The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[tonyrey]

I say this as a Catholic, but this line of reasoning, while often used, does not sound strong to me.

After all, other religions have their martyrs.

If we cite our own martyrs as evidence of the truth of Catholicism, must we not also recognize the martyrs of non-Christian religions as evidence of the truth of their religions?

And yet we don’t.

We respect and honour anyone who dies for what is right and just. The truth is not confined to Christians. All religions have spiritual goals and values which transform the life of pagans from an aimless existence into a meaningful pursuit of perfection…

 

[Shredderbeam]

The fact that so few miracles have been recognised is partly due to the stringency of the criteria but mainly because most people do not return to Lourdes to submit to the interrogations and medical tests that are required. What do they have to gain? Publicity - often unwelcome - but no financial reward. They are more intent on enjoying their newfound way of life. There have been convincing reports of people who have recovered from incurable illnesses as a result of prayer without even going to Lourdes - and without being Catholics.

The criteria aren’t overly stringent, though - they’re scientifically rigorous.

I’m sure that some who have not appeared before the investigations have had improbable cures, but since they have not been rigorously verified, I can’t really accept them. If I’m going to look at this scientifically, I need all supposed miracles to be completely checked out.

tonyrey:

There are documented cases of the** instantaneous** fusion of bones and other physical effects.

Have multiple doctors confirmed that the bones were completely unfused the day before, and the very next day confirmed that they were fused properly?

tonyrey:

It remains an act of faith on your part…
Do you believe that science can in principle explain everything? “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy…”

It’s not an act of faith, it’s more of a reasonable belief. If the empirical investigation of our world around us has revealed most things to be purely naturalistic, with a few others that are still being worked out, it’s not unreasonable to think that the rest of our world is naturalistic too.

tonyrey:

BTW You have neglected to explain:

1. Why Jesus is considered to be a great, charismatic teacher.
2. How His identity, mission and healing power can be dissociated from His moral teaching.
3. The source of His wisdom and charisma.
4. The international and enduring success of His small community.

I don’t know specifically what made Jesus a great, charismatic teacher, but being great and charismatic isn’t necessarily proof of divinity. There have been plenty of great, charismatic teachers throughout history.

I don’t believe that most of what the Gospels say he did and said actually happened.

I don’t know why he had such wisdom and charisma, but again, it’s not as if only the divine can have those qualities.

The success of the community that Jesus established can probably be explained by the persecution and faith of his followers. That, plus the Roman Empire’s adoption of the faith, and the European missionaries who carried his word all over the world, explains how Christianity exists all over the world.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

NaturalEnquirer, tonyrey: Good points.

It’d be nice if we had written statements from contemporary anti-christian historians for the deaths of every apostle. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be how the first century worked.

I always wondered why Jesus didn’t come after the advent of more reliable media, such as TV.

I mean, why come at a time when hardly anyone was literate, and news traveled not everywhere, and where it did travel, it traveled at a snails pace relatively speaking, and any evidence for Him would almost necessarily be hearsay evidence.

Then again, I suppose they can fake anything nowadays, even video.

–Walter

 

[LogisticsBranch]

The Gospels, you see, are documents written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses decades (at the earliest) after the supposed events occurred. There’s not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, nor a single piece of evidence that confirms any of the magical parts of the story.

Dear OP AntiTheist,

You really should rethink your position as stated above. Obviously, you don’t understand the importance of Biblical time and it’s value to Medicine - Virology.

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Virology Journal, July 21, 2010
Kam LE Hon, Pak C Ng, and Ting F Leung (1Department of Paediatrics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China)
Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time
Abstract::
The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ. Based on the information provided by the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the diagnosis and the possible etiology of the febrile illness is discussed. Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. If the postulation is indeed correct, the woman with fever in the Bible is among one of the very early description of human influenza disease.

Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. We analysed a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time and discussed possible etiologies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918564/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract

Thank you.

 

[tonyrey]

I say this as a Catholic, but this line of reasoning, while often used, does not sound strong to me.

After all, other religions have their martyrs.

If we cite our own martyrs as evidence of the truth of Catholicism, must we not also recognize the martyrs of non-Christian religions as evidence of the truth of their religions?

And yet we don’t.

We respect and honour anyone who dies for what is right and just. The truth is not confined to Christians. All religions have spiritual goals and values which transform the life of pagans from an aimless existence into a meaningful pursuit of perfection…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Shredderbeam

I don’t believe that most of what the Gospels say he did and said actually happened.

Since you have no religion, that is understandable. Why would you believe these things when, apparently, you don’t even believe in God?

But if you believed in God, why wouldn’t you believe that God could be in Jesus and do all the things Jesus is said to have done?

The only recourse for you, really, is to regard the Gospels as a pack of lies. So a decision you have already made about God informs a decision you have later made about Jesus.

No surprise there.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Shredderbeam

I don’t believe that most of what the Gospels say he did and said actually happened.

Since you have no religion, that is understandable. Why would you believe these things when, apparently, you don’t even believe in God?

But if you believed in God, why wouldn’t you believe that God could be in Jesus and do all the things Jesus is said to have done?

The only recourse for you, really, is to regard the Gospels as a pack of lies. So a decision you have already made about God informs a decision you have later made about Jesus.

No surprise there.

If I were a Theist, I’d probably be much more receptive to the idea of miracles, I agree.

I don’t regard them as a “pack of lies”. I think that things can be untrue without being intentional lies.

My train of thought wasn’t “I don’t believe in God, therefore, the miracles didn’t happen”. It was more along the lines of “Is the evidence sufficient to establish that a man performed miracles?”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

NaturalEnquirer, tonyrey: Good points.

I always wondered why Jesus didn’t come after the advent of more reliable media, such as TV.

I mean, why come at a time when hardly anyone was literate, and news traveled not everywhere, and where it did travel, it traveled at a snails pace relatively speaking, and any evidence for Him would almost necessarily be hearsay evidence.

Then again, I suppose they can fake anything nowadays, even video.

–Walter

2 points:

1. I am writing a book on what the world would be like if Jesus came now.
2. I think Jesus made a pretty good choice of time period, don’t you? I mean, we all believe in him, right? It seems to be working out.

 

[Pieman333272]

First of all, we have proof Jesus existed, that he had post-death/resurrection followers, and that he was a moral teacher/rabbi at the time from Josephus. We also have one by him stating he worked miracles, but that piece of his work is disputed to this day.

Also, when checking the age of the Gospels, it would be a much wiser idea to check the age of their sources, not them themselves. Obviously we cannot find, and therefore date, oral sources. But Mark is already one dated source, and is earlier than any other Gospel. John may have been a source for itself and Gnostic writings, but it is also plausible they have another source, either undiscovered written, oral, or one of the other Gnostic Gospels such as Judas or Thomas, which may be between 500 and 2000 years old. Q is a possibly existent source for what appeared in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, but we have not found, and therefore dated, that yet.

An example for the authenticity of the Gospels I like to use is the sweating of blood. (Luke 22:44) They didn’t know it was scientifically possible, and they regarded it as a miracle and wrote/passed it down. Unlike many other miracles, this is scientifically possible and likely. Every other myth that has miracles, outside of Christianity, has no or only one scientifically possible miracle, which is usually very unlikely. However, here we have one that is both possible and likely. They didn’t know this would be revealed to be such 2000 years from then, as other wise they wouldn’t have written it down for two reasons:

1. 
   *]They would know it wasn’t miraculous.
   *]It would have been a sign of weakness on Jesus’ part.
   
   So, I believe that is evidence for one miracle to be correct. Whilst it is only one, I still believe it to contribute to the authenticity of Luke (or Mark/Q) as a whole and all of the Gospels and Sources.
   
   Finally, here is a link to a rather decent article about proving the resurrection:
   leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
   
   Oh, and @Marc Anthony, I would like to read that book when it is published, and I hope for you to finish it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

First of all, we have proof Jesus existed, that he had post-death/resurrection followers, and that he was a moral teacher/rabbi at the time from Josephus. We also have one by him stating he worked miracles, but that piece of his work is disputed to this day.

Also, when checking the age of the Gospels, it would be a much wiser idea to check the age of their sources, not them themselves. Obviously we cannot find, and therefore date, oral sources. But Mark is already one dated source, and is earlier than any other Gospel. John may have been a source for itself and Gnostic writings, but it is also plausible they have another source, either undiscovered written, oral, or one of the other Gnostic Gospels such as Judas or Thomas, which may be between 500 and 2000 years old. Q is a possibly existent source for what appeared in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, but we have not found, and therefore dated, that yet.

An example for the authenticity of the Gospels I like to use is the sweating of blood. (Luke 22:44) They didn’t know it was scientifically possible, and they regarded it as a miracle and wrote/passed it down. Unlike many other miracles, this is scientifically possible and likely. Every other myth that has miracles, outside of Christianity, has no or only one scientifically possible miracle, which is usually very unlikely. However, here we have one that is both possible and likely. They didn’t know this would be revealed to be such 2000 years from then, as other wise they wouldn’t have written it down for two reasons:

1. 
   *]They would know it wasn’t miraculous.
   *]It would have been a sign of weakness on Jesus’ part.
   
   So, I believe that is evidence for one miracle to be correct. Whilst it is only one, I still believe it to contribute to the authenticity of Luke (or Mark/Q) as a whole and all of the Gospels and Sources.
   
   Finally, here is a link to a rather decent article about proving the resurrection:
   leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html
   
   Oh, and @Marc Anthony, I would like to read that book when it is published, and I hope for you to finish it.

1. 
   bible.cc/luke/22-44.htm
   
   Where is the “scientific miracle” in this at all?
   And, why would it have been a sign of weakness on Jesus’ part in this setting to be sweating profusely?

 

[Walter_Maxey]

I think Jesus made a pretty good choice of time period, don’t you? I mean, we all believe in him, right? It seems to be working out.

I’m not sure I agree.

Most do not believe in Him.

And we have this thread, which would not have been started if there were better evidence than hearsay evidence (and hearsay is not admissible in many courts due to the fact that many judicial systems have judged it to be inherently unreliable). And even if you believe hearsay, you still have to judge which of the hearsay evidence for all the religions is most reliable…a formidible task indeed. Direct evidence would be nice.

Also, the lack of evidence for God was the reason I left the Church many years ago.

As a cradle Catholic seeking to bolster my faith and make it my own, I searched for independent evidence of God (and eventually for evidence of anything supernatural) for over a year, and finally had to set up an alternate ethical system for myself when I began to fear that it was unlikely I was going to find any evidence.

I came back to the Church not because I found evidence, but because I decided that faith was not a backwards looking choice to be made on evidence gathered, but a forward looking choice based on what type of person I wanted to be. (Strangely, after 14 years of searching for evidence with no success, God presented me with a “coincidence” the day after I completed my return to the Church, which was the first independent evidence–not proof, mind you, but some personal evidence–I had seen of God’s existence.)

 

[Walter_Maxey]

One more thought on this…

(Strangely, after 14 years of searching for evidence with no success, God presented me with a “coincidence” the day after I completed my return to the Church, which was the first independent evidence–not proof, mind you, but some personal evidence–I had seen of God’s existence.)

You ever have one of those times when you are laughing at something your kids do, and you really are laughing at them, but you don’t mean anything by it–their actions were perfectly reasonable in the context of their short lives–it is just that their actions are funny in the context your greater experience–and maybe you did something similar when you were young. They think you might be laughing to be mean, but you try to reassure them that you are not laughing in a mean way.

I sometimes have the impression God was laughing at me when he presented me with my “evidence” after I finally decided, after many years, that I didn’t need proof.

 

[Pieman333272]

bible.cc/luke/22-44.htm

Where is the “scientific miracle” in this at all?
And, why would it have been a sign of weakness on Jesus’ part in this setting to be sweating profusely?

Sweating Blood would be regarded as a miracle at that time. Not all of the miracles take up a whole chapter. Thinking about it in the whole of the event now, it might not be a sign of weakness, but it was certainly regarded as a miracle, or at least something unusual, at the time.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m bumping this again for AntiTheist.

The Gospels, you see, are documents written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses decades (at the earliest) after the supposed events occurred. There’s not a single contemporary eyewitness account of Jesus, nor a single piece of evidence that confirms any of the magical parts of the story.

Dear OP AntiTheist,

You really should rethink your position as stated above. Obviously, you don’t understand the importance of Biblical time and it’s value to Medicine - Virology.

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Virology Journal, July 21, 2010
Kam LE Hon, Pak C Ng, and Ting F Leung (1Department of Paediatrics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China)
Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time
Abstract::
The Bible describes the case of a woman with high fever cured by our Lord Jesus Christ. Based on the information provided by the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the diagnosis and the possible etiology of the febrile illness is discussed. Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. If the postulation is indeed correct, the woman with fever in the Bible is among one of the very early description of human influenza disease.

Infectious diseases continue to be a threat to humanity, and influenza has been with us since the dawn of human history. We analysed a case of high fever that happened 2000 years ago in Biblical time and discussed possible etiologies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918564/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract****

---

The above document doesn’t invalidate a miracle(s). It strictly discusses the disease afflicted by many in ‘bible time’. Not all were healed by Jesus though many were. Please do keep in mind:
“It is in the New Testament, however, that the question of why illness also afflicts the just finds a complete answer. In the public activity of Jesus, his encounters with the sick are not isolated, but continual. He healed many through miracles, so that miraculous healings characterised his activity: «Jesus went around to all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom, and curing every disease and illness» (Mt 9:35; cf. 4:23). These healings are signs of his messianic mission (cf. Lk 7:20-23). They manifest the victory of the kingdom of God over every kind of evil, and become the symbol of the restoration to health of the whole human person, body and soul. They serve to demonstrate that Jesus has the power to forgive sins (cf. Mk 2:1-12); they are signs of the salvific goods, as is the healing of the paralytic of Bethesda (cf. Jn 5:2-9, 19-21) and the man born blind (cf. Jn 9).”

You also said AntiTheist , “Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without sufficient evidence.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485473

Well, in a court of law you had better have eyewitness accounts. There are Eyewitness testimonies to Christ which are valid so my faith is based on evidence.: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19871111en.html

and The Fact and Significance of Christ’s Miracles:vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20001123_istruzione_en.html

I will end on this note, doctor’s don’t report miracles though many of them have seen them occur in hospitals and offices. It is amazing to see in a Cardiac Care Unit and throughout a hospital how much prayer does at times make a difference. By the grace of God!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Shredderbeam

*My train of thought wasn’t “I don’t believe in God, therefore, the miracles didn’t happen”. It was more along the lines of “Is the evidence sufficient to establish that a man performed miracles?” *

But if you are an atheist, why would you believe in miracles regardless of the evidence brought before you? And why on earth would a book full of miracles be able to provide sufficient evidence, when you believe up front that no amount of sufficient evidence is possible because there is no supernatural power able to provide it?

This is the dilemma of atheism … the unwillingness to believe, in the absence of evidence, even if the evidence once existed and persuaded others. Certainly you cannot confine your argument to the Gospels, because Paul lived and wrote long before the gospels were written. He spoke of miracles too, and if they were not performed, there would certainly have been a hue and a cry against him by the followers of Jesus (including Peter, James, and John) who knew Jesus in person and would have challenged Paul for a liar if he had ever dared to lie.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Sweating Blood would be regarded as a miracle at that time. Not all of the miracles take up a whole chapter. Thinking about it in the whole of the event now, it might not be a sign of weakness, but it was certainly regarded as a miracle, or at least something unusual, at the time.

Thank you for your kind, but most of all your thoughtful reply.

Both are reasons to give me reasons.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m not sure I agree.

Most do not believe in Him.

And we have this thread, which would not have been started if there were better evidence than hearsay evidence (and hearsay is not admissible in many courts due to the fact that many judicial systems have judged it to be inherently unreliable). And even if you believe hearsay, you still have to judge which of the hearsay evidence for all the religions is most reliable…a formidible task indeed. Direct evidence would be nice.

Also, the lack of evidence for God was the reason I left the Church many years ago.

As a cradle Catholic seeking to bolster my faith and make it my own, I searched for independent evidence of God (and eventually for evidence of anything supernatural) for over a year, and finally had to set up an alternate ethical system for myself when I began to fear that it was unlikely I was going to find any evidence.

I came back to the Church not because I found evidence, but because I decided that faith was not a backwards looking choice to be made on evidence gathered, but a forward looking choice based on what type of person I wanted to be. (Strangely, after 14 years of searching for evidence with no success, God presented me with a “coincidence” the day after I completed my return to the Church, which was the first independent evidence–not proof, mind you, but some personal evidence–I had seen of God’s existence.)

It’s been 2000 years, and Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Catholicism is still the largest branch of that religion.

I contend that Jesus could not possibly have done better.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Oh, and @Marc Anthony, I would like to read that book when it is published, and I hope for you to finish it.

Thank you!

Don’t expect it in bookstores anytime soon though. Right now it’s on the back burner because I’m nearly finished with a completely unrelated, not-even-slightly-religious book, and I want to get that done.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

But if you believed in God, why wouldn’t you believe that God could be in Jesus and do all the things Jesus is said to have done?

The only recourse for you, really, is to regard the Gospels as a pack of lies. So a decision you have already made about God informs a decision you have later made about Jesus.

No surprise there.

Hi Chrlemangne II I do realize you were addressing your comment to Shredderbeam, but I did want to inform you that Pope BENEDICT XVI did say on June 7, 2009, "Today we contemplate the Most Holy Trinity as Jesus introduced us to it. He revealed to us that God is love “not in the oneness of a single Person, but in the Trinity of one substance” (Preface). He is the Creator and merciful Father; he is the Only-Begotten Son, eternal Wisdom incarnate, who died and rose for us; he is the Holy Spirit who moves all things, cosmos and history, toward their final, full recapitulation. Three Persons who are one God because the Father is love, the Son is love, the Spirit is love. God is wholly and only love, the purest, infinite and eternal love. He does not live in splendid solitude but rather is an inexhaustible source of life that is ceaselessly given and communicated. . .
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20090607_en.html.

Certainly you cannot confine your argument to the Gospels, because Paul lived and wrote long before the gospels were written. He spoke of miracles too, and if they were not performed, there would certainly have been a hue and a cry against him by the followers of Jesus (including Peter, James, and John) who knew Jesus in person and would have challenged Paul for a liar if he had ever dared to lie.

I once again take note that you are writing to Shredderbeam. I wanted to share with you some information regarding “The Gospels” that might be useful since the topic by the OP is “The Gospels are Myths….”

The Gospels
The collection of writings that constitutes the New Testament begins with four gospels. Next comes the Acts of the Apostles, followed by twenty-one letters that are attributed to Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude. Finally, at the end of the early church’s scriptures stands the Revelation to John. Virtually all Christians agree that these twenty-seven books constitute the “canon,” a term that means “rule” and designates the list of writings that are regarded as authoritative for Christian faith and life. . .
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV8.HTM

Thanks for all your support and everyone else that has joined the crusade for love of God. May we continue to love our neighbors despite the fact that we don’t always see eye to eye on some things. Hopefully, our lost leader AntiTheist (OP) will acknowledge us. I have left AntiTheist a large amount of information . If that person ignores me here on Catholic.com then I will think it to be rather rude, considering I took the time to talk to that person in a rather pleasant and informative way. Ah well, I’m drinking a cup of GoodEarth tea. It has a little saying on the teabag, " I make the most of all that comes. And the least of all that goes." Sara Teasdale 1884-1933.

Blessings to everyone!

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s been 2000 years, and Christianity is the largest religion in the world.

Catholicism is still the largest branch of that religion.

I contend that Jesus could not possibly have done better.

So, this means that your basis is founded on popular opinion today? As you did not live at that time, and you have to make decisions based on something…