Christians are easily startled, but they'll soon be back. And in greater numbers 36:11

[Gethelred]

Welcome to the Ask an Atheist thread II.

Previous part:

Win Prizes - Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack. As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them. If you've still got...

www.bigfooty.com

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Vdubs]

That does not alter the fact that the Gospels were not written as historical accounts. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

The Jesus of the Gospels is little more than a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure (or minor historical figures), whose earthly remains lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

They are theological works written by man with an all too human agenda proselytizing a particular belief system. Full of embellishment and in some cases pure invention. Have you ever read historical fiction? Or watched a historical film? Does the portrayal of an actual historical figure such as George C Marshall and the mentions of D-Day, Hitler and so on make the events of 'Saving Private Ryan' true?

If...


There is no supporting evidence for the claimed historical fact that Jesus was resurrected. That he was resurrected via a supernatural act is not an historically proven fact.


That there likely was a historical figure of Jesus is not the same as claiming he was actually resurrected from the dead, is the Son of God and is therefore divine. It's no more believable that Alexander the Great or the emperor Augustus were divine. And of course they weren't.


They were not written to record history. They are theological works, written to promote a particular agenda. As a true record of actual history they are sadly lacking.


That is very debatable. Yet another unsubstantiated claim about the nature of god. So little more than an invention - a product of the human imagination.

Did Jesus Exist? A Response to Mythicism

www.evidenceunseen.com

 

[Vdubs]

That does not alter the fact that the Gospels were not written as historical accounts. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

The Jesus of the Gospels is little more than a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure (or minor historical figures), whose earthly remains lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

They are theological works written by man with an all too human agenda proselytizing a particular belief system. Full of embellishment and in some cases pure invention. Have you ever read historical fiction? Or watched a historical film? Does the portrayal of an actual historical figure such as George C Marshall and the mentions of D-Day, Hitler and so on make the events of 'Saving Private Ryan' true?

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels

www.evidenceunseen.com

 

[Roylion]

Did Jesus Exist? A Response to Mythicism

www.evidenceunseen.com

Errr..yes. Where did I say in my previous post that Jesus himself was a "myth" (i.e he didn't exist)? What I said was the "Jesus of the Gospels" (in other words the figure portrayed in the Gospels complete with supernatural events such as resurrection etc. was a literary figure. Not historical.

 

[Roylion]

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels

www.evidenceunseen.com

The article itself states that the majority of NT scholars date the gospels sometime between the ranges below

Mark: AD 60-75
Matthew: AD 65-85
Luke: AD 65-95
John: 75-100

and also says...."These standard dates could very well be true."
Bart Ehrman:

"Critical scholars are widely agreed that the earliest Gospel was Mark, written around 70 c.e.; that Matthew and Luke were written some years later, say, around 80–85 c.e.; and that John was the last Gospel, written around 90–95 c.e. But how do scholars establish those dates?

"New Testament scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the Gospels of the New Testament began to appear after 70 CE. The major exceptions are conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier. One can understand why: they typically maintain that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus and it seems implausible that they would still be alive toward the end of the first century (especially given live expectancies in antiquity)."

Then the article claims:

"For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history."

But we have considerable contemporary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great.

We have the remains of members of his family, which we know from a number of archaeological excavations, including according to archaeological consensus the remains of his father Philip II. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332-334 BC, still in existence. http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Chios/Alexander.html

We also have contemporary coins struck with the likeness of Alexander dating from around 322 BC. There are other coins where Alexander is represented as Heracles (that were issued by Alexander in 325 BC.)

We have the Decree of Phillippi, which was an inscription discovered in a Byzantine basilica and published in 1984. The inscription, in two columns says:

“ ..whatever land given by Philip, to be cultivated by the Thracians, as well the land Alexander gave them....whatever land given by Philip around Siris and Daineros to be possessed by Philippi, the wood at Dysorum not to be sold by anybody, until the delegation of Alexander come back, the swamps belong to Philippi till the bridge "

Then there is the Babylonian Astronomical Diary, a day-by-day (in other words contemporaneous with the events it describes) account of celestial phenomena, written by the officials of the Esagila temple complex. One tablet mentions the Battle of Gaugemala. Another says "Alexander, king of the world, came into Babylon..."

But even though we can account for their existence, as described above in the case of Alexander the Great and some of their deeds we still reject claims that Alexander was the son of the god Zeus. Certainly all the details of Alexander story are not necessarily established to be historical.

There's also plenty of contemporary evidence for Tiberius (d. 37) as well, including fragments of writing from his contemporaries Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79), Strabo (63 BC – c. AD 24), Seneca the Elder (c. 54 BC – c. AD 39), Philo of Alexandria 20 BC – c.  AD 50) as well as Velleius Paterculus who served under Tiberius for eight years (from AD 4).

 

[Boston tiger]

That does not alter the fact that the Gospels were not written as historical accounts. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

The Jesus of the Gospels is little more than a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure (or minor historical figures), whose earthly remains lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

They are theological works written by man with an all too human agenda proselytizing a particular belief system. Full of embellishment and in some cases pure invention. Have you ever read historical fiction? Or watched a historical film? Does the portrayal of an actual historical figure such as George C Marshall and the mentions of D-Day, Hitler and so on make the events of 'Saving Private Ryan' true?

Ive spaced it out for you to make your reply easier… you’re welcome.


So you are pushing the miracle of the
Gospel writers now?







Amazing how they got that kernel and turned it into a “Saving Private Ryan “all those years ago.


2000 odd years




Just a word from our resident literacy
historian.

“Either this is reportage…or else, some unknown writer…without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative…. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned how to read,”
– C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections



What is it Roy?





The miracle of the Gospel writers or you haven’t learnt to read ?

 

[Boston tiger]

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels

www.evidenceunseen.com

Everything points to the Gospels being written much earlier but because the many scholars insist that that it must be after year A.D. 70. Because Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in the three Gospels The implication here is that Jesus could not possibly have actually predicted the destruction of the Temple; rather, the Gospel writers must be writing after the fact and inserting their knowledge of the past event into the narrative.

 

[Boston tiger]

Errr..yes. Where did I say in my previous post that Jesus himself was a "myth" (i.e he didn't exist)? What I said was the "Jesus of the Gospels" (in other words the figure portrayed in the Gospels complete with supernatural events such as resurrection etc. was a literary figure. Not historical.

So how much is made up ? I know you were once a strong proponent of a made up Jesus and Christianity was founded by Paul . You have to admit you were out there with the best of them.
The Jesus of the Gospel is made up. Which bits?
Empty tomb ?
Joseph and Mary
Sermon on the Mount
Crucifiction
Peter the apostle ?
Mary

Or these dudes … historical or mythical?

A
Alphaeus
Anna the Prophetess
Annas
Augustus
B
Barabbas
Bartimaeus
Blind man of Bethsaida
C
Caiaphas
Celidonius
Centurion's servant
Clopas
E
Elijah
Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist
G
Gabriel
H
Herod Antipas
Herod Archelaus
Herodians
Herodias
I
Impenitent thief
J
John the Baptist
Joses
L
Lazarus of Bethany
Legion (demons)
Longinus
Lysanias
M
Malchus
Mary of Clopas
Moses
N
Naked fugitive
P
Peter's mother-in-law
Phanuel
Philip the Tetrarch
Pontius Pilate
Pontius Pilate's wife
Q
Quirinius
R
Rufus (biblical figure)
S
Salome
Satan
Simeon (Gospel of Luke)
Simon of Cyrene
Simon the Leper
Simon the Pharisee
Stephaton
Syrophoenician woman
T
Theophilus (biblical)
Tiberius
Y
Young man from Nain
Z
Zebedee
Zechariah (New Testament figure)

 

[Roylion]

Ive spaced it out for you to make your reply easier… you’re welcome.

I'm quite capable of organising my reply myself without your assistance.

So you are pushing the miracle of the Gospel writers now?

What miracle?

Amazing how they got that kernel and turned it into a “Saving Private Ryan “all those years ago.

Ahh...another misrepresentation of what I said. Didn't you quite understand the point I was making? Will I use another example to explain that fiction based on actual history and including verifiable historical figures, doesn't make the said fiction to be any more authentic?

2000 odd years

So what. Judaism is even older. That doesn't make their beliefs any more authentic or true.

Just a word from our resident literacy
historian.

“Either this is reportage…or else, some unknown writer…without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative…. The reader who doesn’t see this has simply not learned how to read,”
– C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections

It's not historical reportage. I've already explained how the Gospels were embellished as time went on.

C.S. Lewis may have been scholar of early modern English, also an author of enormously popular children books and even a literary historian but he was not a biblical scholar.

In support of the statement above Lewis provides what he thinks are three supporting details: the realism of Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman; the unexplained detail that he ‘doodled’ in the dust; and the time-stamp that ‘it was night’ when Judas left the last supper.

New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham writing in 2013 found it "astonishing" that "a literary critic of Lewis’ stature” could not detect the dialogue’s artificiality, alongside its realism. Indeed, the dialogue fits into a distinctive Johannine pattern, in which "again and again", Jesus’ interlocutors misunderstand his figurative statements by taking them in a crassly literal sense."

Lewis claimed that the time-stamp, "it was night", is a hallmark of vivid recollection, a casual unexplained detail. And it surely could have been 'night' when Judas left for supper. To view it as such misses the theme of light running throughout John: when Judas steps away from the meal, we are not only to see him as stepping into darkness, but departing from the Light of the World.

Lewis’ appeal to Jesus' 'doodling' is also unpersuasive. New Testament and C.S. Lewis scholar Leslie Baynes wrote in 2014, that textual critics unanimously regard this scene (the Pericope Adulterae) as unoriginal to the Gospel. None of Lewis’ examples of ‘realism’ in John demonstrate its form as reportage. In fact, they point in a very different, literary direction.

Tomas Hägg, a world expert on ancient biography, argues that the Gospels are not 'reportage' but rather ancient biography 'bioi' which he sums up in this way:

“Ancient life-writers did not encounter among their contemporaries the same demands for documentary truth as their modern colleagues do, nor did for that matter ancient historiographers… Conversations are allowed to be fictitious, and insight is readily granted into the acting characters’ feelings, thoughts, and motives, as long as some kind of verisimilitude [the appearance of being true or real] is maintained. The establishment of any form of higher truth – be it poetic, psychological, philosophical, or religious – overrules demands for the truth of facts.’

The New Testament sources for the most part do seem much more like bioi, ancient Greco-Roman biography, than "reportage" (which the later Acts of apostles and such tend to resemble very closely). Josephus is a bit like this as well.

The miracle of the Gospel writers or you haven’t learnt to read ?

What miracle?

 

[Roylion]

So how much is made up ? I know you were once a strong proponent of a made up Jesus and Christianity was founded by Paul .

I've never denied that there could well have been a historical figure called Jesus. I've been talking about the figure of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. There is no historical evidence that actually exists outside the Gospels.

You have to admit you were out there with the best of them.
The Jesus of the Gospel is made up. Which bits?

All the supernatural miracles at the very least.

Empty tomb ?

Plausible, but no historical evidence for such. Even if we accept the 'fact' of the empty tomb, that a supernatural event such as 'resurrection from the dead', is the least plausible explanation for such a situation.

Joseph and Mary

Plausible, but no historical evidence for such, outside the Gospels. The census story is clearly lifted to ensure that the Jesus of the Gospels fulfils a 'prophecy". I've explained how elsewhere.

Sermon on the Mount

Plausible.

Crucifiction

Plausible that a figure called Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. There's no external record of such of course.

Peter the apostle ?

Probable.

Mary

No historical evidence for outside the Gospels.

Or these dudes … historical or mythical?

A
Alphaeus
Anna the Prophetess
Annas
Augustus
B
Barabbas
Bartimaeus
Blind man of Bethsaida
C
Caiaphas
Celidonius
Centurion's servant
Clopas
E
Elijah
Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist
G
Gabriel
H
Herod Antipas
Herod Archelaus
Herodians
Herodias
I
Impenitent thief
J
John the Baptist
Joses
L
Lazarus of Bethany
Legion (demons)
Longinus
Lysanias
M
Malchus
Mary of Clopas
Moses
N
Naked fugitive
P
Peter's mother-in-law
Phanuel
Philip the Tetrarch
Pontius Pilate
Pontius Pilate's wife
Q
Quirinius
R
Rufus (biblical figure)
S
Salome
Satan
Simeon (Gospel of Luke)
Simon of Cyrene
Simon the Leper
Simon the Pharisee
Stephaton
Syrophoenician woman
T
Theophilus (biblical)
Tiberius
Y
Young man from Nain
Z
Zebedee
Zechariah (New Testament figure)

Some of the events in the Bible claimed to be actual history by some literalists are not supported by contemporary external historical evidence or archaeological evidence. However the historical existence of many figures mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by external evidence.

For example, known external literary / archaeological evidence suggests the following Biblical figures probably did exist;

• Ahab, king of Israel (Assyrian records and Tel Dan Stele)
• Ahaz, king of Judah
• Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt
• Ashurbanipal (Asenappar), king of Assyria
• Azaliah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem
• Azariah, grandfather of Ezra
• Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah
• Belshazzar, regent of Babylon
• Benhadad, king of Aram
• Caesar Augustus
• Caiaphas
• Cyaxares (Achiachar/Ahasuerus), ally of Nebuchadnezzar (in Tobit) and father of Darius the Mede (in Daniel)
• Cyrus II of Persia
• Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
• Evil-merodach, king of Babylon
• Gedaliah, governor of Judah
• Gemariah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem
• Geshem, Nabatean dignitary
• Hezekiah, king of Judah (Siloam Inscription)
• Hilkiah, high priest in Temple in Jerusalem
• Hoshea, king of Israel
• Jehoiachin, king of Judah
• Jehu, king of Israel (Black Obelisk of Shalmensar)
• Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel
• Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib.
• Joram King of Israel (Tel Dan Stele)
• Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon
• Omri King of Israel (Assyrian records and Moab stele)
• Pontius Pilate
• Sennacherib, king of Assyria
• Taharqa
• Tiberius Caesar

 

[Boston tiger]

I've never denied that there could well have been a historical figure called Jesus. I've been talking about the figure of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. There is no historical evidence that actually exists outside the Gospels.


All the supernatural miracles at the very least.



Plausible, but no historical evidence for such. Even if we accept the 'fact' of the empty tomb, that a supernatural event suhc as 'resurrection from the dead, is the least plausible explanation for such a situation.


Plausible, but no historical evidence for such, outside the Gospels. The census story is clearly lifted to ensure that the Jesus of the Gospels fulfils a 'prophecy". I've explained how elsewhere.


Plausible.


Plausible that a figure called Jesus was executed by the Romans for sedition. There's no external record of such of course.


Probable.


No historical evidence for outside the Gospels.


Some of the events in the Bible claimed to be actual history by some literalists are not supported by contemporary external historical evidence or archaeological evidence. However the historical existence of many figures mentioned in the Bible are corroborated by external evidence.

For example, known external literary / archaeological evidence suggests the following Biblical figures probably did exist;

• Ahab, king of Israel (Assyrian records and Tel Dan Stele)
• Ahaz, king of Judah
• Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt
• Ashurbanipal (Asenappar), king of Assyria
• Azaliah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem
• Azariah, grandfather of Ezra
• Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah
• Belshazzar, regent of Babylon
• Benhadad, king of Aram
• Caesar Augustus
• Caiaphas
• Cyaxares (Achiachar/Ahasuerus), ally of Nebuchadnezzar (in Tobit) and father of Darius the Mede (in Daniel)
• Cyrus II of Persia
• Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
• Evil-merodach, king of Babylon
• Gedaliah, governor of Judah
• Gemariah, scribe in the Temple in Jerusalem
• Geshem, Nabatean dignitary
• Hezekiah, king of Judah (Siloam Inscription)
• Hilkiah, high priest in Temple in Jerusalem
• Hoshea, king of Israel
• Jehoiachin, king of Judah
• Jehu, king of Israel (Black Obelisk of Shalmensar)
• Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel
• Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib.
• Joram King of Israel (Tel Dan Stele)
• Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon
• Omri King of Israel (Assyrian records and Moab stele)
• Pontius Pilate
• Sennacherib, king of Assyria
• Taharqa
• Tiberius Caesar

Why then do all ancient historians believe Jesus existed ? You aren’t convinced and that’s fine but why are all the ancient historians convinced ? What are they seeing that you aren’t ?

 

[Total Power]

Christianity is dying? You wish. Look at England-the secular nation. As soon as their Queen died they went rushing back to church and religion. There was a great need in the community for something spiritual and many people commented on this incredible hunger which was aroused by the death of their beloved Queen.

There may be less bums on seats in churches but the average person still holds some form of belief which often emerges in times of crisis. Not because of fear but because the very meaning of life is thrust in front of their distracted faces for the first time in a long time.

Christianity is growing in Africa and Asia too. It is in no danger of disappearing.

They went back to church cause they felt the need to be spiritual? you surely are kidding? Church goers rose from 2020, due to Covid, got nothing to do with the Queen. Have a look at the statistics. People felt the need to reconnect with the society, it got very little to do with spirituality. I went to the church, cause it was the only place i could go, with a vaccine passport and talk to a few people. Many of my atheist friends also joined me there. FFS, must be fun to be you not understanding the context behind the numbers.

I go to the church at times, it's a lifestyle. It's not because i consider myself a Christian. Less than 50% of British people identify themselves as Christians. You either have never travelled or you are just trolling. Swedes (where i lived for 12 years) are 90% atheist, yet they (like my wife who is Swedish) attend churches as a cultural token. Please travel move so that you can understand why. I go with her, why not? it's good place to socialise, nice and quiet and helps me focus, specially in harsh winter where outdoors here are a luxury.

Your last paragraph is exactly what i stated long time ago. It's only the third world countries and lesser educated people that are clinging onto it.

This is US have a look

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

The religious landscape of the United States continues to change at a rapid clip, with both Protestantism and Catholicism experiencing losses of population share.

www.pewresearch.org

Freefall.

Christianity is dying in the West. Although this may sound like a loaded, melodramatic statement, statistically it's true. According to Pew Research, over 80% of all Christians worldwide lived in Europe and North America in 1900. By 2050 this number is expected to drop below 30%.Feb 24, 2022



But but but i go to the church.

Jesus mate, head in sand?
https://compassionca.medium.com/is-western-christianity-dying-why-christian-will-no-longer-be-synonymous-with-white-6ceb3c4fd289#:~:text=Christianity is dying in the,expected to drop below 30%.


Never too late to educate yourself

The Global God Divide

A median of 45% across 34 surveyed countries say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values. However, public opinion on this question, as well as the role of God, prayer and religion varies by country, region and economic development.

www.pewresearch.org

What i said is absolutely clear..if you're poor you are more like to believe in God.

 

[Total Power]

Caiaphas a made-up myth like Pilate? What are you on about? They discovered the High Priest's ossuary recently. And Pilate has already been proven to have existed and ruled in the very place the gospels tell us he ruled.

Did you even read what i posted? this is pathetic, you just glanced through it and then came back with a one liner? all your questions are answered here, if you won't bother to read what i posted why bother?

Does Jesus Call Himself God in His Trial Before the Sanhedrin and the High Priest Caiaphas? - The Bart Ehrman Blog

I was recently asked about my claim that Jesus never calls himself God/a divine being in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Some people have asked me about what they think might be an exception: his trial before the Sanhedrin headed by the high priest Caiaphas in Mark 14, where he is accused of...

ehrmanblog.org

Caipahus is real, but the trial is Jesus' in relation of him is no shaky ground.

Characters being real got NOTHING TO DO with NT being a fictitious (more of a myth) story.

Gospel of John is not authentic, this is the only Gospel where Jesus is remotely acting like a God. The snyoptics mention nothing of this kind.

This is schoolboy stuff but i will do this again:

Was the Bible’s Gospel of John author fake?

n a paper published on March 2 in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament, UNC-Chapel Hill religious studies assistant professor Hugo Mendez explains for the first time that the texts for the Bible’s Gospel of John and 1 John, 2 John and 3 John were likely written by multiple authors...

college.unc.edu

The anonymous author of the Bible’s Gospel of John and 1 John, 2 John and 3 John is described in those texts as an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. Historically, researchers studying the works have not found evidence of the author’s identity or the existence of the community the author seems to address in his works.
What benefit would there have been for forging the texts?

A: Like today’s fake news, it’s about capturing an audience—getting attention for your work. We think that the Gospel of John was the last of the four gospels in the New Testament to be written. This text was entering into a crowded field of competitors. The Gospel of Mark was published around the year 70 CE, and within only a few years or decades, Matthew and Luke made it on the scene. So later authors might have wondered how to get their text, their distinctive vision of Jesus and Jesus’s message, into the hands of readers. Saying that a text was written by an eyewitness and disciple of Jesus, albeit a nameless one, was one way of getting people to take that text seriously.



I gave you the resources to read, which you didn't bother. The myth GREW over time. For example the gospels describe John the Baptist as dying in Galilee at the very beginning of the mission of Jesus, yet Josephus describes his death as occurring in Macherus several years later, so it is incumbent on NT scholars to establish the authenticity of these conflicting accounts.

Not to mention the forgery i mentioned in the previous posts, verses added much later on.

Then it was written in type of Greek that John would not have spoken, nor been able to write (he was uneducated anyway) in that period of that.

These are scholarly works, don't point finger at me..i gave you enough resources.

 

[Roylion]

Why then do all ancient historians believe Jesus existed ?

I'm quite happy to accept that there was very possibly a Yeshua ben-Yosef (Jesus) in Roman Judea who was some sort of seer and/or teacher and probably lived sometime in Roman Judea before AD 40 and was perhaps was arrested for blasphemy and/or sedition, and was subsequently executed on a charge of sedition, possibly for claiming, like some others did, he was the long awaited 'Messiah'.

However the actions and deeds of Jesus as outlined in the Gospels are essentially fiction and have either:

• been adapted from the deeds of other contemporary or near contemporary figures also named Jesus (Josephus mentions some of these), and/or
• been constructed to fulfill Jewish prophecy (e.g. Matthew) and/or
• been constructed from pagan mythologies in order to appeal to new converts.

There is widespread disagreement among mainstream Biblical scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives. Scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. It is the "Christ of faith" that makes up the majority of the Gospels. There is most likely a nucleus of a historical Jesus there but mainstream critical scholarship has discounted most of the narratives about Jesus as legendary and / or mythical.

The majority of Biblical scholars do regard as Jesus having existed. Most are former Christians including Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann. Maurice Casey is a former Christian as well. None of them can conceive of a completely mythical Jesus. They take the existence of a figure called Jesus for granted. Renowned Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman himself recognises that he was once a fervent Christian and that his thinking even subconsciously has been influenced by his early roots of Christian belief. He says himself that he cannot totally divorce himself from his original beliefs.

There's also no doubt that many of the modern tenets of Christianity have their origins in the older Persian religion of Zoroastrianism via second century Judaism, of which early Christianity was a sect.

In 1999 Gerd Ludemann’s argued in the book "The Great Deception: (And What Jesus Really Said and Did)” that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, which includes the resurrection.

The Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. The writer of the Gospel of John admits as much himself when he says:

"but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:31.

So they are theological works and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. As I've repeatedly said, the character and many of the deeds of Jesus are effectively a theological and literary construct.

Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god. The Jesus Seminar considers for example that the putting to death of Jesus may be an authentic historical event, but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive". They reject the historicity of the resurrection, argue that the empty tomb is a fiction and the Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. They also concluded that Jesus uttered just 31 sayings, or 18 per cent of what is attributed to him in the Bible. A similar rate was found for the deeds ascribed to him: Just 29 of 176 acts were certain or likely. There was no virgin birth, no transfiguration, and Jesus performed no miracles. He was little more than an "itinerant Jewish sage who preached a social gospel using parables and aphorisms".

Some of the academics that argue one or more of the above (and certainly reject the historicity of the resurrection) are:

• Marcus J. Borg Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture, Oregon State Univ.
• Günther Bornkamm, Professor of New Testament, Univ. Heidelberg
• Joel Carmichael Columbia Univ. & Oxford trained Historian, author of ‘The Death of Jesus’, ‘The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth, and ‘The Unriddling of Christian Origins: a Secular Account’
• Maurice Casey Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages & Literature, Univ. Nottingham
• James Crossley Professor of Bible, Society and Politics, St. Mary’s Univ., Twickenham
• John Dominic Crossan, New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar
• Bart D. Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• Christopher F. Evans, Professor of New Testament, King’s College, London
• Robert W. Funk, Biblical scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute
• Randel Helms Professor at the Department of English, Arizona State Univ., author of ‘Gospel Fictions’ & ‘Who Wrote the Gospels?’
• Michael Goulder, Professor of Biblical Studies, Univ. Birmingham
• Gerd Lüdemann, Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity, Univ. Göttingen
• Dale B. Martin Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University
• Robert M. Price, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute
• John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Prolific author on early Christianity

Still at the same time they accept that Jesus was probably a historical figure.

The other more extreme point of view is that there was no Jesus figure who lived between c. 4 BC – c. AD 40 and that he was a complete and utter fiction, a literary character only, whose actions and deeds were totally borrowed from earlier mythic traditions, including the Old Testament. Dr. Richard Carrier, author of ‘On the Historicity of Jesus’
has argued this and I've certainly presented some of his arguments on these boards.

I distinguish between the Jesus as an actual historical figure and the character of Jesus as laid out in the Gospels.

You aren’t convinced and that’s fine but why are all the ancient historians convinced ? What are they seeing that you aren’t ?

Convinced of what exactly?

 

[Total Power]

Evidence for an Early Dating of the Four Gospels

www.evidenceunseen.com

This is complete bullshit. The EARLIEST dating for John is 90 AD. 75 is literally impossible cause the region was at war. None of the manuscripts survived the siege of Jerusalem and John's used Greek lingo was nothing like those times.

P.S Just saw the name of website, say nothing more. Shall i quote an Islamic website to prove Islam now?

 

[Total Power]

You aren’t convinced and that’s fine but why are all the ancient historians convinced ? What are they seeing that you aren’t ?

Which historian/scholar who isn't an apologist agree that this character in NT is real?

Making up shit, BT style again?

 

[Total Power]

I'm quite happy to accept that there was very possibly a Yeshua ben-Yosef (Jesus) in Roman Judea who was some sort of seer and/or teacher and probably lived sometime in Roman Judea before AD 40 and was perhaps was arrested for blasphemy and/or sedition, and was subsequently executed on a charge of sedition, possibly for claiming, like some others did, he was the long awaited 'Messiah'.

However the actions and deeds as outlined in the Gospels are essentially fiction and....

• have been adapted from the deeds of other contemporary or near contemporary figures also named Jesus (Josephus mentions some of these), and/or
• have been constructed to fulfill Jewish prophecy (e.g. Matthew) and/or
• have been constructed from pagan mythologies in order to appeal to new converts.

There is widespread disagreement among mainstream Biblical scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives. Scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. It is the "Christ of faith" that makes up the majority of the Gospels. There is most likely a nucleus of a historical Jesus there but mainstream critical scholarship has discounted most of the narratives about Jesus as legendary and / or mythical.

The majority of Biblical scholars do regard as Jesus having existed. Most are former Christians including Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann. Maurice Casey is a former Christian as well. None of them can conceive of a mythical Jesus. They take his existence for granted. Renowned Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman himself recognises that he was once a fervent Christian and that his thinking even subconsciously has been influenced by his early roots of Christian belief. He says himself he cannot totally divorce himself from his original beliefs.

There's no doubt that many of the modern tenets of Christianity have their origins in the older Persian religion of Zoroastrianism via second century Judaism, of which early Christianity was a sect.

In 1999 Gerd Ludemann’s argued in the book "The Great Deception: (And What Jesus Really Said and Did)” that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, which includes the resurrection.

The Gospels were clearly written to push an agenda that Jesus was supposedly the Messiah and his coming fulfilled ancient Jewish scripture. So they are theological works and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize. As I've repeatedly said, the character and many of the deeds of Jesus are effectively a theological and literary construct.

Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god. The Jesus Seminar considers for example that the putting to death of Jesus may be an authentic historical event, but all gospel reports are "improbable or fictive". They reject the historicity of the resurrection, argue that the empty tomb is a fiction and the Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. They also concluded that Jesus uttered just 31 sayings, or 18 per cent of what is attributed to him in the Bible. A similar rate was found for the deeds ascribed to him: Just 29 of 176 acts were certain or likely. There was no virgin birth, no transfiguration, and Jesus performed no miracles. He was little more than an "itinerant Jewish sage who preached a social gospel using parables and aphorisms".

Some of the academics that argue one or more of the above (and certainly reject the historicity of the resurrection) are:

• Marcus J. Borg Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture, Oregon State Univ.
• Günther Bornkamm, Professor of New Testament, Univ. Heidelberg
• Joel Carmichael Columbia Univ. & Oxford trained Historian, author of ‘The Death of Jesus’, ‘The Birth of Christianity: Reality and Myth, and ‘The Unriddling of Christian Origins: a Secular Account’
• Maurice Casey Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages & Literature, Univ. Nottingham
• James Crossley Professor of Bible, Society and Politics, St. Mary’s Univ., Twickenham
• John Dominic Crossan, New Testament scholar, historian of early Christianity, former Catholic priest, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar
• Bart D. Ehrman, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill
• Christopher F. Evans, Professor of New Testament, King’s College, London
• Robert W. Funk, Biblical scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute
• Randel Helms Professor at the Department of English, Arizona State Univ., author of ‘Gospel Fictions’ & ‘Who Wrote the Gospels?’
• Michael Goulder, Professor of Biblical Studies, Univ. Birmingham
• Gerd Lüdemann, Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity, Univ. Göttingen
• Dale B. Martin Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University
• Robert M. Price, Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute
• John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop, Prolific author on early Christianity

Still at the same time they accept that Jesus was probably a historical figure.

The other more extreme point of view is that there was no Jesus figure who lived between c. 4 BC – c. AD 40 and that he was a complete and utter fiction, a literary character only, whose actions and deeds were totally borrowed from earlier mythic traditions, including the Old Testament. Dr. Richard Carrier, author of ‘On the Historicity of Jesus’
has argued this and I've certainly presented some of his arguments on these boards.

I distinguish between the Jesus as an actual historical figure and the character of Jesus as laid out in the Gospels.



Convinced of what exactly?

Why do you bother? as if any of them are going to read or understand anything you posted before posting their rants again?

 

[Roylion]

Why do you bother? as if any of them are going to read or understand anything you posted before posting their rants again?

I've posted the same over and over again to the same questions / statements they've asked / made over and over again.

It's like school teaching.

 

[Total Power]

Did Jesus Exist? A Response to Mythicism

www.evidenceunseen.com

Nothing like another anonymous apologist website to find evidence. You are in good company. What do you expect them to say?Jesus never existed? fwiw, no one here denies this bloke existed.

 

[Total Power]

But the intelligence study seems to lose its significance when you think of all the brilliant people, past and present, who are theists.

This is a poor argument. What percentage of people some 500 years ago were atheists? not many. Theory of evolution now explains our origins, not creationism. Natural explanations are now sufficient not supernatural ones. Yet few still cling on to supernatural ones. Your CARM site with millions of members is one good enough on how people are desperate to believe in anti science propaganda.

This is a 2008 statistic, i expect the 41 percent to many points up now above 50 percent easily. Mind you, this statistic include many religious countries like India as well.

The trend is definitely point to the correlation between intelligence and atheism.

Theres a clear gap between scientists and general public. I am not saying all religious people are dumb. Not everyone who smokes dies of cancer. 'More likely to'.

You haven't read the studies, i dont know why i keep posting links when you don't even bother reading it?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

In the likely event that Jesus really was crucified, died, and was resurrected to save mankind

It's not "likely" at all. It's the diametric opposite of likely.

If someone dies, they don't come back to life.

If they do "come back to life", they can't have been dead, can they?

 

[Total Power]

It's not "likely" at all. It's the diametric opposite of likely.

If someone dies, they don't come back to life.

If they do "come back to life", they can't have been dead, can they?

He didn't end up saving mankind though...wars raged on for the next 2,000 years.

He was just here for his fanclub attention seeking PR

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That died a death didn't it?

No it didn't.

People read their books, understood their arguments, saw their arguments made more sense than those of theists, and lived their lives accordingly. The massive influence that the "New" (a term imposed by others, not them) atheists have had continues apace, because more and more people come to realise religion is no longer very good at providing convincing answers to the big questions.

 

[Total Power]

That does not alter the fact that the Gospels were not written as historical accounts. The Gospels are works that are theological and are clearly written with a clear agenda to proselytize.

The Jesus of the Gospels is little more than a literary, theological construct, likely wrapped around a kernel of a minor historical figure (or minor historical figures), whose earthly remains lie mouldering somewhere under the city of Jerusalem. Miracles, resurrection, ascension, angels at birth and so on are fictional elaborations made by later authors. So too is any description in the gospels that alludes to the nature of god.

They are theological works written by man with an all too human agenda proselytizing a particular belief system. Full of embellishment and in some cases pure invention. Have you ever read historical fiction? Or watched a historical film? Does the portrayal of an actual historical figure such as George C Marshall and the mentions of D-Day, Hitler and so on make the events of 'Saving Private Ryan' true?

Brilliant post. Apparently it has 'historical characters', so it must be true.

Dumbest arguments ever..They have no understanding of mythology and the evolution of mythology. But 'why would the apostles lie?'. FFS. The clear purpose was to proselytize. This is why the Great Commission was added later on.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Europe was the centre of science and Christian for centuries. The European countries had a higher standard of living and were producing scientists, great classical musicians like Beethoven Bach, Mozart and Chopin, magnificent art by Davinci and Michelangelo all of which have stood the test of time and almost all inspired by Christian belief.

Religion has not been wiped out of first world nations. What hyperbolic tripe.

Your first paragraph is true but it in no way is an argument supporting your second paragraph.

Europe was indeed the centre of Christianity for centuries. It worked well until the Enlightenment, when the religious explanation of the origins of the world came increasingly to be understood as inadequate compared to the scientific explanations. And that process has only accelerated without pause in the centuries since.

 

[Total Power]

The article itself states that the majority of NT scholars date the gospels sometime between the ranges below

Mark: AD 60-75
Matthew: AD 65-85
Luke: AD 65-95
John: 75-100

and also says...."These standard dates could very well be true."
Bart Ehrman:

"Critical scholars are widely agreed that the earliest Gospel was Mark, written around 70 c.e.; that Matthew and Luke were written some years later, say, around 80–85 c.e.; and that John was the last Gospel, written around 90–95 c.e. But how do scholars establish those dates?

"New Testament scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the Gospels of the New Testament began to appear after 70 CE. The major exceptions are conservative evangelicals who often date them earlier. One can understand why: they typically maintain that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by disciples of Jesus and it seems implausible that they would still be alive toward the end of the first century (especially given live expectancies in antiquity)."

Then the article claims:

"For instance, the Roman emperor Tiberius died just a few years after Jesus (AD 37), and Tacitus and Suetonius wouldn’t write a biography of him for 70-80 years (AD 110-120). Likewise, Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, and Arrian of Nicomedia (AD 130) and Lucian (AD 100) didn’t write a biography for over 400 years! Thus, if we are skeptical of Jesus, then we need to be even more skeptical of these great figures in history."

But we have considerable contemporary evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great.

We have the remains of members of his family, which we know from a number of archaeological excavations, including according to archaeological consensus the remains of his father Philip II. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332-334 BC, still in existence. http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Chios/Alexander.html

We also have contemporary coins struck with the likeness of Alexander dating from around 322 BC. There are other coins where Alexander is represented as Heracles (that were issued by Alexander in 325 BC.)

We have the Decree of Phillippi, which was an inscription discovered in a Byzantine basilica and published in 1984. The inscription, in two columns says:

“ ..whatever land given by Philip, to be cultivated by the Thracians, as well the land Alexander gave them....whatever land given by Philip around Siris and Daineros to be possessed by Philippi, the wood at Dysorum not to be sold by anybody, until the delegation of Alexander come back, the swamps belong to Philippi till the bridge "

Then there is the Babylonian Astronomical Diary, a day-by-day (in other words contemporaneous with the events it describes) account of celestial phenomena, written by the officials of the Esagila temple complex. One tablet mentions the Battle of Gaugemala. Another says "Alexander, king of the world, came into Babylon..."

But even though we can account for their existence, as described above in the case of Alexander the Great and some of their deeds we still reject claims that Alexander was the son of the god Zeus. Certainly all the details of Alexander story are not necessarily established to be historical.

There's also plenty of contemporary evidence for Tiberius (d. 37) as well, including fragments of writing from his contemporaries Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79), Strabo (63 BC – c. AD 24), Seneca the Elder (c. 54 BC – c. AD 39), Philo of Alexandria 20 BC – c.  AD 50) as well as Velleius Paterculus who served under Tiberius for eight years (from AD 4).

Correct me if i am wrong, but the earliest significant gospel manuscripts are P^66 and P^75, with P75 being likely written sometime around 200AD +/- 25 years. Any other really early manuscripts he's referring to are likely nothing more than small scraps of Papyrus, like P^52.

So why do these apologists claim that these gospels were written a lot earlier?