Not just a contradiction, but a mistake.

[Guest]

I have to agree here. There are lots of contradictions in different text treating the same historical figure. The differences between two authors does not necessarily point to Jesus not existing.

GoodK,

Let's assume that you're correct and there is a contradiction. We started the discussion about whether Jesus was a historical character. I don't think you're convinced of this. Please correct me if you have changed your mind about this. If you don't think Jesus was a real person, discussion of New Testament contradictions is irrelevant since the whole thing is a fabrication. If you think Jesus was a historical person and not a figment of the New Testament writers' imagination, then the question is whether the New Testament presents a reliable, not perfect, portrayal of Jesus.

[_GoodK]

GoodK,

Let's assume that you're correct and there is a contradiction. We started the discussion about whether Jesus was a historical character. I don't think you're convinced of this. Please correct me if you have changed your mind about this. If you don't think Jesus was a real person, discussion of New Testament contradictions is irrelevant since the whole thing is a fabrication. If you think Jesus was a historical person and not a figment of the New Testament writers' imagination, then the question is whether the New Testament presents a reliable, not perfect, portrayal of Jesus.

Ok Richard. I do want to say that I have learned a lot from both sides of the argument, from Marg, JAK, Trevor, you Kevin and the others that have participated there. Thank you. I now am starting to lean towards the belief that there was an actual person for which the Jesus of the Bible is based on, however this is due to the historians that mention him (still, much later) and am still not satisfied with the New Testament has evidence for this.

[_Trevor]

I now am starting to lean towards the belief that there was an actual person for which the Jesus of the Bible is based on, however this is due to the historians that mention him (still, much later) and am still not satisfied with the New Testament has evidence for this.

Why are these historians better evidence than the gospel writers? Simply because they are writing in a different genre?

[_Micky]

No, but saying someone relies to heavily on Bart Ehrman is an ad hominem. And it is incorrect.

But I never said that. Bart Ehrman is a favorite among skeptics as he is a favorite among Mormons and Muslims and others who try to cast negativity on the Bible. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that whenever skeptics do choose to look towards scholarship, they focus mainly on Ehrman as if he were the only scholar that mattered.

That isn't ad hominem, it is simply a fact.

Did you present scholarship? I think I may have missed it.

You miss a lot of things. The citation provided by Richard includes a scholarly argument presented by Z.H. Chages.

I only saw a page from a Christian Librarian, which claims the Bible doesn't really mean what it says it means (however it is more than clear on things YOU want it to be clear on)

He is not a librarian, but your attempt to demean him at every round is well noted.

Again you are misrepresenting the situation. The question is, what do these passages really mean? Holding's point is well taken. Since the Bible is an ancient document, you would be kidding yourself if you think you can understand everything without any scholarly commentary. Nobody has ever argued the Bible "doesn't really mean what its says it means."

You refuse to find out what it really means because you think you can do it all on your own by browsing every anti-Bible website in existence. Not everything is understood even by the professionals. Scholars are still working things out, trying to make sense of much of what has us scratching our heads. But the answers are more likely to do with Greco-Roman rhetoric than say Paul Carlson and JAK's unwarranted assumption that these things show how the whole thing was fabricated at a later date.

We're simply pointing out that the Bible doesn't have to be saying something just because some uneducated reader says it does.

[_Trevor]

But I never said that. Bart Ehrman is a favorite among skeptics as he is a favorite among Mormons and Muslims and others who try to cast negativity on the Bible. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that whenever skeptics do choose to look towards scholarship, they focus mainly on Ehrman as if he were the only scholar that mattered.

And he happens to be pretty damn good at what he does too. Simply saying that he is a favorite among "Mormons, Muslims, and others who try to cast negativity on the Bible" does not get us very far. Ad hominem? A subtle one to be sure, but still a jab, and one aimed at Ehrman, Mormons, and Muslims. Sure, we will all pull out our favorite scholars. I prefer the ones that approach the topic not as people of faith, but as secular scholars. Why? Because I do not approach the Bible as a believer, and I have no reason to think that doing so will help me see the text more clearly--unless by clearly we mean in some sort of devotional, spiritual sense.

I'll come right out and say it. The Bible is not the word of God. There is no word of God. What we have in all sacred texts is the writings of human beings over many centuries. In the end, you either take the leap of faith and accept the Bible, with all of its absurdities, or you remain an unbeliever. In the former camp, you can be happy with your simple faith or spend your time trying to iron out all of the absurdities for your own comfort. I am happy in the latter camp, and I enjoy studying the New Testament as a literary artifact produced within the Roman Empire.

[_Micky]

I'll come right out and say it. The Bible is not the word of God. There is no word of God. What we have in all sacred texts is the writings of human beings over many centuries. In the end, you either take the leap of faith and accept the Bible, with all of its absurdities, or you remain an unbeliever. In the former camp, you can be happy with your simple faith or spend your time trying to iron out all of the absurdities for your own comfort. I am happy in the latter camp, and I enjoy studying the New Testament as a literary artifact produced within the Roman Empire.

I think you should rethink your position, because there is plenty of grey area that many believers are willing to explore. Now, more so than ever. The dichotomy between believer and disbeliever isn't as stark as you seem to indicate. Christianity has seen the concept of inerrancy become less and less extreme as more and more Christians have come to accept the fact that many biblical stories are not real history. It simply isn't true that a believer must "take a leap of faith and accept the Bible with all of its absurdities," or else become an unbeliever. I reject that, because I am living proof.

[_GoodK]

No, but saying someone relies to heavily on Bart Ehrman is an ad hominem. And it is incorrect.

But I never said that. Bart Ehrman is a favorite among skeptics as he is a favorite among Mormons and Muslims and others who try to cast negativity on the Bible. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that whenever skeptics do choose to look towards scholarship, they focus mainly on Ehrman as if he were the only scholar that mattered.

That isn't ad hominem, it is simply a fact.

You are right. It isn't. I misread you. But I don't understanding the meaning of the statement I misread:

2) You can pretend that any Bible translation will provide a 21st century novice with enough "on its face" data to take it a part and criticize it as if it were written for a 21st century audience using modern English literary devices. Those who fall into this camp are usually those who care nothing for scholarship on
the matter - though you might find some relying heavily on a single scholar like Ehrman.

He is not a librarian, but your attempt to demean him at every round is well noted.

One more time: That website sucks. I hate it.

You refuse to find out what it really means because you think you can do it all on your own by browsing every anti-Bible website in existence.

I don't get my information from anti-Bible websites, but your paranoia for them is well noted. Its more like atheist literature, specifically Sam Harris. I came across that passage while looking for something else in The End of Faith, but thanks for guessing what my sources were. I actually spend most of my time online fighting Jesus here: http://www.adultswim.com/games/game/ind ... biblefight

We're simply pointing out that the Bible doesn't have to be saying something just because some uneducated reader says it does.

The Bible doesn't mean what it says it does? I think I have heard that argument, doesn't really fly for a lot of reasons.

[_GoodK]

I now am starting to lean towards the belief that there was an actual person for which the Jesus of the Bible is based on, however this is due to the historians that mention him (still, much later) and am still not satisfied with the New Testament has evidence for this.

Why are these historians better evidence than the gospel writers? Simply because they are writing in a different genre?

Only because there are some that were probably real people. I don't think we really know who the gospel writers are. I haven't made up my mind, but I also really liked this post:

I think one “evidence” that often gets overlooked (and one that Don Bradley pointed out to me many moons ago) is Paul’s reference to James (“the brother of Jesus”). Of course, this doesn’t stand if someone also takes the leap to “Paul didn’t exist either."

The search for a “historical Jesus” has slowly become an interesting topic to me. It seems that so much conjecture gets tossed around as one side seems to think that proof of an actual individual walking around and teaching in Israel circa 30 CE is proof that this same person was the son of G-d, and the Messiah. The other side seems to think that acknowledging a “historical Jesus” necessitates an acceptance of the legitimacy of Christianity and as such are adverse to anything that can potentially “prove” that the man commonly known as “Jesus the Christ” was indeed a real person (albeit perhaps far from how he has been mythologized).

Especially this part:

From my rather pitiful studies of the Hellenistic world, even the various cults that were (continuously) springing up during that time (and areas) all seemed to be based on real people (or at least somewhat long-standing deities or a recognized national deity [for nation cults]). As such, I see no reason why there should be an aversion to the thought that the Christian cult was indeed based on a real person as well.

And the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus by James Cameron that I re-watched had some impact on my leanings.

[_bcspace]

Matt 27:9-10 claims to fulfill a saying that it mistakenly attributed to Jeremiah, but the saying appears in Zechariah 11:12.

How do you know that Zechariah is not quoting or reaffirming an unknown work of Jeremiah or that Matthew had access to the same? A common mistake of these kinds of critics is to assume that the Bible contains all the words these prophets ever spoke or that all the prophets are known to us.

[_Trevor]

Only because there are some that were probably real people. I don't think we really know who the gospel writers are.

Ancient historians wrote about people who were imaginary as though they were real. I don't see how the fact of the author's existence necessarily strengthens the case for the historicity of his subject.

I think one “evidence” that often gets overlooked (and one that Don Bradley pointed out to me many moons ago) is Paul’s reference to James (“the brother of Jesus”). Of course, this doesn’t stand if someone also takes the leap to “Paul didn’t exist either."

This assumes, of course, that the text has not been altered in some way.

From my rather pitiful studies of the Hellenistic world, even the various cults that were (continuously) springing up during that time (and areas) all seemed to be based on real people (or at least somewhat long-standing deities or a recognized national deity [for nation cults]). As such, I see no reason why there should be an aversion to the thought that the Christian cult was indeed based on a real person as well.

Well, this is true of Hellenistic ruler cult, but then we are not dealing with Hellenistic ruler cult in the case of Jesus. I should think we are more likely dealing with the purported fulfillment of Messianic, royal, and/or eschatological prophecy or something like the Samaritan belief that Moses would return. All it would take is the claim that the prophecies were indeed fulfilled in order to generate the narrative. Using bits of Old Testament prophecy and little pieces of actual history (like Pilate) to fill in the blanks would help provide substance.

Really, the whole idea that there is absolutely nothing behind Jesus seems far-fetched, even to me. But, I am not certain exactly how much actual history it would take to provide the bare bones of a Gospel narrative. I guess all one would really need is the story of a minor holy man who was executed by Roman authorities. What I cannot agree with the "mythers" on is the importance of "dying and rising gods"--Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, Osiris and the like. All of that smacks too much of the "Golden Bough" nonsense that is completely outdated. What historical Jesus people fail to appreciate, however, is the degree to which even major figures like Roman emperors were shaped as historical figures by myth, legend, drama, rhetoric, and sheer fantasy.