Jesus never existed?

[GuineaPig]

This is not close to being true.  Much of the "historical events" of the Old Testament are considered to be fabrications.


Once again, you're applying a complete double standard, based on what confirms your viewpoint and what conflicts with it.  You're perfectly willing to cite the work of archaeologists if they ostensibly confirm something mentioned in the Bible, but when they conclude that the Israelites originated from Canaan, that the Exodus never happened, that the conquest of Israel was more myth than fact, that Jericho was uninhabited when Joshua purportedly conquered it, etc. they're wrong, or there's an explanation that flies in the face of all available evidence, but nevertheless must've happened.

I've noticed you talk a lot about sources and being able to use such sources to substantiate whatever claim one sees fit.  It is just as easy for me to make the same claims about the sources you use that are "proven".  Am I missing something?

One can find someone saying almost anything.  That's why consensus is important.   The reason global warming is a serious threat is not because one scientist says so, it's because the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community agrees, and has done so for the past 20+ years.

Likewise, the word of one scholar does not hold much weight, because of the possibility for all sorts of biases, errors, faulty work, or outright lies.  A consensus is to be trusted (even if it is shown later to be false) because well researched, exhaustive, and persuasive work will draw attention, further study, and ultimately wide-scale support from the academic community.

One could "disprove" evolution by linking to the work of some wacko biologist, but that doesn't mean anything.  The consensus is what matters.  And ignoring the consensus of academics who've worked years upon years in post-graduate studies upon these subjects just because one has done a cursory analysis of the writings of apologetics and concluded they know the real "truth" is silly. 

[jammindude]

So the majority is always right??

[rumborak]

The majority view of professionals is usually a very good bet. One needs to have extraordinary reason to disregard that.

rumborak

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

It seems that, more or less, the "consensus" you read is based upon whatever bias you lean towards already.  There are lots of groups of scientists, historians, etc. that make a "consensus", and whatever one's leaning is, one can choose to believe in or place high importance on those findings.

You're right.  One can take a cursory look at apologetics, or one can examine all sources closely.  I do appreciate your distinction, but I still find it to be highly subjective.

[Super Dude]

It seems that, more or less, the "consensus" you read is based upon whatever bias you lean towards already.

Even so, consensus usually implies that the larger part of the field's experts agree whatever their personal inclinations, and one's own biases notwithstanding.

[rumborak]

It might be worth a thread to find out for what there is consensus and for what not. E.g. I believe there is consensus that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Luke etc. Whereas there probably no consensus on the historicity of the post-death accounts.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

It seems that, more or less, the "consensus" you read is based upon whatever bias you lean towards already. 

I understand this viewpoint.  I think the distinction comes between various kinds of scholars.  There are critical scholars, who start with the text, analyze it, using what we know of the historical record, and come to some conclusions regarding the text to interpret it in such a way as to nail down belief/knowledge.  Then there are theologians/apologists, who start with belief, then interpret the text in light of their belief.

My 2 cents.

[jammindude]

In thinking of this thread...I was reminded of something in my own life that I feel gives a good example of what supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are like. 


All of the following statements are true and factual.

When I am asked how many kids I have...depending on the person and circumstances, they will get one of the following replies:

I have two kids. Both boys

I have two kids.  A boy and a girl.

I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

I have 5 kids, 4 boys and 1 girl.

I have 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl. 

I have 7 kids, 5 boys and 2 girls.


I have made ALL of these responses.   They are all true.  They are all factual.   And depending on the situation, each is an entirely appropriate response for the given circumstances.     None of them contradict....though they might SEEM to. 

[hefdaddy42]

In thinking of this thread...I was reminded of something in my own life that I feel gives a good example of what supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are like. 


All of the following statements are true and factual.

When I am asked how many kids I have...depending on the person and circumstances, they will get one of the following replies:

I have two kids. Both boys

I have two kids.  A boy and a girl.

I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

I have 5 kids, 4 boys and 1 girl.

I have 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl. 

I have 7 kids, 5 boys and 2 girls.


I have made ALL of these responses.   They are all true.  They are all factual.   And depending on the situation, each is an entirely appropriate response for the given circumstances.     None of them contradict....though they might SEEM to.

Those aren't the same kinds of contradictions found in the Bible.  This analogy is just a matter of different answers at different times, showing an increase of children over time. 

[jammindude]

In thinking of this thread...I was reminded of something in my own life that I feel gives a good example of what supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are like. 


All of the following statements are true and factual.

When I am asked how many kids I have...depending on the person and circumstances, they will get one of the following replies:

I have two kids. Both boys

I have two kids.  A boy and a girl.

I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

I have 5 kids, 4 boys and 1 girl.

I have 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl. 

I have 7 kids, 5 boys and 2 girls.


I have made ALL of these responses.   They are all true.  They are all factual.   And depending on the situation, each is an entirely appropriate response for the given circumstances.     None of them contradict....though they might SEEM to.

Those aren't the same kinds of contradictions found in the Bible.  This analogy is just a matter of different answers at different times, showing an increase of children over time.

Not true.  Depending on who you are and what the circumstances are, I could make all of these statements *today*...and they would all be completely true and factual for the given circumstances.   It has NOTHING to do with "increase of kids over time".

[Scheavo]

In thinking of this thread...I was reminded of something in my own life that I feel gives a good example of what supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are like. 


All of the following statements are true and factual.

When I am asked how many kids I have...depending on the person and circumstances, they will get one of the following replies:

I have two kids. Both boys

I have two kids.  A boy and a girl.

I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

I have 5 kids, 4 boys and 1 girl.

I have 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl. 

I have 7 kids, 5 boys and 2 girls.


I have made ALL of these responses.   They are all true.  They are all factual.   And depending on the situation, each is an entirely appropriate response for the given circumstances.     None of them contradict....though they might SEEM to.

Those aren't the same kinds of contradictions found in the Bible.  This analogy is just a matter of different answers at different times, showing an increase of children over time.

Not true.  Depending on who you are and what the circumstances are, I could make all of these statements *today*...and they would all be completely true and factual for the given circumstances.   It has NOTHING to do with "increase of kids over time".

"Factual" is not "Truthful." Many things are "factually" correct, but are demonstrably "not True."

[jammindude]

In thinking of this thread...I was reminded of something in my own life that I feel gives a good example of what supposed "contradictions" in the Bible are like. 


All of the following statements are true and factual.

When I am asked how many kids I have...depending on the person and circumstances, they will get one of the following replies:

I have two kids. Both boys

I have two kids.  A boy and a girl.

I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

I have 5 kids, 4 boys and 1 girl.

I have 6 kids, 5 boys and 1 girl. 

I have 7 kids, 5 boys and 2 girls.


I have made ALL of these responses.   They are all true.  They are all factual.   And depending on the situation, each is an entirely appropriate response for the given circumstances.     None of them contradict....though they might SEEM to.

Those aren't the same kinds of contradictions found in the Bible.  This analogy is just a matter of different answers at different times, showing an increase of children over time.

Not true.  Depending on who you are and what the circumstances are, I could make all of these statements *today*...and they would all be completely true and factual for the given circumstances.   It has NOTHING to do with "increase of kids over time".

"Factual" is not "Truthful." Many things are "factually" correct, but are demonstrably "not True."

They are all true.  When did I say anything untruthful?   

Ok...all of these statements are true....today they are all true.   Depending on who asked me and what the circumstances are, I would answer one of the above and I would be telling the truth. 

[hefdaddy42]

If a person asks how many and you tell them less than the truth, then you aren't being truthful.  What kind of circumstances could support being less than truthful on a simple question like "how many kids you have"?

[rumborak]

Jammin,

don't you think you're rather bending over backwards to make it work? I have a hard time imagining you giving as much leeway to any other potentially fictional piece of text. E.g. assuming you're not a Mormon, how does the Book of Moroni distinguish itself from the regular Bible that the former can not be believed, the latter however very much so?

rumborak

[jammindude]

If a person asks how many and you tell them less than the truth, then you aren't being truthful.  What kind of circumstances could support being less than truthful on a simple question like "how many kids you have"?

I assure you.  I am not being less that truthful.  You just have to be open minded to the explanation. 



I have two kids, both boys.

These are my two *actual* 100% confirmed biological sons.   The first one is from a fling I had as a teenager, the second is from my first marriage.  I have only met the older one twice in his entire life, I barely know him, we never talk and I had absolutely nothing to do with his upbringing.  My door is always open to him if he ever needs me...and I have attempted to reach out on several occasions...but we are, for all purposes, complete and total strangers.

I have two kids, a girl and a boy.

These are my two kids from my first marriage.  I met my first wife when she was 3 months pregnant.   She had a daughter...the real father disappeared into the woodwork and was never found.  He never paid a dime, and we never saw him.  He didn't ever exist in her life.  *I* raised her, fed her, changed her diapers, and took care of her...I am her father. 


I have three kids, two boys and a girl.

This is when I count all of the above.  I don't always count my oldest boy...this is probably the most common answer I give. 


I have 5 kids...4 boys and one girl.

In my second marriage married into three more sons.  I've had a big effect on their lives (the younger ones more than the older ones), and treat them exactly as if they were my very own flesh and blood.   I've been MORE of a father to them than I have been to my oldest son.  These are the children whose lives I have effected as a "father figure"...

I have 6 kids...5 boys and one girl.

I give this answer very commonly as well.   This is when I put my current wife's three kids and my three kids altogether. 


I have 7 kids...5 boys and two girls.

This is the rarest answer...and the only one on the list that is, admittedly, a stretch.   Before I met my first wife, I was in yet another relationship that very nearly went to marriage.    There was a daughter that was put up for adoption.   I don't talk about it much...she would be 23 now....and because of the timing of the breakup, there were actually two possible fathers who *both* had to sign the paperwork.    But I'm about 80% sure it was mine.   She would be my only biological daughter if that were true. 


So, depending on circumstances (usually just coming down to a matter of, are you looking for *my kids* that I have raised?  Or family medical history for someone I barely know??)  all of the above are TRUE AND FACTUAL for their given circumstances.   

[hefdaddy42]

If you have 7 kids, and someone asks you how many kids you have and you say 2, then you aren't being factual.

And none of that convoluted mess has anything to do with the contradictions or other problems with the text of the Bible.

[jammindude]

If you have 7 kids, and someone asks you how many kids you have and you say 2, then you aren't being factual.

And none of that convoluted mess has anything to do with the contradictions or other problems with the text of the Bible.

I 100% disagree on both counts.   

I do not think of myself as having 7 kids.   Even though one could say that I do. 

What I've given are "spitball" answers.      There's still ANOTHER answer that I give if I feel the person actually has the time and wants to know.    And that is, "It's not that simple..."

Real life is not that simple.    Are you asking about the kids I've fathered?  The kids I've raised?  Or both put together?   

Many so called "contradictions" in the Bible are just a matter of perspective...and the explanations are not a stretch...they are just *real life*.   I didn't have to concoct a story to make my kid situation happen...it is what it is.   It's real life.   

If someone a thousand years from now were to dig up my life history, they would have a very difficult time trying to piece together how many kids I *actually* had.  That doesn't make the above scenario not true.    It just means that reality is not always black and white, and the explanations are not always easy....but that doesn't make them not true. 

[GuineaPig]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

[Adami]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one is supposed to be Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or something.

[jammindude]

Example:

Some people point out that Matthew says there were two demon possessed men at Matt the 8th chapter...while Mark and Luke say there was only one in the parallel accounts.

The answer is really simple.  There were two men, but Jesus only addressed one directly and he became the central point of attention. 

Real life has taught me that things are just like that sometimes.   Both accounts are true and factual.   

That's where MY real life situations (like with my kids) have taught me that sometimes two personal accounts can have different details...but that does not make either one of them false or untrue in any way, shape or form.   

A bank robbery happens.   One person says there were two men...another says there were three.     The second person happened to be standing outside and saw the person in the getaway car that the eyewitnesses on the inside never saw.   So is either account false?   Not to any reasonable person.   Both statements are true and factual. 

[jammindude]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

Matthew goes back to Abraham.  Luke goes back to Adam.

[jammindude]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one is supposed to be Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or something.

BTW...this is also true.   And it was important.   Because Jesus had to be a blood relative of David (which could *only* be through his mother)...but he also had to have  *legal* decent to David, which was through Joseph.      The blood relation from the mother...the legal right through the father.

[rumborak]

You're inferring a whole lot. I don't see how that can be considered reasonable. Modern scholars mostly agree that the genealogy of Jesus was crafted by the writers.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one is supposed to be Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or something.

BTW...this is also true.   

No it's not.  Not according to the text.  You are interpreting the text to say something that it does not.  You are not letting the text speak for itself.  Both Matthew and Luke explicitly claim to offer the geneaology of Joseph.  They are both also inconsistent with each other.  This is a contradiction.

[jammindude]

You're inferring a whole lot. I don't see how that can be considered reasonable. Modern scholars mostly agree that the genealogy of Jesus was crafted by the writers.

rumborak

M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather..."

[jammindude]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one is supposed to be Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or something.

BTW...this is also true.   

No it's not.  Not according to the text.  You are interpreting the text to say something that it does not.  You are not letting the text speak for itself.  Both Matthew and Luke explicitly claim to offer the geneaology of Joseph.  They are both also inconsistent with each other.  This is a contradiction.

It does speak for itself.   But one does need to understand the circumstances of the times.   See the above quote....

[rumborak]

I can only shake my head at all this. The hoops you're willing to jump through, jammin, are extraordinary.

I find talking to conspiracy theorists somewhat similar. No matter what normal explanation is brought to the table, some obscure facts gets pulled in to support the original theory.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I'd be interested to know how, say, Matthew counting 40 generations between Abraham and Jesus compared to Luke counting 55 is "a matter of perspective."

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I've heard that one is supposed to be Mary's and the other is Joseph's. Or something.

BTW...this is also true.   

No it's not.  Not according to the text.  You are interpreting the text to say something that it does not.  You are not letting the text speak for itself.  Both Matthew and Luke explicitly claim to offer the geneaology of Joseph.  They are both also inconsistent with each other.  This is a contradiction.

It does speak for itself.   But one does need to understand the circumstances of the times.   See the above quote....

The circumstance is that both say exactly what they are doing.

[jammindude]

You're inferring a whole lot. I don't see how that can be considered reasonable. Modern scholars mostly agree that the genealogy of Jesus was crafted by the writers.

rumborak

Funny that his enemies never saw fit to bring that up.   EVERYTHING was all about genealogy back then.   If the Jews wanted to stop Christianity...they had access to Jesus genealogy all the way up until 70 C.E.   

If Jesus didn't have the bloodline to be the Christ...don't you think it might have been wise for that to have been made public?   Maybe even from the moment he started to make a nuisance of himself?   

Seems to me like they had 40 years to pull that Ace out of the deck if they had it....and *extremely* odd that they never did.   

[hefdaddy42]

They wouldn't have had to.  The "Christ" that the Christians were claiming didn't bear very much resemblance to the Messiah the Jews were awaiting.  It would've been a circular argument.

Besides, what the Jews or Christians may or may not have said to each other would have been moot by the time the gospels were written, when any such records would have been destroyed during the Jewish War.  Which is another reason that most scholars think that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke aren't historical.  They are, rather, confessional and very pointed in the assemblage.

[rumborak]

Believers have never been particularly susceptible to factual evidence. Even if the Jews had had Jesus genealogy (which I very much doubt), what impact could that have made? Killing the guy already didn't quell the movement, a measly genealogy wouldn't have fazed anybody. Also, in 70AD trying to find the genealogy of a carpenter's son in Nazareth would have been virtually impossible.

rumborak

[jammindude]

I can only shake my head at all this. The hoops you're willing to jump through, jammin, are extraordinary.

I find talking to conspiracy theorists somewhat similar. No matter what normal explanation is brought to the table, some obscure facts gets pulled in to support the original theory.

rumborak

I will agree that I have presented the fact that the Jews would not accept a female bloodline...and would further give credit to such a bloodline to the son-in-law (as the opinion was...the father of the child).   

I never said you had to believe.   I've said all along that your mileage may vary.     I just cannot see how it's so unreasonable.      I look at where your line of reasoning takes you...and it just *baffles* me.     But I'm not out to convert....just present evidence as to why *I* believe it to be reasonable. 

What I don't like, is the accusation that there is no evidence...and that religious people operate on pure blind faith.    Many people do...I don't.   I have spent my life examining the *EVIDENCE* from each said...and I followed the course that had the more reasonable argument.   To me, the evidence that bore the earmarks of truth...and then I made an *EDUCATED DECISION*...   

I would never call that "blind faith"...which I will maintain is both dangerous and stupid. 

[Adami]

You're inferring a whole lot. I don't see how that can be considered reasonable. Modern scholars mostly agree that the genealogy of Jesus was crafted by the writers.

rumborak

Funny that his enemies never saw fit to bring that up.   EVERYTHING was all about genealogy back then.   If the Jews wanted to stop Christianity...they had access to Jesus genealogy all the way up until 70 C.E.   

If Jesus didn't have the bloodline to be the Christ...don't you think it might have been wise for that to have been made public?   Maybe even from the moment he started to make a nuisance of himself?   

Seems to me like they had 40 years to pull that Ace out of the deck if they had it....and *extremely* odd that they never did.

I'm curious, how did everyone keep track of thousands of years of  genealogy? Why would the Pharisees even have access to things like of what they considered to be some random trouble maker? Keep in mind he wasn't exactly a big deal at the time.

[Super Dude]

This thread is super, dude.

[jammindude]

They wouldn't have had to.  The "Christ" that the Christians were claiming didn't bear very much resemblance to the Messiah the Jews were awaiting.  It would've been a circular argument. 

You make it sound here as if Jesus were no big deal.   A gnat in the ointment.   If he was so insignificant, why kill him?   Again...your line of reasoning makes no sense.   Even if the Jewish leaders didn't like him and just wished he would go away...the easiest way to get people to quit following him would be to make his genealogy public...and that would have been the end of it.   Especially since they were the keepers of the records and hated him so much.   Sorry...this just doesn't fit the facts of record...or even human nature for that matter.

 

Besides, what the Jews or Christians may or may not have said to each other would have been moot by the time the gospels were written, when any such records would have been destroyed during the Jewish War.  Which is another reason that most scholars think that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke aren't historical.  They are, rather, confessional and very pointed in the assemblage.

Matthew's account was written in 41 C.E.  Luke's was sometime between 56-58 C.E. when Paul was confined in Caesarea.