The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[tonyrey]

These stories are evidence that Jesus was a great man, because people wrote about him.

If He was a great man how do you explain the reasons for which He was executed? His teaching, mission, healing the sick and claim to be the Son of God…

BTW The fact that people have written about a man is not evidence that he is great!

 

[NE_Catholic]

I don’t have contempt for Paul. My impression of him is that he sincerely thought that his epileptic fit – or whatever it was – was a vision granted by zombie Jesus.

I obviously think he’s wrong on this point.

Wow. Disrespect x100
your stock has gone way down in my eyes

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*As Touchstone pointed out, if this were a court of law, it would never get to trial. *

Well now, Touchstone is wrong again, as usual.

We do not try historical events in a court of law. Stop being silly.

The verdict of history is that no other man ever influenced the world so much as Jesus, in spite of being tried in a kangaroo court by the Romans, convicted, and nailed to a tree. He will continue to be persecuted throughout history by those who hate God. Therein lies his power. He can be tried and convicted and executed in the minds of millions, but he can never really die. And many an atheist has been converted to live in him.

Live with it.

 

[tonyrey]

“a vision granted by zombie Jesus”.

You are entitled to produce rational arguments but not to use insulting terms…

 

[lemondiesel]

If He was a great man how do you explain the reasons for which He was executed? His teaching, mission, healing the sick and claim to be the Son of God…

BTW The fact that people have written about a man is not evidence that he is great!

The reasons he was executed can be looked at the era in time for which Jesus emerged. Obviously the Roman Empire would be threatened by someone who’s preachings can be taken by all classes. We see this later played out, when Christianity becomes Rome’s official religion. I mean after all, without Rome’s protection, Christianity could not have dwelled hidden until it was big enough to emerge.

The verdict of history is that no other man ever influenced the world so much as Jesus, in spite of being tried in a kangaroo court by the Romans, convicted, and nailed to a tree.

Yet we can argue that Islam is just as influencial, and Muhammad never claimed to be God.

He will continue to be persecuted throughout history by those who hate God. Therein lies his power. He can be tried and convicted and executed in the minds of millions, but he can never really die. And many an atheist has been converted to live in him.

That is why he is made to do impossible acts in the Gospels, so that his message will continue to be present for some to see.

 

[Windfish]

What’s with these pitiful teenagers waltzing in here and making statements like these that utterly and completely fail to comprehend what’s going on in the thread? I guess this is a product of the so-called “me generation,” eh?

Newsflash: The OP is presenting reasons that texts – even “eyewitness texts” – are insufficient to establish that magic happened.

If you’re claiming that miraculous events happened, the burden of proof is on you, and it is a significant burden of proof, as you are claiming things that have never been known to occur ever.

If the best evidence you have for this are ancient stories, you don’t have sufficient evidence. As Touchstone pointed out, if this were a court of law, it would never get to trial.

All I had to do was show that your explanation (“myths”) was bunk, and it is, and I showed that. And again, to YOU, eyewitness testimony is not sufficient, but others don’t categorically deny all testimony. In fact, in ancient history, eyewitness testimony is the most prized, even though most of ancient history, unlike the Gospels, are composed of non-eyewitness testimony.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You are entitled to produce rational arguments but not to use insulting terms…

Right. More of that predictable atheist/agnostic anger. :takethat:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lemondiesel

Yet we can argue that Islam is just as influencial, and Muhammad never claimed to be God.

But Jesus was revered by Mohamed as well. Read the Koran. So Jesus must also be revered by Muslims too, right? Mary the mother of Jesus is also revered in the Koran.

lemondiesel

*That is why he is made to do impossible acts in the Gospels, so that his message will continue to be present for some to see. *

Again, the assertion that the gospels writers are lying with the intent to deceive. Go ahead and believe it. But you cannot say it is a fact.

 

[Touchstone]

AntiTheist

*As Touchstone pointed out, if this were a court of law, it would never get to trial. *

Well now, Touchstone is wrong again, as usual.

We do not try historical events in a court of law. Stop being silly.

Uh, a murder trial is a court room examination of a historical event. I think pretty much every criminal trial is the examination of a historical event.

Can you think of a US court case where a miracle or supernatural event was successfully litigated as a historical event? There may be one, but off hand I can’t think a single one. I think if I had to try to answer that challenge all I could come up with is the finding, wherever it happens, that intelligent design is permissible for local schoolboards to require be taught in public classrooms (*the failure of Kitzmiller v. Dover *notwithstanding for creationists on this). That’s as close as I can think of, which isn’t close at all.

What would be your example of the supernatural event prevailing on the evidence in the courtroom?

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

What would be your example of the supernatural event prevailing on the evidence in the courtroom?

You don’t read me well, do you? I said you cannot try the historical Jesus in a courtroom, though the real Jesus was on trial there. Or do you think the trial too is part of the legend made up to create melodrama?

 

[tonyrey]

*If He was a great man how do you explain the reasons for which He was executed? His teaching, mission, healing the sick and claim to be the Son of God…

Christianity was not protected but persecuted by Rome when it was at its most vulnerable - a small community which was ridiculed by the proud citizens of a vast empire. So it does not make sense to argue that without Rome’s protection Christianity could not have dwelled hidden until it was big enough to emerge. That is certainly not an adequate reason for its subsequent development and success throughout the world. You were closer to the mark when you described Jesus as a great man but you have not explained why…

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

What would be your example of the supernatural event prevailing on the evidence in the courtroom?

You don’t read me well, do you? I said you cannot try the historical Jesus in a courtroom, though the real Jesus was on trial there.

I think you may not have read what I posted. If you look at the quote I replied to, your “cannot try the historical Jesus in a courtroom” wasn’t in there. This is what I was responding to:

We do not try historical events in a court of law.

Manifestly, we do, day in and day out. The case for the resurrection wouldn’t get off the ground based on the rules of evidence in a courtroom trial. If those kind of claims worked, we’d not be able to convict anybody. Miracles are double edged swords that way. Which is why the court takes a dim view of such claims.

Or do you think the trial too is part of the legend made up to create melodrama?

No, if I had to guess, I’d guess that Jesus was a real guy, was put through some kind of trial, and executed for sedition as a result. That’s not a stretch on plausibility. It makes sense that it would be embellished and beefed up with some “artistic license” 30-40 years later as it was getting written down, but it’s a reasonable belief that the guy was brought before some Roman official before being condemned and killed.

-TS

 

[EricFilmer]

Feel free to look at the list compiled by EricFilmer earlier in the thread and his correct observation that the wide variety of scholarly conclusions indicates that there is insufficient evidence to make these claims.

Just for the sake of some clairification, the post from me in question concerns conclusions made my authors who specifically are proponents of the Quest for the Historical Jesus movement. The post can be located with this link:

Ollimac has identified his source as Dr. Bart Ehrman. As I suspected, Ollimac has been influenced by writings stemming from the “Historical Jesus” movement. This movement among Scripture academia gained a measure of popularity in the 20th Century, and elements of it are still around…

Therein is a wide range of conclusions as to who Jesus was. But in terms of authorship of the gospels, I simply don’t know if these same authors present a range of different opinions. I suspect that they do, I just don’t happen to know for certain.

In any event, the gospels can be considered anonymous in the sense that none of the surviving ancient manuscripts actually list the name of the authors. For example, the manuscripts for the Gospel of Mark do not actually have “The Gospel of Mark” written on them. On the other hand, attributing the authorship of the gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was the consensus of the Early Church Fathers, and was not seriously challenged until modern times. Some modern scholars (who are not necessarily part of the Quest for the Historical Jesus movement) believe that the gospels were recorded by disciples of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (much in the way Plato gives us the teachings of Socrates). Other scholars attest to the traditional authorship.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Manifestly, we do, day in and day out. The case for the resurrection wouldn’t get off the ground based on the rules of evidence in a courtroom trial. If those kind of claims worked, we’d not be able to convict anybody. Miracles are double edged swords that way. Which is why the court takes a dim view of such claims.

A courtroom trial requires a prosecutor, a defendant, witnesses, testimony, etc. You don’t have a trial without all these elements. The Resurrection was the central miracle in the Gospels. If a man today was prosecuted for rising from the dead, who would be the prosecutor, and what would be his grounds for prosecuting? Would the man have to defend himself for rising from the dead? Would he have to call witnesses that he rose from the dead? Would he have to prove that he was alive?

Do you see how absurd all those conditions would be for a trial? If the person did rise from the dead, it would simply be believed by those who saw it happen, and they would spread the good news.

You want to rationalize everything, fit it into a tight little box for your rules of logic and evidence. God is bigger than your rules and your box. That is admitted even in the courtroom when you are asked to swear on a Bible that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

 

[lemondiesel]

Christianity was not protected but persecuted by Rome when it was at its most vulnerable - a small community which was ridiculed by the proud citizens of a vast empire. So it does not make sense to argue that without Rome’s protection Christianity could not have dwelled hidden until it was big enough to emerge. That is certainly not an adequate reason for its subsequent development and success throughout the world. You were closer to the mark when you described Jesus as a great man but you have not explained why…

You bash my opinions without even letting me explain further?

Christianity was persecuted, because of the small good of extremist. The other large group practiced Christianity in their private households. This is where the Christian fish symbol comes from, as one secret believer would draw a half oval, and then the other would finish it, to show a sign of brotherhood. Remember, Nero was during this hidden time and protecting ones family meant secrecy.

Rome was a greatly protected city, think of its size during this time and the size of the army. It had great influence, it was a meaningful place. And boy were they smart. The road systems they had made it easy to travel from place to place, excellent for trade, and talk with these new people. All of this goes on under the protection of Rome.

Rome had great influence as well, good trade routes all around the Mediterranean. Ship ports constantly built, and new boats sailing. They had access to the entire European World.

Christianity only become big enough to emerge when it converted Constantine, therefore making all of Rome a Christian state.

I would argue that it lead to its fall as well But that’s a whole other thread

 

[The_Exodus]

Manifestly, we do, day in and day out. The case for the resurrection wouldn’t get off the ground based on the rules of evidence in a courtroom trial…etc

This is a curious complaint, because I think a court of law, as we understand it to work in western democracies today, would be the apologist’s worst enemy, a scathing rebuke for the kinds of claims the Christian apologist makes when making evidential appeals.

The court of law example is irrelevant in one sense.

Courts of law are made up of people who have biases and particular world-views. They do not determine what is true and false. That would mean that slavery was right, simply because those in the court said so. It would also mean that, were a court to codemn an innocent man, the man would become guilty simply at the courts say so. Or if everyone in the courtroom believed Abraham Lincoln was the first president, it would therefore become true.

However, if you are referring to evidential claims being *found *true, and not them being *determined *true, then “courts of law” have certainly been appealed to in Christianity. Look at the Church’s list of declared miracles. They have been examined by panels of scientists and doctors, all of whom find no possible natural explanation for their occurence. That’s as close to a “court of law” as you can get,and miracles have come away vindicated.

In respect to past claims, however, such as those made in the Gospels, this point, which comes from Hume, has been refuted time and time again. The claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” implicitly assumes miracles have a low probability. Probability, however, can only be “low” or “high” when one knows what to expect, given the circumstances. Yet the circumstances, in the case of the Gospels, are precisely what is suspect, i.e. if Christ is a supernatural being, there is nothing improbable about him performing miracles. How do you decide the “if” in this case? Well, you either believe it to be so, or you don’t believe it to be so, and remain agnostic. It is illogical however to say that it is unreasonable to think he is supernatural, simply because “there’s not enough evidence.” Again, good evidence is proportional to what we should expect to find, given the circumstances. All this claim and Hume have done is assumed the circumstances are such and such (i.e. Christ was a natural man), and built a case upon this a priori assumption.

 

[The_Exodus]

We’ve got stuff on a table. My mind leads me to perceive it as “one apple,” though I could just as easily perceive it as “skin, seeds, pulp, stem, core.” But in each case, it’s a concept or bunch of concepts, a function of my perceptive faculty.

Yes, it is your perceptive faculty which perceives the objects in front of you. Of course you can perceive the skin, seeds, etc. of the apple, but not on the supposition that you haven’t first gotten such concepts from reality itself.

antitheist:

Let’s pretend that all human minds vanish from the universe. What is – objectively speaking – on that table? We can’t say it’s “one apple,” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call it that. We can’t say it’s “skin, seeds, pulp, stem, core” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call those things that.

So this is Berkeleyian idealism (Berkeley was a Christian, btw.) "Essi est percipi’
i.e. essence is perception. In the end, this makes the existence of objects totally dependent on mind.

What, indeed, is on the table in your view, if there no mind that is currently conceiving it?

 

[tonyrey]

Christianity was not protected but persecuted by Rome when it was at its most vulnerable - a small community which was ridiculed by the proud citizens of a vast empire. So it does not make sense to argue that without Rome’s protection Christianity could not have dwelled hidden until it was big enough to emerge. That is certainly not an adequate reason for its subsequent development and success throughout the world. You were closer to the mark when you described Jesus as a great man but you have not explained why…

I don’t intend to bash anything or anyone! I’m simply presenting my opinion.

Christianity was persecuted, because of the small good of extremist. The other large group practiced Christianity in their private households. This is where the Christian fish symbol comes from, as one secret believer would draw a half oval, and then the other would finish it, to show a sign of brotherhood. Remember, Nero was during this hidden time and protecting ones family meant secrecy.

What do you mean by “extremist” in this context?

Rome was a greatly protected city, think of its size during this time and the size of the army. It had great influence, it was a meaningful place. And boy were they smart. The road systems they had made it easy to travel from place to place, excellent for trade, and talk with these new people. All of this goes on under the protection of Rome.

Rome had great influence as well, good trade routes all around the Mediterranean. Ship ports constantly built, and new boats sailing. They had access to the entire European World.

Christianity only become big enough to emerge when it converted Constantine, therefore making all of Rome a Christian state.

I would argue that it lead to its fall as well But that’s a whole other thread.

Do you mean the fall of Rome?

The reason Christianity attracted and continues to attract people of every race and culture is the nobility of Jesus and the wisdom of His teaching.

 

[lemondiesel]

What do you mean by “extremist” in this context?

Extremist existed then like they do today. These are the extremist that protest openly in public and are willing to die for their faith. Not everyone is willing to do that, so they practice Christianity more quietly…and as long as you made sure you payed your due taxes to Rome.

Do you mean the fall of Rome?

Yes, because Christians were used as scapegoats in the 1st century. This means that after Christ died, Rome would begin the battle of Paganism and Monotheism.

The reason Christianity attracted and continues to attract people of every race and culture is the nobility of Jesus and the wisdom of His teaching.

I am not disagreeing with you, I was simply saying that Jesus’ teaching can be taken in by any profession or level in society. It is an attracting message, but it needed Rome’s protection in order to flourish into what we know it as today.

 

[AntiTheist]

to YOU, eyewitness testimony is not sufficient, but others don’t categorically deny all testimony. In fact, in ancient history, eyewitness testimony is the most prized, even though most of ancient history, unlike the Gospels, are composed of non-eyewitness testimony.

But most of ancient history doesn’t include magical claims! That’s the whole bloody point of this thread!

How many magical claims do you accept on the say-so of ancient historians?