The historical Jesus

[Skirrata]

And the gospels are written by people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' last years of life.

No, they weren't. They were written by people who claim to have been eye witnesses, while having extremely conflicting accounts, and having no evidence to suggest they actually lived anywhere near the same time as Jesus, if they existed at all.

Where in Mathew, Mark, Luke or John or there direct contradictions to each other?
And do you have historical accounts claiming they weren't there?

[Conserative Morality]

And do you have historical accounts claiming they weren't there?

June 22nd, AD 31. No John, Luke, Matthew or Mark here with Jesus, who also isn't here today.

[Skirrata]

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

What you have proven is that their books say stuff and what other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus? Using a book to prove itself is not proof.

A single book, no, But a series of books backing each other up, yes.

[Enadail]

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

What you have proven is that their books say stuff and what other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus? Using a book to prove itself is not proof.

A single book, no, But a series of books backing each other up, yes.

Um... no... When there is no evidence as to who wrote a book or series, when we have no evidence outside of those books supporting the books, and when the books themselves contradict each other, its not proof.

[Skirrata]

[quote="Enadail"

I'll assume you mean New Testament (I have no idea what NE is). Can you please point to any evidence to suggest that they were eye witness, or that they died within 20 years of him? Specially when most contemporary evidence and analysis suggests this is nowhere near the case?

NE is the official abrev. for New Testament.

The fact that in their books they recorded conversations they had with him, and that other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus'.

And the fact that at the earliest they were written at least 40 years after Jesus is supposed to have existed (and at the latest, 100)?
And the fact that they contradict each other (see Jesus' last words)?[/quote]

When you get 4 different eyewitness accounts are they all going to match up 100%? Or is each one going to be different because each person remembered different things or that something/s more important than others?

[Skirrata]

What you have proven is that their books say stuff and what other books list their deaths shortly after Jesus? Using a book to prove itself is not proof.

A single book, no, But a series of books backing each other up, yes.

Um... no... When there is no evidence as to who wrote a book or series, when we have no evidence outside of those books supporting the books, and when the books themselves contradict each other, its not proof.

Show me were those books contradict each other.

[Dakini]

When you get 4 different eyewitness accounts are they all going to match up 100%? Or is each one going to be different because each person remembered different things or that something/s more important than others?

So they back each other up and don't contradict each other... except when they do, you attribute this to poor recall on the part of eyewitnesses.

If they were wrong about Jesus' last words, why wouldn't they be wrong about other things?

Further, where is the contemporary evidence? As pointed out (but ignored) the gospels were not contemporary. With the commonly accepted timeline of Jesus' life, he would have died long before the first gospel was written (at least 40 years at the latest, 70). If these people were the same age as Jesus, so ~30 at the time of his death, they would have been between 70 and 100 at the time of writing. This is not very likely.

What is more likely is that people just made stuff up which may or may not have been based on a real person who probably didn't perform any miracles and was even less likely to be the son of any god and possibly didn't actually say or do anything that the Biblical Jesus is supposed to have done.

[Yenke-Bin]

And the gospels are written by people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' last years of life.

No, they weren't. They were written by people who claim to have been eye witnesses, while having extremely conflicting accounts, and having no evidence to suggest they actually lived anywhere near the same time as Jesus, if they existed at all.

Read 1 corinthians 15. Paul brings this us, as if to challenge those that question Christ. He said there were over 500 people that saw this even happen, and if there was any question, to go and ask those people. This was a letter written around 53 AD, which is only about 20 years after Christ died. There were plenty of people alive at that time that could have given their witness to these events. Then you have the Disciples who saw everything. If there stories weren't true, then why didn't the officials just show a body? Why didn't they stop them with logic and proof. The officials had none.

Now, the letter written of the NT was James, the brother of Christ. In the gospels, we learn that he didn't accept Christ for who he was for a long time. Yet, he became an leader early on, and he quotes Jesus several times in His letter, matching up with what the gospels say, which are written a bit later, and in different places.

Now, tell me, what is so radically different about the stories of Jesus? There might be a chronological mistake here and there but does it affect the salvation story overall? Nope. Now, think about the legal system. If there were four people that told the exact same story on trial, wouldn't it look suspicious? I believe collusion would be suspected. But look at what happened! The overall story lines up perfectly, though some details are different. And remember, the books of the NT were written by different people at different places and times, to different audiences.

[Enadail]

Show me were those books contradict each other.

I always love this question

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

[quot]ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."[/quote]

Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Of course, I love that according to the bible, snakes eat dust.

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Shall I continue?

[Skirrata]

When you get 4 different eyewitness accounts are they all going to match up 100%? Or is each one going to be different because each person remembered different things or that something/s more important than others?

So they back each other up and don't contradict each other... except when they do, you attribute this to poor recall on the part of eyewitnesses.

If they were wrong about Jesus' last words, why wouldn't they be wrong about other things?

Further, where is the contemporary evidence? As pointed out (but ignored) the gospels were not contemporary. With the commonly accepted timeline of Jesus' life, he would have died long before the first gospel was written (at least 40 years at the latest, 70). If these people were the same age as Jesus, so ~30 at the time of his death, they would have been between 70 and 100 at the time of writing. This is not very likely.

What is more likely is that people just made stuff up which may or may not have been based on a real person who probably didn't perform any miracles and was even less likely to be the son of any god and possibly didn't actually say or do anything that the Biblical Jesus is supposed to have done.

There is a difference between a direct contradiction and recalling different things. again, show me some contradictions.


What proof do you have that they were written that long after Jesus' death?

[Skirrata]

Show me were those books contradict each other.

I always love this question

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

[quot]ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Of course, I love that according to the bible, snakes eat dust.

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Shall I continue?[/quote]


We are talking about contradictions in Mathew,Mark,Luke and John.

[Enadail]

He said there were over 500 people that saw this even happen, and if there was any question, to go and ask those people.

Ah, so 500 people, seeing the most glorious thing of their lives, didn't bother to write it down, note it, memento it, spread it?

How do we know if the officials produced a body or not? How do we know that Paul, if he lived at the same time, didn't just steal the body himself to make what he wrote true?

[Grave_n_idle]

When you get 4 different eyewitness accounts are they all going to match up 100%? Or is each one going to be different because each person remembered different things or that something/s more important than others?

If you had four people copying a much older story that they were writing from recall - wouldn't you get exactly the same kinds of difference?

[Dakini]

Show me were those books contradict each other.

Who carried the cross?
Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way

Who was crucified beside Jesus and did anything of note occur?
Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves

note: the Romans did not crucify thieves.

Does Jesus drink anything on the cross?
Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks

What were Jesus' last words?
Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”

Was there an earthquake after Jesus died?
Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.

...for crucifixion related contradictions...

[Enadail]

We are talking about contradictions in Mathew,Mark,Luke and John.

Fair enough.

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Jesus' last words

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

This is all I have on short notice of comparing those 4 books.

And I know you will just tell me this is just a difference in recollection. But remembering where Jesus gave his first sermon is not a small detail, nor is Jesus's fathers genealogy nor is Jesus's last words.

[Dakini]

What proof do you have that they were written that long after Jesus' death?

It's something that's fairly widely known by Biblical scholars. If you'd like to learn more about it: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#intro

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If Jesus isn't real then who is that hiding under my couch?

[Farnhamia]

If Jesus isn't real then who is that hiding under my couch?

That's Jesus, that guy from Guatamala who cuts your lawn.

[Yenke-Bin]

He said there were over 500 people that saw this even happen, and if there was any question, to go and ask those people.

Ah, so 500 people, seeing the most glorious thing of their lives, didn't bother to write it down, note it, memento it, spread it?

How do we know if the officials produced a body or not? How do we know that Paul, if he lived at the same time, didn't just steal the body himself to make what he wrote true?

Except these people did spread it. Why do you think Christianity spread? It doesn't spread because it is pleasing to the human mind. It spreads because people are changed. as far as the "stealing the body" theory. Its the most assinine of all theories. How would a few men roll away a heavy stone(which was placed so that it can't be moved), stolen a body that was wrapped in linen and covered in spices, then folded the linen back as original with the spices and such all back on top, all without waking the Roman guards(who would have arrested, or killed them)? Come on! Think a bit.

As far as your contradictions, do a little research:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b08.html
http://www.tektonics.org/nthub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/othub.html

I laugh when non-believers direct me to that infidels site, because it's clear that those people have never done an inductive reading of the Bible, nor have any real scholarly research into it.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If Jesus isn't real then who is that hiding under my couch?

That's Jesus, that guy from Guatamala who cuts your lawn.

He's also a carpenter.

[Dakini]

He said there were over 500 people that saw this even happen, and if there was any question, to go and ask those people.

Ah, so 500 people, seeing the most glorious thing of their lives, didn't bother to write it down, note it, memento it, spread it?

How do we know if the officials produced a body or not? How do we know that Paul, if he lived at the same time, didn't just steal the body himself to make what he wrote true?

Except these people did spread it. Why do you think Christianity spread? It doesn't spread because it is pleasing to the human mind. It spreads because people are changed. as far as the "stealing the body" theory. Its the most assinine of all theories. How would a few men roll away a heavy stone(which was placed so that it can't be moved), stolen a body that was wrapped in linen and covered in spices, then folded the linen back as original with the spices and such all back on top, all without waking the Roman guards(who would have arrested, or killed them)? Come on! Think a bit.

As far as your contradictions, do a little research:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b08.html
http://www.tektonics.org/nthub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/othub.html

I laugh when non-believers direct me to that infidels site, because it's clear that those people have never done an inductive reading of the Bible, nor have any real scholarly research into it.

Wait... you laugh when people link to the infidels site, but you expect us to read the apologist websites that you link and take them seriously?

[United Russian State]

I think he was real. I don't the famous stories of him are ture or not though.

[Enadail]

Except these people did spread it. Why do you think Christianity spread? It doesn't spread because it is pleasing to the human mind. It spreads because people are changed. as far as the "stealing the body" theory. Its the most assinine of all theories. How would a few men roll away a heavy stone(which was placed so that it can't be moved), stolen a body that was wrapped in linen and covered in spices, then folded the linen back as original with the spices and such all back on top, all without waking the Roman guards(who would have arrested, or killed them)? Come on! Think a bit.

First... Christianity did not spread until many long years after Jesus died. Second... because yes, everyone remembered EXACTLY how the linen was folded, because men could surely not roll away a heavy stone that men rolled there in the first place, and because Roman guards are surely unbridgeable.

I laugh when non-believers direct me to that infidels site, because it's clear that those people have never done an inductive reading of the Bible, nor have any real scholarly research into it.

Linking apologetic while complaining about infidels is interesting. Of course, it would mean something if infidels didn't put side by side quotes of the bible that be looked up without the infidels site. As I have read a majority of the Bible, I'm gonna go ahead and mention that it just happens that the infidels is a nice quick way to refute the point. Sorry, but I'm not so interested in the Bible as to reread it every time someone wants to argue it. And no, as I'm not a Biblical scholar, I haven't done any scholarly resaerch into it. Have you, to laugh so heartily?

[Treznor]

Exactly, which reinforces my suspicion that the claims are purely superstitious, and not grounded in anything resembling reality.

It really depends what you mean by reality. Something within ones personal perception can be very real yet non provable to anyone else. Certain types of pain for example; you know that you hurt, yet all a listener can do is believe or disbelieve you. You may hear a beautiful birdsong, but there is no way to prove to anyone else that you heard it when you said you did. etc etc.
I happen to believe in Christ because I have a relationship with him and have felt his affects on me. I have absolutely no way of proving that, but to me it is just as real as the pain or the birdsong. I completely accept that I have no rational way of proving it to anyone else and it would rather defeat the purpose of the thing if I could. Everyone should have their own spiritual journey, you can't take one second hand from someone else.

So, again, we're back to the dragon in my garage. He's there, really. I have a personal relationship with him. And there are very good reasons why he can't be seen, heard, felt or measured in any meaningful sense. But that doesn't change the fact that he's there, in my garage, breathing fire!

[Hairless Kitten II]

Maybe you missed in your education a name as Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was an Egyptian.

So? She's a woman, lived in almost the same time era and close to Israel. And last but not least, she had something to say.