Why would someone make up the story of Jesus? [W:324]

roguenuke said:

Prove Hercules isn't a myth. Prove Robin Hood or King Arthur aren't myths (at least the way the modern world generally knows those stories). Can you back up that these people and what they did aren't myths?

Click to expand...

This thread is about Jesus. If you want to talk about Hercules, etc., then start your own thread.

Where's the link to your evidence that you've been asked for continuously? You fulminate and make claims and can't back them up.

digitusmedius said:

I see you're desperately avoiding answering the question as to why you'd be bothered by people not believing Jesus existed or he was some kind of man-god. A person of true faith wouldn't care what other people thought of his belief.

Click to expand...

I'm bothered by people who make sophomoric claims and who haven't done their homework, who then hop on to these threads about Jesus pretending to know what they're talking about.

Like your claim that Jesus is a myth. Where's your evidence to back that up?

Logicman said:

This thread is about Jesus. If you want to talk about Hercules, etc., then start your own thread.

Where's the link to your evidence that you've been asked for continuously? You fulminate and make claims and can't back them up.

Click to expand...

I've linked evidence at least once in this thread that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. You tried to counter that people are still convicted with it, which just means people on juries don't know how unreliable it is.

roguenuke said:

I've linked evidence at least once in this thread that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. You tried to counter that people are still convicted with it, which just means people on juries don't know how unreliable it is.

Click to expand...

You've never backed up your argument that the Gospels have changed. If you think you have show me the post.

Logicman said:

You mean few liberal scholars. Conservative scholars support it all day long.

Click to expand...

Fundamentalist scholars and academic apologists may reject it. Most others accept it. The evidence clearly supports it.

And again, it is screamingly obvious that Christian theology was not complete and fully formed by 35 CE. Different groups, sects, ministries and leaders were steeped in theological conflict for centuries after the death of Christ, and some of the divisions were never reconciled at all. Thus there was and in some cases still are....

• Greek Orthodox
• Roman Catholic
• Numerous so-called Gnostic sects
• Adoptionism
• Marcionism
• Arianism
• Coptic churches

The idea that every Christian, right off the bat, accepted the exact same theology is historically inaccurate. Even saying that about the Roman Catholic Church doesn't add up, as the Nicene Creed (which stood against Arianism) was first developed in 325 CE, followed by hundreds of years of ecumenical councils, followed by the East-West schism.

I'd also point out that some (but not all) who advocate a specific Christian theology is saying they are have the One True Theology, and everyone else is wrong. I for one see little reason to grant your specific interpretation any sectarian superiority.

20% of the Gospels are devoted to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is mentioned 175 times in the NT. It's a central teaching of the faith, so hardly a desert.

Click to expand...

I was not saying that the resurrection was a minor point for most Christians. I was saying that you are claiming to see a forest (historical proof of the resurrection) when you're looking at a desert (there is no viable historical data). The validity of the resurrection is not a question of proof or evidence, it's a question of faith.

It's the same thing with Siddhartha. We don't have any historical evidence to prove that he sat beneath a bodhi tree, defeated Mara, and touched the earth to witness his enlightenment. Claims by any eye witnesses wouldn't prove it either. It's a matter of faith, not historical analysis.

The manuscript evidence for the NT is among the most reliable from antiquity.

Click to expand...

1) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the biographical gospels were based on diverse oral traditions.
2) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the gospels were written between 30 and 90 years after the death of Christ.
3) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the authors were anonymous.
4) That doesn't change the fact that the biographical gospels were not attributed to anyone at all until well into the 2nd Century CE.
5) That doesn't change the fact that the earliest existing copies of the NT texts date mostly to 175 CE.
6) Yes, scholars are well aware that many ancient texts share similar potential textual inaccuracies.
7) The author's argument, by the way, is a straw man.

Nope. You're taking liberal points of view at every turn, and it's not accurate.

Click to expand...

Is it? OK then.

Where in Matthew, Mark or Luke does Jesus actually declare he is the equal or identical with the Father, in the same way he does in John?

Your own links confirm this scholarly point. E.g. all the major claims of divinity are absent in the Synoptic gospels. Most of your anonymous apologists blog's points can be dispensed with, e.g. being more powerful than demons, or disease, does not make Jesus equal to or identical with YHWH. Knowing the minds of the Pharisees does not make Jesus equal to or identical with YHWH. Matthew 18:20 does not denote omniscience -- why not look at what it actually says?

19 Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

Emphasis added... to show, clearly, that Jesus indicates a distinction between Jesus and the Father. Jesus does say he is exalted -- again, Son of Man, messiah, messenger etc - but that is a very, very different thing than saying "I and the Father are one," as Jesus says in John.

And even your junior league apologetics do not, ultimately, change the fact that right from the start, there was a fertile variety of views about Jesus, his ministry, his meaning; or that when we change, so do the meanings of many texts.

Visbek said:

Fundamentalist scholars and academic apologists may reject it. Most others accept it. The evidence clearly supports it.

And again, it is screamingly obvious that Christian theology was not complete and fully formed by 35 CE. Different groups, sects, ministries and leaders were steeped in theological conflict for centuries after the death of Christ, and some of the divisions were never reconciled at all. Thus there was and in some cases still are....

• Greek Orthodox
• Roman Catholic
• Numerous so-called Gnostic sects
• Adoptionism
• Marcionism
• Arianism
• Coptic churches

The idea that every Christian, right off the bat, accepted the exact same theology is historically inaccurate. Even saying that about the Roman Catholic Church doesn't add up, as the Nicene Creed (which stood against Arianism) was first developed in 325 CE, followed by hundreds of years of ecumenical councils, followed by the East-West schism.

I'd also point out that some (but not all) who advocate a specific Christian theology is saying they are have the One True Theology, and everyone else is wrong. I for one see little reason to grant your specific interpretation any sectarian superiority.

I was not saying that the resurrection was a minor point for most Christians. I was saying that you are claiming to see a forest (historical proof of the resurrection) when you're looking at a desert (there is no viable historical data). The validity of the resurrection is not a question of proof or evidence, it's a question of faith.

It's the same thing with Siddhartha. We don't have any historical evidence to prove that he sat beneath a bodhi tree, defeated Mara, and touched the earth to witness his enlightenment. Claims by any eye witnesses wouldn't prove it either. It's a matter of faith, not historical analysis.

1) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the biographical gospels were based on diverse oral traditions.
2) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the gospels were written between 30 and 90 years after the death of Christ.
3) That doesn't change the near-certainty that the authors were anonymous.
4) That doesn't change the fact that the biographical gospels were not attributed to anyone at all until well into the 2nd Century CE.
5) That doesn't change the fact that the earliest existing copies of the NT texts date mostly to 175 CE.
6) Yes, scholars are well aware that many ancient texts share similar potential textual inaccuracies.
7) The author's argument, by the way, is a straw man.

Is it? OK then.

Where in Matthew, Mark or Luke does Jesus actually declare he is the equal or identical with the Father, in the same way he does in John?

Your own links confirm this scholarly point. E.g. all the major claims of divinity are absent in the Synoptic gospels. Most of your anonymous apologists blog's points can be dispensed with, e.g. being more powerful than demons, or disease, does not make Jesus equal to or identical with YHWH. Knowing the minds of the Pharisees does not make Jesus equal to or identical with YHWH. Matthew 18:20 does not denote omniscience -- why not look at what it actually says?

19 Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.

Emphasis added... to show, clearly, that Jesus indicates a distinction between Jesus and the Father. Jesus does say he is exalted -- again, Son of Man, messiah, messenger etc - but that is a very, very different thing than saying "I and the Father are one," as Jesus says in John.

And even your junior league apologetics do not, ultimately, change the fact that right from the start, there was a fertile variety of views about Jesus, his ministry, his meaning; or that when we change, so do the meanings of many texts.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not interested is what a bunch of biblically-challenged naysayers believe. I have the independent, historical Gospels and epistles, written by either eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus who either lived with him, investigated the historical facts, or who later became apostles / believers.

As for the deity of Jesus, it's clearly identified in the link below, which I previously presented. And example from Matthew starts it off:

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

Jesus Must be Jehovah « The Righter Report

Then there's other evidences:

Blogizomai: 12 Proofs of Jesus' Deity From the Synoptic Gospels

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture « The Righter Report

Logicman said:

Hey, I'm not interested is what a bunch of biblically-challenged naysayers believe.

Click to expand...

lol... They are not "biblically-challenged naysayers." They are simply not fundamentalists. Many of them are Christians, and many of them commit their entire careers to trying to figure out who believed what, and when.

The difference is that they are willing to examine the text critically, and treat it like a historian would any other historical document. E.g. Suetonius is one of our best sources about the first 12 emperors of Rome, but no one takes his word at face value. Historians know that Suetonius had his own axes to grind.

Along those same lines, NT scholars realize that the authors of the NT texts were not writing dispassionate accounts; they were not journalists; there were no scribes following Jesus around; that the authors were coloring the texts with their own unique social, political, economic and theological views; that the historical context, not discussed in the NT, is absolutely critical to understanding those texts. They are not obligated to assume that every single word of the NT was meant literally. They are willing to accept that there are conflicts and variations, and that these differences reveal the sources they relied on, as well as how their environment changed around them over the decades.

Merely blasting that "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a nayayer" is not particularly impressive.

You also cannot deny that Christian theology was changing and diverse for centuries, and was (yet again) not fully formed by 35 CE. Even before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, we knew that Irenaeus was feuding with someone for the very meaning of Christianity itself, let alone that Paul was running around trying to "correct" the beliefs of others.

I have the independent, historical Gospels and epistles, written by either eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus who either lived with him, investigated the historical facts, or who later became apostles / believers.

Click to expand...

No, what you have is thousands of years of people with vested interests and pre-existing ideas, trying to tell you what they mean, and who wrote them. It turns out that most of those attributions of authorship are wrong (not all, e.g. Paul probably wrote 7 of the letters attributed to him), that the eye witnesses never wrote anything, and that modern standards of accuracy and history don't even remotely apply to ancient Judea.

And yet again, the anonymous apologist blogs you're linking are not answering the question I keep asking. Here is the question is again, and I recommend you do your own research:

Where in Matthew, Mark and Luke, does Jesus utter any statement anything like "I and the Father are one," which he explicitly says in John?

Many of the apologists' claims are easily dispensed, even by a novice such as yours truly. E.g. when the rabbis ask "Who, other than God, can forgive sins?" Jesus replies: "I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The "Son of Man" is certainly not YHWH, rather he is a figure more like Moses or David -- a human agent of YHWH, granted great powers, perhaps messenger of YHWH. His role was more like what Simon Bar Kokhba tried to play in the second revolt -- the messiah who would kick the Romans out of Judea, rule Israel, and vanquish her enemies.

Similarly, citing "Son of God" as proof is begging the question, as it presumes a Trinitarian concept that didn't exist until decades after the death of Christ. The term "Trinity" has zero mentions in either the Old or New Testament. It was almost certainly developed to reconcile the numerous references of "Son of God" to the claims of Jesus' equal status with YHWH. It wasn't declared official doctrine until the 4th Century, and some subsequent councils rejected it.

Even the phrases selected by these apologists often undercut their assertions, when we realize that the Trinity was a later invention. E.g. Matthew 11:27, which allegedly indicates Jesus' omniscience:

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."[/quote]

Aside from the fact that this is far from a claim of omniscience,: Once we stop presuming Trinitarianism, it's very clear that Jesus is indicating that he is essentially a conduit for the Father, not identical with the Father.

The problem with the apologetics is not simply that their readings are inaccurate. It's that they are starting with a whole series of assumptions -- e.g. "Matthew must be the tax collector, and Jesus must be equal to YHWH!" -- and are cherry-picking textual evidence to bulk up those assumptions. It tells us nothing about the original text, or its meaning, only the wishes of the apologist.

Logicman said:

Hey, I'm not interested is what a bunch of biblically-challenged naysayers believe. I have the independent, historical Gospels and epistles, written by either eyewitnesses or contemporaries of Jesus who either lived with him, investigated the historical facts, or who later became apostles / believers.

As for the deity of Jesus, it's clearly identified in the link below, which I previously presented. And example from Matthew starts it off:

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

Jesus Must be Jehovah « The Righter Report

Then there's other evidences:

Blogizomai: 12 Proofs of Jesus' Deity From the Synoptic Gospels

The Deity of Jesus Christ in Scripture « The Righter Report

Click to expand...

jesus is a myth, he never existed, everything that was written about him was written hundreds of years after his death, it was written as fiction, you might as well be worshiping "jack and the beanstalk"

Logicman said:

You've never backed up your argument that the Gospels have changed. If you think you have show me the post.

Click to expand...

I never made the argument that they absolutely have changed, only that there is a high potential of their not being true and having changed with time due to just simple human nature and how our memories work.

Logicman said:

I'm bothered by people who make sophomoric claims and who haven't done their homework, who then hop on to these threads about Jesus pretending to know what they're talking about.

Like your claim that Jesus is a myth. Where's your evidence to back that up?

Click to expand...

I just finished a longish and academic answer to that silly (as in fallacious) challenge and couldn't get it to post. In short, two things: I've never claimed that someone named Yeshua and lived in Nazareth didn't exist some 2,000 years ago. The myth I refer to is the unfalsifiable (you'll know what that word means since you're "Logicman," right?) claim that this Yeshua was/is a god. That your faith is so weak that you have such antipathy toward people who won't accept that myth would be just a laughable matter if people like you didn't resort to violence so often throughout history to eliminate non-believers. We see just such people operating in the ME (and all around the world even in this supposed modern age) doing just that with eager and horrific lethality and cruelty.

Maybe He's come back after all!

dimensionallava said:

jesus is a myth, he never existed, everything that was written about him was written hundreds of years after his death, it was written as fiction, you might as well be worshiping "jack and the beanstalk"

Click to expand...

That's nonsense. You haven't done your homework.

digitusmedius said:

I just finished a longish and academic answer to that silly (as in fallacious) challenge and couldn't get it to post. In short, two things: I've never claimed that someone named Yeshua and lived in Nazareth didn't exist some 2,000 years ago. The myth I refer to is the unfalsifiable (you'll know what that word means since you're "Logicman," right?) claim that this Yeshua was/is a god. That your faith is so weak that you have such antipathy toward people who won't accept that myth would be just a laughable matter if people like you didn't resort to violence so often throughout history to eliminate non-believers. We see just such people operating in the ME (and all around the world even in this supposed modern age) doing just that with eager and horrific lethality and cruelty.

Click to expand...

Show me your evidence it's a myth. So far you haven't.

Visbek said:

You also cannot deny that Christian theology was changing and diverse for centuries, and was (yet again) not fully formed by 35 CE. Even before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts, we knew that Irenaeus was feuding with someone for the very meaning of Christianity itself, let alone that Paul was running around trying to "correct" the beliefs of others.

Click to expand...

What was set in stone by 35 CE were the historical facts. And among them was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That people got around to writing about it later is beside the point. But they did, and all four Gospel writers confirmed it.

Visbek said:

No, what you have is thousands of years of people with vested interests and pre-existing ideas, trying to tell you what they mean, and who wrote them. It turns out that most of those attributions of authorship are wrong (not all, e.g. Paul probably wrote 7 of the letters attributed to him), that the eye witnesses never wrote anything, and that modern standards of accuracy and history don't even remotely apply to ancient Judea.

Click to expand...

See above.

Visbek said:

And yet again, the anonymous apologist blogs you're linking are not answering the question I keep asking. Here is the question is again, and I recommend you do your own research:

Where in Matthew, Mark and Luke, does Jesus utter any statement anything like "I and the Father are one," which he explicitly says in John?

Click to expand...

I already showed you. Jesus is Jehovah. That's being one with God. That is God. Go back and read those again. Jesus is also the "I AM" in Mark. When they saw Jesus walking on the water he said "Take courage! It is I." But the actual Greek words were, It is "I AM" (ego eimi). Jesus is also Lord of the Sabbath.

Visbek said:

Many of the apologists' claims are easily dispensed, even by a novice such as yours truly.

Click to expand...

My experience has shown the opposite, but they won't admit the evidences against them.

Visbek said:

E.g. when the rabbis ask "Who, other than God, can forgive sins?" Jesus replies: "I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The "Son of Man" is certainly not YHWH, rather he is a figure more like Moses or David -- a human agent of YHWH, granted great powers, perhaps messenger of YHWH. His role was more like what Simon Bar Kokhba tried to play in the second revolt -- the messiah who would kick the Romans out of Judea, rule Israel, and vanquish her enemies.

Click to expand...

The "son of man" has divine authority and the worship of the nations - just like God. You can read about that in Daniel 7:13-14.

Visbek said:

Similarly, citing "Son of God" as proof is begging the question, as it presumes a Trinitarian concept that didn't exist until decades after the death of Christ. The term "Trinity" has zero mentions in either the Old or New Testament. It was almost certainly developed to reconcile the numerous references of "Son of God" to the claims of Jesus' equal status with YHWH. It wasn't declared official doctrine until the 4th Century, and some subsequent councils rejected it.

Click to expand...

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either, so your arguments above are hardly compelling.

The RESURRECTION, Visbek. That's what your bar is - busting the resurrection. So far there's not one skeptic who has ever succeeded in that task.

Logicman said:

Show me your evidence it's a myth. So far you haven't.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't it surprise me that someone who would call himself "Logicman" has no idea how to make a logical statement or case? Let's see how he handles this one: It's a myth because there's no evidence for the existence of any of it.

Logicman said:

What was set in stone by 35 CE were the historical facts. And among them was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That people got around to writing about it later is beside the point. But they did, and all four Gospel writers confirmed it.

Click to expand...

Nothing was "set in stone" either figuratively or literally. The gospels do not count as actual historical documents. No independent writings of the time (see Dead Sea Scrolls, e.g.) make any mention of a Yeshua of Nazareth. No doubt someone of that name from around that area did exist sometime but that's not evidence of a deity.

I already showed you. Jesus is Jehovah. That's being one with God. That is God. Go back and read those again. Jesus is also the "I AM" in Mark. When they saw Jesus walking on the water he said "Take courage! It is I." But the actual Greek words were, It is "I AM" (ego eimi). Jesus is also Lord of the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

All belief, no fact. Nothing wrong with that except that belief doesn't seem to be enough for you. "Oh, ye of little faith."

The "son of man" has divine authority and the worship of the nations - just like God. You can read about that in Daniel 7:13-14.

Click to expand...

Prophecy (i.e. belief). Still not fact.

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either, so your arguments above are hardly compelling.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they tended not to use much English in Hebrew writings.

The RESURRECTION, Visbek. That's what your bar is - busting the resurrection. So far there's not one skeptic who has ever succeeded in that task.

Click to expand...

Resurrection myths are common. They are not falsifiable (a term from logic)

digitusmedius said:

Why doesn't it surprise me that someone who would call himself "Logicman" has no idea how to make a logical statement or case? Let's see how he handles this one: It's a myth because there's no evidence for the existence of any of it.

Click to expand...

Like I said, you haven't done your homework.



So order that (available on Amazon), read it, and then get back with me.

Because so far your arguments are extremely amateurish.

Logicman said:

Like I said, you haven't done your homework.

View attachment 67189185

So order that (available on Amazon), read it, and then get back with me.

Because so far your arguments are extremely amateurish.

Click to expand...

These pathetic attempts to try to transubstantiate (look it up) myth into fact are a dime a million and have been cranked out for generation upon generation. All they tell us is how fragile faith is for so many "believers." If this has been the source for your "proof" you really don't have the ability to be rational on this subject. That would be fine if you could live with the fact that faith does not require proof but you can't. That's why you're such a fine example of the weakness of faith.

digitusmedius said:

These pathetic attempts to try to transubstantiate (look it up) myth into fact are a dime a million and have been cranked out for generation upon generation. All they tell us is how fragile faith is for so many "believers." If this has been the source for your "proof" you really don't have the ability to be rational on this subject. That would be fine if you could live with the fact that faith does not require proof but you can't. That's why you're such a fine example of the weakness of faith.

Click to expand...

it is also a fine example of why his username is ironic

Quag said:

it is also a fine example of why his username is ironic

Click to expand...

Unintended irony, of course.

Manc Skipper said:

Maybe He's come back after all!

Click to expand...

It's MIRACLE!!!! (falling down on knees and singing hosannahs at top of lungs)

digitusmedius said:

These pathetic attempts to try to transubstantiate (look it up) myth into fact are a dime a million and have been cranked out for generation upon generation. All they tell us is how fragile faith is for so many "believers." If this has been the source for your "proof" you really don't have the ability to be rational on this subject. That would be fine if you could live with the fact that faith does not require proof but you can't. That's why you're such a fine example of the weakness of faith.

Click to expand...

You haven't done your homework, and deep down inside you know it.

Logicman said:

You haven't done your homework, and deep down inside you know it.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one having a crisis of faith. You are. Don't you have a pastor that would help you work on that? You're not likely to find much help here. If anything it seems to be getting worse with each of your comments. Trying to get other people to believe your myth so you'll feel better about it seems like the height of desperation.

JC Callender said:

If you believe Jesus isn't/wasn't real, who made Him up and for what purpose?

Click to expand...

It is very simple. If it is made up its the same reason we have laws. See this is how laws work. If you break a law you go to jail. So that makes you fearful and willing to confirm out of fear. There is three type of people in this world.

Pure mind-Will always do the right thing since its always right, and they just always believe in following the right path. Wont break the rules even if the rules are no longer there
Tempted mind-Would do stuff if the law was not there but is deterred by punishment
Law breakers-Do not care about the consequence and do what they want regardless of what happens

However laws are for major things. Like "Do not kill, murder, do not park your car in front of a hydrant". All external factors, that really have nothing to do with people but with society as a whole.

The Bible is much different. It has a lot of rules but it teaches Values. "Do not cheat, lie, steal", "Love your family". However morality is subjective so everyone has a different idea of how things should be. If it is made up obviously someone was trying to teach morality to the world.

Sadly there is not a lot of pure minded people in this world, and most of the time people will be jerks if they do not believe something bad will happen to them for being one. That is just how people are.