disprove Jesus accomplished miracles, such as raising his own body from the grave.

The question, then, is just how does one prove Julius Caesar did what he did and Jesus Christ did what he did? The answer is by examining the historical evidence. As i mentioned before, there is more documentary and archaeological evidence supporting the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is supporting the life and death of Julius Caesar, or anyone else in ancient history. If you are going to reject Christ, you have to reject the Caesars, Alexander the Great, Socrates, and in fact every figure from antiquity. As i demonstrated, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most well documented event in all ancient history. To be consistent, then, you must deny anything that scholars claim about the lives of men and women nearly 2,000 years ago. You will be at odds with the vast majority of the learned, but you will at least avoid hypocrisy.

Moreover, to say, “What Caesar did was possible and repeatable; what Jesus did was not!” is not a way of avoiding inconsistency. For if God exists, it makes sense that his entering time and space would be something spectacular. We would expect him to do what nobody else before or since has been able to do, because only he could do it.

If you step in my shoes for a moment, do you at least begin to see why i believe what i believe? Do you in some small way understand why i’m not being irrational or unreasonable?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Mirdath:

I regret i’m going to be traveling for the next week. It has been good discussing this with you and wish we had more time to take it easy and thoughtfully.

I’ll leave you in the capable hands of the others, here. Good searching! May we both draw closer to the Truth!

Soc