Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That isn't true. There is no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus. However he probably existed even if the nonsense claimed for him is grossly exaggerated or a lie!
Remember the gospels are as much historical evidence as any other ancient writing by eye witness. To reject them you have to prove the writers did not exist, no followers existed and it was made up from ... nothing. It is easier to prove based on the historical record that Socrates, Plato and others did not exist. Nothing of their's or about them from their life time exists, just much later copies of such.
Remember the gospels are as much historical evidence as any other ancient writing by eye witness. To reject them you have to prove the writers did not exist, no followers existed and it was made up from ... nothing. It is easier to prove based on the historical record that Socrates, Plato and others did not exist. Nothing of their's or about them from their life time exists, just much later copies of such.
RESPONSE:
Except that there is no evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitness (who could get their stories to coincide). If you have actual evidence (not merely an appeal to a tradition), please post your citation.
From the Introduction to Matthew: New American Bible, Revised Edition
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
"We may never know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John, any more than we can know who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke. We do know that John is a gospel apart, however. Early Matthew, Mark and Luke are so alike in their telling that they are called the Synoptic Gospels, meaning “seen together”—the parallels are clear when they are looked at side by side. Matthew and Luke follow the version of events in Mark, which is thought by scholars to be the earliest and most historically accurate Gospel. John, however, does not include the same incidents or chronology found in the other three Gospels, and the fact that it is so different has spurred a debate over whether John’s Gospel is historical or not, something that has been noted in Gospel of John commentary for hundreds—even thousands—of years.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-19-2015 at 10:44 AM..
Reason: typo
Quirinius was Governor twice and once covers 2BC when Herod was alive and fits the gospels accounts. Do a little research.
RESPONSE: I have researched it. Quirinius was a governor more than once but never of Syria more than once. If you have any evidence to the contrary (beside some Christian apologist's assertion without evidence) please present it.
The proof is in comparing the resurrection accounts. They are so discrepant they cannot feasibly be claimed as historically accurate.
I know that 'Proof' in theist terms is what will get them to admit they are wrong, and nothing will do that but the fact is that the evidence is there. The last agreed item is the empty tomb. That is where Mark ends. the conclusion is obvious (once pointed out - it took me years to see it).
The only thing they have in common is the claim that Jesus got up and walked. It is the same with the nativities. The only thing they have in common is Jesus born in Bethlehem. That is why they were written. Mark doesn't have one and neither does John. Matthew's and Luke's contradict totally.
Now, I am aware that there are some good arguments for the date of Herod's death being later than 4 BC, but that isn't the point. The point is that Luke's return to Nazareth after a presentation in the Temple contradicts Matthew's trip to Egypt and going to Nazareth - not because they lived there but to avoid Herod's son.
That means that Jesus had to have been born in the time of Herod and, although Luke talks of the time of Herod at the start of his gospel, what he describes as the reason to go to Bethlehem sounds very like the 6 AD census, which is after Herod's death, whenever you date it. Attempts to fabricate a Lucan census in the time of Herod do not convince.
This is all Evidence and is what you ask for in calling for Proof. You can dismiss it if you want to, but on what grounds other than not wanting to admit that the Gospels are unreliable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
Remember the gospels are as much historical evidence as any other ancient writing by eye witness. To reject them you have to prove the writers did not exist, no followers existed and it was made up from ... nothing. It is easier to prove based on the historical record that Socrates, Plato and others did not exist. Nothing of their's or about them from their life time exists, just much later copies of such.
Your argument is really a false one. In arguing that the Gospels are unreliable, your point is valid only in saying that other history books are equally open to question. So they are. While we try to tease reliable history out of the old writings, we come across stuff that we cannot accept. Alexander surely existed there are records of a hellenistic empire. Cities were named after him. But the tale of the Gordian knot sounds dubious. If we had another couple of accounts of his life that contradicted, we'd be justified in saying that the stuff that just didn't work historically was unreliable.
That's what we do with the gospels.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-19-2015 at 11:51 AM..
RESPONSE: I have researched it. Quirinius was a governor more than once but never of Syria more than once. If you have any evidence to the contrary (beside some Christian apologist's assertion without evidence) please present it.
" In 15 BCE, Augustus appointed him as governor with the rank of proconsul of a province called Crete and Cyrenaica."
"Perhaps, he was later appointed as governor of the very rich province of Asia, but this is not entirely certain."
You are right. There is some support for the idea that Varus, governor of Syria at the end of Herod's life, may have extended his governorship to 1 BC. But there is no valid evidence that Quirinus was governor of Syria more than once -from 6 AD and indeed good reason to suppose that he was busy elsewhere at the time of Herod's death and the reign of Archelaus (see Matth 2.22) Expat is indeed asserting claims without any proof.
Yes. The trouble is that theists have disposed of all those by saying
The contradictions can be explained
if they can't, that proves they are eyewitness testimony with understandable discrepancy.
And if they can't get away with that, "So what if there are some tall stories in the Gospels? the basic story is still true".
Yes...assuming that theism accepts those terms. The fact is that they begin from a position of 'It's all true - you disprove it." With the gospel stories - indeed the whole bible - that really has been done, but of course they refuse to accept the evidence/arguments. That's the way it works. Deny everything no matter what the evidence, and they can't convict you. That's why we have juries. That's why the arguments are addressed to those with an open mind rather than those who rely on faith and if reality contradicts, then reality is wrong.
There is a kernel of truth in the NT but much of it is embellished. Paul was a storyteller and I'm sure that when he went around telling his story of Jesus, the story got bigger & bigger. It is like that fish you caught that grew each time you told the story-or how far you had to walk to school as a kid-and the deeper & deeper the snow got.
When these stories were finally written down, they hardly resembled what really happened. And after they were written down, you had translation after translation from Hebrew, Greek, Latin and eventually English.
So, the question Is the New Testament historically accurate? The answer is NO!
Except that there is no evidence that the gospels were written by eyewitness (who could get their stories to coincide). If you have actual evidence (not merely an appeal to a tradition), please post your citation.
From the Introduction to Matthew: New American Bible, Revised Edition
"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."
You quoted a source to support your view, and now I will quote a couple of sources which hold an opposing view.
1.) Drs. John F. Walvood and Charles H. Dyer write;
''History uniformly testifies that the first gospel was written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples. All the early copies of Matthew are headed by the phrase ''according to Matthew,'' and the testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous on the authorship of this gospel.''
''Conservative scholarship has agreed that whether or not there was an earlier Hebrew version, the present Greek version was Matthew's own work and that it is the inspired Word of God.''
[Matthew, John F. Walvoord and Charles H. Dyer, pp. 11, 13]
The comments above are made while having taken into consideration the two main arguments against Matthean authorship; 1.) The question of whether the Gospel we have is a translation of an earlier Hebrew work by Matthew; and 2.) the question of whether Matthew is heavily indebted to the gospel of Mark for most of his facts.
2) Assuming Markan priority (Mark being written before Matthew), and regarding the issue of whether Matthew would have depended on Mark for much of his material, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg comments;
''It is often alleged that the apostle Matthew would scarcely have consulted, much less extensively relied on, canonical Mark, written by one who was not even a follower of Jesus during most of his ministry. But early church tradition regularly associates Mark with Peter. If Matthew recognized Mark's Gospel as in some sense reflecting Peter's ''memoirs,'' he would have had many reasons to consult and follow it: Peter was one of the inner core of three disciples who experienced certain things Matthew did not (cf. e.g., Matt 17:1; 26:37), by the 60s Peter was probably the most prominent apostle in Christian circles, and it is always helpful and interesting to see how other have already tackled a project one wishes to undertake.''
''When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition. Were the Gospel not written by him, the church surely chose a rather strange individual (in light of his unscrupulous past by Jewish standards) as a candidate for authorship. Without any ancient traditions to the contrary, Matthew remains the most plausible choice for author.''
[The New American Commentary, Matthew, vol. 22 Craig L. Blomberg, pp. 43-44]
Matthean authorship of the Gospel which is attributed to him is certainly defensible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the fact is that the evidence is there. The last agreed item is the empty tomb. That is where Mark ends. the conclusion is obvious (once pointed out - it took me years to see it).
