The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[humble_catholic]

I think Tuno is bang on. The majority of posters on this site are very uncritical in their thinking.

I saw the Carrier-Lane debate. Lane spews nothing but nonsense garbed in impressive sounding language. His debating style is designed to appeal to those who already believe. It is meant to keep believers in the fold. When I listen to him speak, I just have to shake my head. Carrier is a real scholar who is very, very fair. His review of the Kersey Graves book on The 16 Crucified Saviors is proof of his non-biased work.

The writers of the gospels simply fit their Jesus character to the OT and twisted many things around to fit what they wanted to write. There are no “prophecies fulfilled”. I find it amazing that most conservative Christians can’t understand this.

Granted, there may be a few pockets of growth in seminary registrations. Unfortunately for the church, in the 1st world it is in free fall. No denying this.

“Militant atheists”? So, when someone who pushes back against your ideology (abortion, condoms etc) they are to be called “militant” as some sort of insult? What does that make conservative Christians?

Richard Carrier is a very good historian. I seriously doubt that you will be able to refute him. Oh well, maybe in your mind only!

Keep on deluding yourself.

The fact that you believe that the writers of the gospels twisted the character of Jesus to fit with the OT is absurd. Ill give you just one example that you probably know about. Who were the first ones to discover the empty Tomb of Jesus? WOMEN!!
Now if thje writers of the gospels wanted to fit Jesus into the OT, they would not have written about women discovering the empty tomb. If you know anything about history you would understand that women in those times were thought of assecond class citizens and their word meant almost nothing, but of course you are not biased and are seeking the truth right. The fact that Carrier thinks the gospels were myths written up by its creators tells me that he is also on the fringe as far as new testament historians. If you understand anything about historicity you would understand that anything written within the generation of the subject would be almost impossible for myths to develop. It seems like carrier has selective reasoning when it comes to the bible. If the writers of the gospels wanted to fashion a lie about it why would they start by humiliating and embarressing themselves.

For you to say that Craig spews nonsense garbage , it isnt much of an articulated response.Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects.

Carrier even wrote a book saying that Jesus never existed. The fact that not one scholarly expert believes this shows me that he isnt much of an expert in this field and that he is certainly very biased against all scholarly experts. I would classify Jesus mythers in the same field as people that should have but never recieved their straight-jackets. In other words they arent taken seriously.

In his writings and talks, Richard has argued that Jesus probably never existed, that Jesus may have survived crucifixion, that the empty tomb was a legend invented by Mark, that Christians originally believed in a spiritual resurrection, that Paul believed that Jesus’ body was exchanged for another body. This guy seems to get more rediculous as I research him. I feel like I have wasted enough of the threads time in even talking about carrier so I will end it here.

If I were you I would humbly start reading some books by Sir William Ramsey who was one of the best archeologists of his time, instead of bringing us someone who is sympathetic to the jesus myther cause which was allready debunked many times

Ramsey like you was an atheist (not just became one but was raised one) but came into christianity because of what his archeological digs uncovered.
God bless

 

[Pieman333272]

The fact that you believe that the writers of the gospels twisted the character of Jesus to fit with the OT is absurd. Ill give you just one example that you probably know about. Who were the first ones to discover the empty Tomb of Jesus? WOMEN!!
Now if thje writers of the gospels wanted to fit Jesus into the OT, they would not have written about women discovering the empty tomb. If you know anything about history you would understand that women in those times were thought of assecond class citizens and their word meant almost nothing, but of course you are not biased and are seeking the truth right. The fact that Carrier thinks the gospels were myths written up by its creators tells me that he is also on the fringe as far as new testament historians. If you understand anything about historicity you would understand that anything written within the generation of the subject would be almost impossible for myths to develop. It seems like carrier has selective reasoning when it comes to the bible. If the writers of the gospels wanted to fashion a lie about it why would they start by humiliating and embarressing themselves.

For you to say that Craig spews nonsense garbage , it isnt much of an articulated response.Craig has done 20+ years of Ph.D+ level research in the two fields he debates, has published hundreds of academic books and papers on both subjects.

Carrier even wrote a book saying that Jesus never existed. The fact that not one scholarly expert believes this shows me that he isnt much of an expert in this field and that he is certainly very biased against all scholarly experts. I would classify Jesus mythers in the same field as people that should have but never recieved their straight-jackets. In other words they arent taken seriously.

In his writings and talks, Richard has argued that Jesus probably never existed, that Jesus may have survived crucifixion, that the empty tomb was a legend invented by Mark, that Christians originally believed in a spiritual resurrection, that Paul believed that Jesus’ body was exchanged for another body. This guy seems to get more rediculous as I research him. I feel like I have wasted enough of the threads time in even talking about carrier so I will end it here.

If I were you I would humbly start reading some books by Sir William Ramsey who was one of the best archeologists of his time, instead of bringing us someone who is sympathetic to the jesus myther cause which was allready debunked many times

Ramsey like you was an atheist (not just became one but was raised one) but came into christianity because of what his archeological digs uncovered.
God bless

Semi-off topic here and a little dumb sounding, but what’s the church’s views on the ressurection? Physicial or Spiritual?

 

[twb1621]

Read the book entitled “Jesus For the Non-Religious” by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Bishop Spong was priest and bishop for 45 years. He was also a visiting lecturer at Harvard U.

www.johnshelbyspong.com/hsf

I have to warn you that traditional Christians who still cling to dated concepts of the past will not be comfortable with this book.

Bishop Spong goes on to say that we are witnessing the death of traditional Christianity, as it has been historically understood.

I don’t know if you were making this suggestion based on my posts or not and do not take this as a personal attack, it is not meant to be, but first let me point out that your reference from; “John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, NJ” is not a Catholic Bishop, although he does have an impressive smile.

What I will say is if one is to believe in all Scripture in its fullness as the Inspired Word of God, Then the Bishop already had some issues with the 2000 year old teachings of Christ or he would have been of the Universal Church and not independant of it.

Secondly and most importantly I will point out Scripture:

1 Corinthians CH1; 6 As the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, 7 So that nothing is wanting to you in any grace, waiting for the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 8 Who also will confirm you unto the end without crime, in the day of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.

It is very clear this “bishop” is no longer speaking the same thing (if he previously did), is not perfect in the same mind nor is he of the same judgment as has been instruct IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

And nothing in scripture reflects acceptance otherwise.

 

[twb1621]

It’s mostly pretty simple on here, ollimac. With few exceptions, staunchly and rigidly for the Church = good, wonderful, and approved. Inquisitive, impartial, indifferent, other tracked, or against = spawn of the Devil even if valid scholarship. I grant sincerity and fortitude to by far most on here, and there are those I differ with even greatly whom I admire and respect. But there are habituated religionists and atheists carrying emotional loads on here you may not wish to deal with. But hey, we are all here together, whether we talk to one another or not.

I for one do not think of you as a spawn of the devil. If that were the case, after what I had acknowledged in our discussions regarding my past way of life, I would also be.

 

[Tuno]

Then, as acknowledged, twb1621, you fit into the exceptions category both by my and your admission. I’m pleased to be able to say that.

 

[humble_catholic]

Here is a good site if your looking for more info on Carrier and the other militant atheists out there and why their arguments fall short in many ways.
answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/

Like I said many times before the Jesus mythers are even rediculed by other more contemporary atheist and theist historians. Both sides think of them as slightly off the wall and their old arguments have been debunked from 100 years back till now. I really dont need to debunk Carrier as he debunked himself as far as mainstream historian experts when he put himself with the Jesus myther camp.

One more thing? What is a protestant liberal? One who disbelieves in the existence of Jesus or someone that doesnt believe in Jesus’s divinity? Either way how can it be classified as Christian ?? Im confused. Can someone help me out with this:shrug:

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Then, as acknowledged, twb1621, you fit into the exceptions category both by my and your admission. I’m pleased to be able to say that.

I should certainly hope nobody on CAF has ever called anybody “spawn of the devil”-we are all sinners, and it is wrong to insult somebody in such an incredibly classless way when we aren’t much better IF we’re better at all.

 

[Ollimac]

Humble Catholic:

With all due respect, your rationalizations are simply false and without evidence.

Think carefully about what you said with regard to the women at the tomb. First of all, this part of “Mark” was a later addition to the story. It is NOT found in the earliest manuscripts. Were you aware of this? Secondly, why did the author use women as witnesses? Yes, no one would believe them as they were unreliable witnesses. Even the part of “Thomas” was a later addition. Ask yourself this very difficult question. Why didn’t the resurrected Jesus appear to the Sanhedrin? To Pilate? Wouldn’t that be far more believable? I say that the way the story was embellished (with women) is proof of the myth making. If Jesus appeared to absolute authority (Sanhedrin, Pilate) then the story would have subjected to actual historical scrutiny. Did you ever consider this? Probably not, I’m sure.

The reason you say such things about Carrier and other critical scholars is that they don’t buy the story. Nothing about the “passion” fits actual history. Personally, if a scholar is a committed Christian, he loses ALL objectivity with me. With you, it is the opposite. If a scholar doesn’t share your views, they lose all objectivity with you. Who’s position is more reasonable? I think it is mine. You made a reference about the authors of the gospels “fashioning a lie”. This sentence alone tells me that you do not understand why the gospels were written. The authors DID NOT think they were purposely telling a lie. They were writing “religious advertisements”. There is a significant difference.

Carrier has never argued that a Jesus 100% never existed. He has argued that it is quite possible that he is a mythical character. In other words, the evidence or lack of evidence is such that it is quite conceivable that he is mythical. He has NEVER claimed that a Jesus definitely 100% did not exist. I could actually argue that people who believe in the supernatural Jesus should be in straight jackets. It is entirely possible and likely that the gospels were based on an obscure apocalyptic Jewish preacher. The Jesus myth scholars admit such. It is the supernatural walking on water, raising dead people, resurrected Jesus that the myth proponents say didn’t exist. That is very probable.

Here is another interesting fact for you to digest.

Why is it that the incidences of Jesus miracles increase dramatically as we progress from the earliest writings to the latest? The legitimate letters of Paul have little miracles in them and know nothing of the life of Jesus, save for his death and resurrection. The last gospel (John) has many more miracles than the first gospel (Mark). Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It is a clear marker for “religious advertisements”. The authors were selling a religious story. They were looking to make people believe in the new religion.

Lastly, archeological digs in the 20th & 21st century have done the opposite of what you contend. There is no proof in the ground for many of the best known stories of the Bible.

No Moses, no exodus, no ark etc. etc.

By the way, where is the archeological evidence for a synagogue in the “city of Nazareth”?

None, as there was no “city of Nazareth” at the supposed time of Jesus. That area was a burial site for Jews. No one would be able to live near graves. That would be unclean!

It is little wonder that the Christian religion made little to no converts of the Jews. They immediately recognized the story as pagan in origin.

 

[Luke_K]

Why is it that the incidences of Jesus miracles increase dramatically as we progress from the earliest writings to the latest?.. The last gospel (John) has many more miracles than the first gospel (Mark). Why is that?

That’s absolute baloney! Not counting the resurrection, Mark has 18 miracles while John only has 8, one of which is in the three other gospels (feeding of 5000), and one of which is in two others (walking on water). John has the fewest miracles of any gospel!

 

[Ollimac]

Are you going to stick with your claim of 18 miracles in Mark? That’s quite a stretch.

First of all, I wonder what you are counting as a “miracle”. I’d be interested in seeing your list of 18 “miracles”.
Secondly, are you forgetting that some things were added to Mark later on? For example, the women at the tomb was added later on. This wasn’t in the oldest manuscripts!

You maybe surprised at what the reality is.

Isn’t it strange that the founder of Christianity, knows little to nothing of the life of Jesus?

What do you make of that?

 

[Pieman333272]

Can you show me some evidence that archeology points to Nazareth not being a real place? Most Israeli Archeologists, including those who deny the divinity of Jesus, acknowledge that most of the NT cities were real cities/towns at the time. Also, what early manuscripts of “Mark” have you read? I’d like to take a look, if there’s translations. If not, just tell me who found them and where. And why do you assume that no archeological evidence = non-existence? Just cause we haven’t found Moses’ bones, doesn’t mean he didn’t exist - it just means we haven’t found his bones!

Please show me some sources from archeologists and historians who are well-grounded in the field and are generally thought of as not biased and rational by their peers. I do not consider Carrier as such.

 

[EricFilmer]

You made a reference about the authors of the gospels “fashioning a lie”. This sentence alone tells me that you do not understand why the gospels were written. The authors DID NOT think they were purposely telling a lie. They were writing “religious advertisements”. There is a significant difference.

Really? If a person makes up the story about Jesus walking on water and decides to claim in writing that it is true, he is lying. How does the context of writing a “religious advertisment” change this?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Isn’t it strange that the founder of Christianity, knows little to nothing of the life of Jesus?

Jesus knows nothing of the life of Jesus?

 

[ncgolf]

Carrier has never argued that a Jesus 100% never existed. He has argued that it is quite possible that he is a mythical character. In other words, the evidence or lack of evidence is such that it is quite conceivable that he is mythical.

This doesnt make sense. Adults don’t believe in mythical characters. Name one other mythical character believed by a large number of adults. I dont think you can yet there are plenty of mythical characters to choose from.

He has NEVER claimed that a Jesus definitely 100% did not exist. I could actually argue that people who believe in the supernatural Jesus should be in straight jackets.

Thank you … your first reasonable statement … because if you are right then we should be in strait jackets and I wonder why we also don’t believe in the tooth fairy.

It is entirely possible and likely that the gospels were based on an obscure apocalyptic Jewish preacher.

And if so the early Christians would have gone the same route as the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones … IOW they would be extinct.

The Jesus myth scholars admit such. It is the supernatural walking on water, raising dead people, resurrected Jesus that the myth proponents say didn’t exist. That is very probable.

No its not … if so we would be reading the Bible like people read the Greek myths. Those who believed in those gods didn’t last very long and we find the stories quite amusing.

Here is another interesting fact for you to digest.

Why is it that the incidences of Jesus miracles increase dramatically as we progress from the earliest writings to the latest?

Ever read about Paul’s conversion … is that not dramatic.

The legitimate letters of Paul have little miracles in them and know nothing of the life of Jesus, save for his death and resurrection. The last gospel (John) has many more miracles than the first gospel (Mark). Why is that? I’ll tell you why. It is a clear marker for “religious advertisements”. The authors were selling a religious story. They were looking to make people believe in the new religion.

I like the way you think … let’s get believe to believe in this new religion … oh and by the way let’s make it so there would be good chance in the early days that you would be killed for believing this. Look at the early Church heroes … all killed by horrible means save John. Oh and let’s recruite some great minds … get an Augustine and a Aquinas. It may have worked for a while but if it was a house of cards … it would be over and right now the Bible would be required reading in some high school English class. Try getting the Bible read in a public high school … people aren’t afraid of myths … people are afraid of truth.

Lastly, archeological digs in the 20th & 21st century have done the opposite of what you contend. There is no proof in the ground for many of the best known stories of the Bible.

Burial shroud of said mythical character. Science has not yet been able to prove it a fraud. This should have been a slam dunk debunking by science.

It is little wonder that the Christian religion made little to no converts of the Jews. They immediately recognized the story as pagan in origin.

The Jews were the original Christians. Read Romans 11 for a better perspective.

 

[Luke_K]

Are you going to stick with your claim of 18 miracles in Mark? That’s quite a stretch.

First of all, I wonder what you are counting as a “miracle”. I’d be interested in seeing your list of 18 “miracles”.
Secondly, are you forgetting that some things were added to Mark later on? For example, the women at the tomb was added later on. This wasn’t in the oldest manuscripts!

You maybe surprised at what the reality is.

Isn’t it strange that the founder of Christianity, knows little to nothing of the life of Jesus?

What do you make of that?

I took my miracle count from this table: christian-thinktank.com/mqx.html

Apparently you think Paul is the founder of Christianity. His writings are letters addressed to already established Christian communities, dealing with issues affecting those communities. His intent wasn’t to provide a synopsis of Jesus’ life, so I’m not concerned that he doesn’t do that. His letters do show, however, that he knew about the Last Supper and Jesus’ death, resurrection, and appearances afterward.

 

[Ollimac]

Paul is the author of these books only.
Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon.

The rest are not his but written in his name to make them more believable. A common tactic as we see with the “gospels” which were written by totally anonymous authors.

Paul took the son of God myths from Greek, Persian and Roman sources and created his own Jewish version of same. Like I said, no wonder the mainline Jews said “no thanks”. Christianity appealed to the gentiles primarily.

As for Nazareth…

“The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist - not literary, not archeological, and not historical. It is an imaginery city…” (Humphreys, 2005, p. 285)

“There is, in fact, no record of Narazeth’s existence at that [Jesus’] time…Nazareth is not to be found in any book, map, chronicle or military record of the period so far discovered.” (Gardner, 2007, p. 53)

“For one thing, the existence of a town called Nazareth during Jesus’ time has never been confirmed. There is no mention of such a town in the Hebrew Bible, or in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus who - as a former Galilean rebel leader against the Romans - had personally fortified the towns of Galilee. Almost certainly “Nazarene” referred instead to a Jewish/Christian sect that was later identified with the Ebionites…” (Hooper, 2005, p.189)

 

[humble_catholic]

NCGolf, and this is why the Jesus Mythers are relegated the same spots among professional historians as the conspiracy theorists that believe that president Bush is a little green man from mars. Ollimac, I suggested a book for you from Sir William Ramsey who was a skeptic that wanted to know the truth for himself and went on a 15 year archeological expedition. It seems like you would rather believe a bishop sponge who is really out there. I did a little digging on this guy and it seems like he favors the death of God groups which was a looney bunch of characters. If your a christian you believe in the divinity of Jesus, If you dont then your not a Christian. Its not that hard.

Few Christians or historians take these characters seriously and as I showed you on that answering infedals site when Richard Carrier was cornered on these issues he played his cusomary dodgeball. Doctor Craig has continually cleaned his clock and he has over 20 years experience and has written in many many academic publications. It seems like Carrier spends most of his time writing for infedels.com, the notorious atheist site. He clearly has an emotional agenda but trys not to show it.

After reading everything on this link its apparent that His critical analysis doesnt match coherent thinking or even worse is very emotionally biased.

answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/

This one shows Carriers methods of dodging knowledgable scholars
answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/answering-richard-carrier/resurrection-dodgeball-a-critical-review-of-the-habermas-licona-carrier-exchange.html

 

[humble_catholic]

The fact that a very little town wasnt mentioned means very little. If you bother to keep up to date you will have seen this archeological dig that was found here

google.com/webhp?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&q=+First+Jesus-Era+House+Found+in+Nazareth%2C+Israel&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=bb4a7d9d8328d0a4

youtube.com/watch?v=lTxd_qebujY

foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/21/jesus-era-house-nazareth-israel/

The problem with you Ollie is that you are picking and choosing the tidbits that support your point of view. I fail to believe that you werent up to date on such things which would lead to one conclusion. That you allready knew about this.

Light never stays hidden my friend

and on that note this is starting to get way out there in left field for even me. When I say way out there im talking about the kind of left field that says Elvis is alive or hes been abducted by aliens.

 

[Ollimac]

Picking and choosing? Isn’t that what you are doing?

“A little town”? The gospels call Nazareth a city. That’s a problem.

Lane Craig is good, at convincing those who want to keep believing literal Christianity. He didn’t “clean” anyone’s clock. You are being extremely biased there.

Which gospel is correct? Did Jesus die on Thursday or Friday?

Face it, you can make fun of unbiased scholars who do not buy into the whole Jesus story all you want. The fact is, outside of religious documents, there is precious little of “Jesus of Nazareth”. Prior to 40 CE, there is NOTHING at all, anywhere from secular sources.

Talk to a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu…they know this inconvenient fact.

Funny how religious people are very adept at debunking other religions.

 

[Pieman333272]

israel21c.org/briefs/house-from-jesus-time-excavated

Just look .

Also, I suggest you buy/rent and watch the Discovery Channel Documentary Jesus: The Complete Story, which proves a lot about Jesus from a scientific standpoint. Its a nice wake-up call for Jesus Mythers like you.

Also on Nazareth, the point is that it existed. Who cares if it was a city or not? Yes the Gospels say so, but they may have meant it in another way of exaggerated it, or the people who wrote it considered it a city (keep in mind when the Gospels were written the Christian Communities and Church in general was VERY small). For me at least, I’m satisfied with its existence .