Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[stubbornone]

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct.

You claimed that your position was driven by 'evidence' and your opinion formed on the basis of 'scholarship.' And yet, when confronted with obvious errors in your presentation, you run to moderators, and now appear to be admitting that you didn't even bother checking your sources ...

Whereas when you are confronted with the even more blatant errors in your presentation - which in my skimming over posts I've noticed Goat doing an excellent job with - you ignore them, pretending yourself to be perfect, and continue to rant about how ignorant and dishonest others are In fact your ongoing accusation of "running to moderators" appears to be outright slander.

Despite my disagreements with some folk who are 'undecided' about Jesus' existence and propose what on inspection turn out to be absurdities to discount it, it is at least possible to have some kind of conversation with them. Indeed it should be acknowledged that some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians.

You have yet to confront with a single error.

And goat has skimmed a single source of the many I have presented, and launched a strawman.

But we appreciate the personal ad hominems that take a personal pot shot without actually backing up the claim with something verifiable.

Its a popularity contest, and one of the main reasons I think the Jesus Myth is nothing but an utterly nut ball conspiracy. Agree with me or I will attack you with vauge silly accusations.

But please Mith, set aside facts because you 'like' someone? Impressive.

As much as I appreciate another lecture from yet another 'former Christian', I will once again point out that there is no point in pretending that people publicly admitting they are not checking their sources in line with the conclusions they claim, while in your own opinion, " The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning," should be afforded respect.

Yes, that personal pot shot is SO much more polite that pointing out the larger academic problem wherein period scholars dismiss the Jesus Myth as sheer insanity and beyond reason?

That personal pot shot is SO much more reasonable that asking an apparently evidenced driven atheist, proven to not be checking his sources, as to why the Jesus Myth is confined to atheism? Why it is spread with such ferocity by the larger atheist community when it is clearly little more than an argument from absurdity?

Pray tell Mith why we have to civilly defend our Savior to atheists, answer the tough questions, but when we ask them in return all atheists get pissy? You think an 'open' minded atheist actually writting the Jesus Myth would receive accolades rather than criticism in the academic community? Have you read ANY of the rebuttals to Wells? He was so strongly eviscerated that he was forced to back track ... and yet, previous question ... why is is work, both public and plagurized, so prolific on atheist web sites?

Why yo do atheists like goat sift through hundreds of supporting documents to find ONE or TWO sentences that support their preconceptions, and why, when ignoring hundreds of documents, would you accuse his detractors of being the ones crating strawmen?

Once again, when it comes to the Jesus Conspiracy, I am left dumbstruck and the levels of emotionalism and the abject failure to answer the tough questions. Jesus is Myth must be treated with respect ... which of course means pulling your punches - as opposed to punching and demonstrating just how silly a proposition is so that Nickman or Goat, in real rather than virtual life, don't walk around with the legitimate and discriminatory belief that the vast majority of Americans are delusional?

How uncivil to confront that with tough questions?

Now you know why I left atheism. Its exactly because issues like the Jesus Myth, which have no basis in logic or reason, conflict badly with the facts, and yet are routinely foisted for what I can only assume in reason of simple rudeness.

And what do you gain by being rude to someone based solely on your prejudicial dislike of someone's faith? Nothing.

And yet, its all the Jesus Myth is. Hence, honest people cannot be part of it.

[stubbornone]

I already admitted ealrier that I didn't check my sources before hand, which I don't normally do, and the quote was not correct.

You claimed that your position was driven by 'evidence' and your opinion formed on the basis of 'scholarship.' And yet, when confronted with obvious errors in your presentation, you run to moderators, and now appear to be admitting that you didn't even bother checking your sources ...

Whereas when you are confronted with the even more blatant errors in your presentation - which in my skimming over posts I've noticed Goat doing an excellent job with - you ignore them, pretending yourself to be perfect, and continue to rant about how ignorant and dishonest others are In fact your ongoing accusation of "running to moderators" appears to be outright slander.

Its not slander when the person(s) doing it, admit to doing it publically. Why do it, and then deny it? See below as to how simple honesty is the biggest threat to atheism.

Would be nice to an atheist actually back up one of their claims ...

Despite my disagreements with some folk who are 'undecided' about Jesus' existence and propose what on inspection turn out to be absurdities to discount it, it is at least possible to have some kind of conversation with them. Indeed it should be acknowledged that some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians.

You have yet to confront with a single error.

And goat has skimmed a single source of the many I have presented, and launched a strawman.

But we appreciate the personal ad hominems that take a personal pot shot without actually backing up the claim with something verifiable.

Its a popularity contest, and one of the main reasons I think the Jesus Myth is nothing but an utterly nut ball conspiracy. Agree with me or I will attack you with vauge silly accusations.

But please Mith, set aside facts because you 'like' someone? Impressive.

As much as I appreciate another lecture from yet another 'former Christian', I will once again point out that there is no point in pretending that people publicly admitting they are not checking their sources in line with the conclusions they claim, while in your own opinion, " The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning," should be afforded respect.

Yes, that personal pot shot is SO much more polite that pointing out the larger academic problem wherein period scholars dismiss the Jesus Myth as sheer insanity and beyond reason?

That personal pot shot is SO much more reasonable that asking an apparently evidenced driven atheist, proven to not be checking his sources, as to why the Jesus Myth is confined to atheism? Why it is spread with such ferocity by the larger atheist community when it is clearly little more than an argument from absurdity?

Pray tell Mith why we have to civilly defend our Savior to atheists, answer the tough questions, but when we ask them in return all atheists get pissy? You think an 'open' minded atheist actually writting the Jesus Myth would receive accolades rather than criticism in the academic community? Have you read ANY of the rebuttals to Wells? He was so strongly eviscerated that he was forced to back track ... and yet, previous question ... why is is work, both public and plagurized, so prolific on atheist web sites?

Why yo do atheists like goat sift through hundreds of supporting documents to find ONE or TWO sentences that support their preconceptions, and why, when ignoring hundreds of documents, would you accuse his detractors of being the ones crating strawmen?

Once again, when it comes to the Jesus Conspiracy, I am left dumbstruck and the levels of emotionalism and the abject failure to answer the tough questions. Jesus is Myth must be treated with respect ... which of course means pulling your punches - as opposed to punching and demonstrating just how silly a proposition is so that Nickman or Goat, in real rather than virtual life, don't walk around with the legitimate and discriminatory belief that the vast majority of Americans are delusional?

How uncivil to confront that with tough questions?

Now you know why I left atheism. Its exactly because issues like the Jesus Myth, which have no basis in logic or reason, conflict badly with the facts, and yet are routinely foisted for what I can only assume in reason of simple rudeness.

And what do you gain by being rude to someone based solely on your prejudicial dislike of someone's faith? Nothing.

And yet, its all the Jesus Myth is. Hence, honest people cannot be part of it.

[Mithrae]

You claimed that your position was driven by 'evidence' and your opinion formed on the basis of 'scholarship.' And yet, when confronted with obvious errors in your presentation, you run to moderators, and now appear to be admitting that you didn't even bother checking your sources ...

Whereas when you are confronted with the even more blatant errors in your presentation - which in my skimming over posts I've noticed Goat doing an excellent job with - you ignore them, pretending yourself to be perfect, and continue to rant about how ignorant and dishonest others are In fact your ongoing accusation of "running to moderators" appears to be outright slander.

Its not slander when the person(s) doing it, admit to doing it publically. Why do it, and then deny it? See below as to how simple honesty is the biggest threat to atheism.

Would be nice to an atheist actually back up one of their claims ...

What was 'publically admitted' by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

As much as I appreciate another lecture from yet another 'former Christian', I will once again point out that there is no point in pretending that people publicly admitting they are not checking their sources in line with the conclusions they claim, while in your own opinion, " The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning," should be afforded respect.

Of course there's a point in respecting other people, even if their arguments are not very good. In fact I'd say there's more reason to respect folk who don't check their sources but admit it when called on it, than folk who don't check their sources and throw insults when called on it. I'm thinking of the following exchange, in which you claimed that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts > provided a 'source' for that claim > were shown that your source directly contradicts your claim > and then simply responded with insults:

• stubbornone wrote:
  

  You have no first hand documents. Tell me one document that is first hand? Also no documents we have, date to 50 AD.

  The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts.

  Please provide evidence that the synoptic gospels are first hand accounts. Show evidence, first of all, that the person who the gospel is attributed to actually wrote it.

  The source that I provides is a list of such sources, including the synoptic gospels, and you are free to puruse them to your hearts content ... but I would assume that you are already familiar with them, as, like Nickman, you are claiming its evidence that drives you ... and yet your opinion is in stark adversarial conflict with established historiography?
  
  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

  Ok. Let us look at just one of those synpotic gospels.. and see if it backs up your claim that it was written by an eye witness.
  
  Let's look at Mark.. since that is the one that is the earliest one written, according to that site.
  http://earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

  • Information on the Gospel of Mark
    
    Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
    . . For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him..."

  There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.
  
  Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

  In other words, you just completely and totally skipped everything I presented with the results of a random google search used to fulfill your prejudices and preconceptions

Of course in fairness it's possible that you don't know what "first-hand account" means and that your indignation, while unjustified, was at least genuine.

You see? Even though I don't entirely agree with your views, attributing the worst possible motives to you would be the height of disrespect. These personal ad hominems and pot shots that you dislike so much have, for the most part, been thrown around in this thread by you. But if we try to respect each other a little more, it's possible that people with views from both extremes - that Jesus didn't exist and that every word in the gospels are fact - might at least be able to talk civilly, without ill-feeling clouding their judgement.

If you have decided that "there is no point in pretending that people [of X type]... should be afforded respect," then you're already committing yourself to incivility and futile discussion.

Why yo do atheists like goat sift through hundreds of supporting documents to find ONE or TWO sentences that support their preconceptions, and why, when ignoring hundreds of documents, would you accuse his detractors of being the ones crating strawmen?

I said that "some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians." That is, those who over-react to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians are the ones who I was particularly describing as creating strawmen. More specifically, I was referring to the argument Nickman earlier made to me that "Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government." That view of Jesus' fame or notoriety is held by some outspoken Christians, based on the gospel stories; but since the gospel stories are obviously highly embellished accounts that view is not held by me (in fact I'd clearly said otherwise) or any mainstream scholar that I have heard of, and thus it's a strawman argument.

Take a little more time to breathe, to re-read what's been written, and it might be a little clearer what others are saying to you. I'm sure you often feel like you're talking straight past these dreaded Jesus Mythers - but have you ever wondered whether they feel the same about you?

Have a listen to the song in my signature, it's almost appropriate in this context

[stubbornone]

by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

Right, after Goat, Danmark, and Nickman did it ... and I have a discussion about it with the mods ... its not happening because you say so. Look harder at Nickman's stuff - and how about you let him defend himself rather than you blindly taking his side?

Or do you enjoy dealing in rash speculation?

But heh, you need to go personal because a Christian was beating an atheist ... and atheists can't allow that! No SIR!

\
Of course there's a point in respecting other people, even if their arguments are not very good. In fact I'd say there's more reason to respect folk who don't check their sources but admit it when called on it, than folk who don't check their sources and throw insults when called on it. I'm thinking of the following exchange, in which you claimed that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts > provided a 'source' for that claim > were shown that your source directly contradicts your claim > and then simply responded with insults:

No Mithrea, what you are doing is saying its fine when you do it, but a crime when others do it.

Its called the fallacy of special pleading.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

And when atheists lash out as you are - it usually is with such double standards. You were every bit as rude to Nickman as I was, the difference is ... I am quoting actual scholars.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

Yes, lets do it again shall we?

#1 - Thomas is listed and dated before Mark - so we have established that there is another atheist not bothering to check sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

#2 - Here is the evidence on Mark, from the same site.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

It has references to the entire academic debate about Mark. The ENTIRE thing. But somehow, if I go in and quote parts that support my position, and you quote parts that support your positions ... we'll arrive at what? The fact that in such a debate we are simply picking and choosing?

That is not how actual scholarship works Mith - actual scholarship involves looking at ALL the evidence and weighing it objectively - not picking or choosing as we see fit.

And what do we find?

Well, we find that actual period scholars have this to say:

Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ (the third volume of his Story of Civilisation), the

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Yet somehow, such scholarly consensus is undermined because an atheist with a chip on his shoulder is willing to take a highly subjective pot shot at someone else's faith?

You will forgive me for thinking that playing atheist baseball with someone unwilling to accept evidence or consensus is a worthwhile endeavor.

Far better to force those engaged in a pernicious game of absurdity to address the scholarly consensus rather than engage in hunt and peck preconception support ala google.

The scholarship is solid. The consensus near unanimous.

I can only assume that your sudden emotional dig is just that - emotive rather than evidenced based. After all, since the very beginning in this thread, I have pointed to the evidence and challenged people to examine it objectively to make up their own mind.

I have not relied on selected quotes. I have provided links for everything and challenged people to examine.

Its you atheists you have run away from that. Indeed, appear offended by the that.

Well, given that a major bit of atheism, namely the Jesus Myth, is little more than an angry conspiracy - perhaps there is something to be ashamed of after all?

Of course in fairness it's possible that you don't know what "first-hand account" means and that your indignation, while unjustified, was at least genuine.

So, you insult my intelligence while failing to acknowledge that a first hand source is one written by a witness to the event? I.e the Apostles ... who witnessed the events.

In short, you are not so politely lying to insult me. I am not fooled Mith - nor am I surprised by such 'civilized' behavior from yet another atheist ... who was no doubt forced to come and debate this?

You see? Even though I don't entirely agree with your views, attributing the worst possible motives to you would be the height of disrespect. These personal ad hominems and pot shots that you dislike so much have, for the most part, been thrown around in this thread by you. But if we try to respect each other a little more, it's possible that people with views from both extremes - that Jesus didn't exist and that every word in the gospels are fact - might at least be able to talk civilly, without ill-felling clouding their judgement

.

I might actually respect you position if you:

#1 - actually addressed the premise of the Jesus Myth and why I so strongly disagree with it.

#2 - Actually took issues with your pal atheists, and indeed yourself, who seem to have no problems making other people the subject of debates ... while castigating others for ... er, just that.

Where o where were you when Goat was maligning me for being mormon - because I take part in the BoM debate, and am therefore Mormon and subject to insult?

(I have debated the Koran too, so I must also be Muslim? Buddhist by the same rationale?)

When pushed - you lash out like all the rest.

If you have decided that "there is no point in pretending that people [of X type]... should be afforded respect," then you're already committing yourself to incivility and futile discussion.

I believe I have been very clear that conspiracies aimed at undermining others people's faith with lies deserves no respect. I have also made the delineation between that and LEGITIMATE atheism ... postulated and indeed asked why the Jesus Myth, despite is stupor, was so popular in atheism - when nothing in atheism, indeed its core beliefs, compels belief in a nut ball conspiracy/

I said that "some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians."

No, you accused me of using strawmen, so how about you back it up now Mith.

That is, those who over-react to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians are the ones who I was particularly describing as creating strawmen. More specifically, I was referring to the argument Nickman earlier made to me that "Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government." That view of Jesus' fame or notoriety is held by some outspoken Christians, based on the gospel stories; but since the gospel stories are obviously highly embellished accounts that view is not held by me (in fact I'd clearly said otherwise) or any mainstream scholar that I have heard of, and thus it's a strawman argument.

I have specifically addressed that portion several times and quite civily - a lot of good that did - wherein I state that the evidential record is quite clear about those things that we CAN verify, and if honest men are telling the truth in things we CAN verfify, why assume that those things we CANNOT verify ... are highly embellished?

You have no more proof that these unverifiable aspects are embellished than I do to specifically prove them.

Yours is simply a matter of speculation, and indeed, as with the source I provide above for Mark, something period experts will debate to minutia.

I have examined the documents, I have read multiple sides (indeed I appear to be one of the few people on this forum who actually attempted to read Wells), and in the end its comes down to thinking that honest men were telling the truth.

Because although the evidential record, as I quote above, lists differences in minutia, we would expect such differences in human beings seeing the same thing. TTo go from that to outright lying ... for which we have ZERO evidence is stretch - a huge one.

Take a little more time to breathe, to re-read what's been written, and it might be a little clearer what others are saying to you. I'm sure you often feel like you're talking straight past these dreaded Jesus Mythers - but have you ever wondered whether they feel the same about you?

I am sure that fake moon landers, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Lincoln Assassination conspiracy theorists, and others don't like me much either.

However, if a Lincoln Conspiracy nut ball walked into a Civil War forum spouting ... "Well, gosh guys, I am just not convinced by the evidence you have given me (and never will be - and OH, I didn't check my sources ...) and I think that Lincoln died of old age and was never assassinated.

My tack with such an individual would be identical - point out the mountains of evidence, invite him to actually study the record. Point out the scholarly works on the subject, ask him which ones he had read, recommend a few, point out he scholarly consensus, and ask him what evidence the alternative was.

I am sure, much as Nickman and Goat did not appreciate that behavior, that neither would any other conspiracy adherent.

That they don't 'like' me for it? Who the devil cares? I refuse to entertain someone's train wreck of a conspiracy just so they will 'like' me. We stand up for some things Mith ... and when behavior is both dishonest and aimed deliberately at attacking someone else's faith from a position of ignorance and prejudice ... why should we pretend that such antics are respectful in any way?

Well, people don't like it when you wreck their nutter conspiracy theories ... perhaps rather than attempting to be popular ... we should perhaps do our research before arriving at silly, utterly asinine conclusions whose sole purpose appears to be to offend people.

So, at any time Mith, feel free to address the question about why the Jesus Myth, little more than a prolific lie, is so popular on atheist websites - in their 'instruction' material? Especially after its modern father was forced by the apparently uncivil dismissal of his record as ... insane ... utterly without merit ... why would it still be on so many atheist web sites?

Why are atheists still pretending its valid? Why is Nickman, perhaps a first on this forum, but he may very well be the hundredth atheist Jesus Myther I have confronted with the evidence ... always the same ... always.

Each seeks truth, each pointedly ignores the evidental record and uses google to find sources after the fact. Indeed, neither Goat nor Nickman can list even a single volume of Christian history they have read - not one - nor have they read Wells - but we must take their word that their position was evidenced based and scholarly?

Such claims are simply lies to back up a lie Mith - now tell me why, on a Christian forum of all places, we should not demand that such antics, laced in conspiracy, should actually come out and form an evidenced based position to START?

Its pretty easy to use google to form a never ending argument from absurdity, wherein you simply reject what is shown you. But not a single atheist has ever formulated an solid case against historical Jesus, not have they managed to post a credible alternative solution to the problem.

http://atheists.org/content/was-jesus-invented

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm

and on, and on, and on ...

Why does the Christ Myth, with all its pernicious intent feature so prevelantly in atheism? Do you really think that atheists like Nickman or Goat were ACTUALLy sitting around reading dusty old tomes and ancient manuscripts to find inconsistencies? In Greek? Do you find it odd that their analysis so closely follows the 'scholarship' dumped on numerous atheist websites - that YOU found the same false claims from Nickman as made by these selectively quoted atheist 'scholars'?

And when Mith, do you think it would be a good time, a civil time, to ask atheists why they allow themselves to be so badly miseducated?

When, as a Christian am I allowed to take issue with the deliberate spread of falsehood about the foundation of my faith?

You'll pardon the expression Mith, but if I started a conversation with you by claiming you mother was a myth and that you were a creature of delusion ... you might find that offensive. You might find it HIGHLY offensive if I started founding groups to spread the same tomfollery about you when you KNOW its false ...

Well, its EXACTLY what atheists are doing.

Its noticing it however that is uncivil?

Simply put Mith, I disagree ...

quite strongly. [/b]

[Mithrae]

by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

Right, after Goat, Danmark, and Nickman did it ... and I have a discussion about it with the mods ... its not happening because you say so. Look harder at Nickman's stuff - and how about you let him defend himself rather than you blindly taking his side?

Or do you enjoy dealing in rash speculation?

I do, sometimes If you recall it was from a discussion between Nickman and I that he confessed that, unlike normally, he had not checked his source. This apparently was enough for you to leap upon, not with any new content, but with the same old accusations that he'd run to moderators, that he has an "offensive position that Christians are seriously nutter" and so on. Of course I myself have jumped in on conversations in the past, so no particular criticism there; but I'd like to think that I've done so with comments of substance, and more to the point I generally don't complain when one of the participants replies to my post.

Of course there's a point in respecting other people, even if their arguments are not very good. In fact I'd say there's more reason to respect folk who don't check their sources but admit it when called on it, than folk who don't check their sources and throw insults when called on it. I'm thinking of the following exchange, in which you claimed that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts > provided a 'source' for that claim > were shown that your source directly contradicts your claim > and then simply responded with insults:

No Mithrea, what you are doing is saying its fine when you do it, but a crime when others do it.

Its called the fallacy of special pleading.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

And when atheists lash out as you are - it usually is with such double standards. You were every bit as rude to Nickman as I was, the difference is ... I am quoting actual scholars.

You said that "there is no point in pretending that people [of X type]... should be afforded respect," and I am disagreeing with you: There is a real and important point to respecting folk with whom we disagree. Have my criticisms of Nickman's views been over the top and disrespectful? You're probably correct there. But my own actions don't make it right for me or anyone else to disrespect other people because of their views - if we're naming fallacies, that'd be tu quoque - and they certainly don't make it right for anyone to advocate such disrespect.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

Yes, lets do it again shall we?

#1 - Thomas is listed and dated before Mark - so we have established that there is another atheist not bothering to check sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

#2 - Here is the evidence on Mark, from the same site.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

It has references to the entire academic debate about Mark. The ENTIRE thing. But somehow, if I go in and quote parts that support my position, and you quote parts that support your positions ... we'll arrive at what? The fact that in such a debate we are simply picking and choosing?

You said that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts. Thomas is not one of the synoptic gospels; Mark is considered the earliest among the synoptic gospels. Mark is almost universally agreed, even by most Christians, to not be a first-hand account; it was said to have been written by Peter's interpretor, who according to Papias "neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him." The source you provided quotes this explicitly. So your claim that the synoptic gospels are first-hand account was contradicted by your own source. The fact that you still claim it "supports your position" further illustrates your confused reasoning

I can only assume that your sudden emotional dig is just that - emotive rather than evidenced based. After all, since the very beginning in this thread, I have pointed to the evidence and challenged people to examine it objectively to make up their own mind.

I have not relied on selected quotes. I have provided links for everything and challenged people to examine.

Its you atheists you have run away from that. Indeed, appear offended by the that.

Well, given that a major bit of atheism, namely the Jesus Myth, is little more than an angry conspiracy - perhaps there is something to be ashamed of after all?

I'm not an atheist - see that group under my avatar which says Panentheist? Nor do I suggest that Jesus didn't exist - I've spent quite a bit of time arguing that he did. If you try to pigeonhole everyone who you discuss things with, rather than taking a few seconds to see or consider that your assumptions may be incorrect, you'll probably find that you keep having difficulties in communicating with them.

Of course in fairness it's possible that you don't know what "first-hand account" means and that your indignation, while unjustified, was at least genuine.

So, you insult my intelligence while failing to acknowledge that a first hand source is one written by a witness to the event? I.e the Apostles ... who witnessed the events.

In short, you are not so politely lying to insult me. I am not fooled Mith - nor am I surprised by such 'civilized' behavior from yet another atheist ... who was no doubt forced to come and debate this?

It's kinder to believe that someone is a little confused than to believe that they are being dishonest, in my opinion. But since you obviously do know what it means, then presumably you will now acknowledge that your claim - "The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts" - is directly contradicted by your own source, as Goat showed you in the case of Mark. Nickman was honest enough to admit his error in not checking his source earlier, which you took as an opportunity for further ridicule. Are you honest enough to admit your error?

You see? Even though I don't entirely agree with your views, attributing the worst possible motives to you would be the height of disrespect. These personal ad hominems and pot shots that you dislike so much have, for the most part, been thrown around in this thread by you. But if we try to respect each other a little more, it's possible that people with views from both extremes - that Jesus didn't exist and that every word in the gospels are fact - might at least be able to talk civilly, without ill-felling clouding their judgement

I might actually respect you position if you:

#1 - actually addressed the premise of the Jesus Myth and why I so strongly disagree with it.

#2 - Actually took issues with your pal atheists, and indeed yourself, who seem to have no problems making other people the subject of debates ... while castigating others for ... er, just that.

It's generally not a big deal if someone is confused about my views: When I first joined the forum, before I added my 'former Christian' tag, quite a few people thought and spoke to me as though I was a Christian, because generally my posts have been more favourable to Christianity than against. But you seem to be making an awfully big issue out of two positions which I don't hold - one of which I've spend half the thread arguing against. Again I'd suggest that it's best to step back a bit, perhaps calmly mull it over a while, and read what someone is actually writing. I get a bit over-involved in discussions at times too, a little too keen to prove the other guy wrong rather than to exchange ideas with him, so I hope you don't take this as criticism. I think you might find your discussions a bit more productive this way, is all.

I said that "some of the bias and strawmanning in evidence could be considered an over-reaction to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians."

No, you accused me of using strawmen, so how about you back it up now Mith.

Once again, take a deep breath and re-read what's being said. Unless my memory is much worse in my late 20s than I thought it was, that is a direct quote of the only occasion I used the word 'strawman' in a post directed at you - and very clearly, if you read it again, you'll see the strawmen I'm referring to are over-reactions to Christian arguments. I even specifically explained to you which argument of Nickman's I was alluding to (post 217). I already clearly explained that I have not accused you of using strawmen, so please don't say that I did.

That is, those who over-react to the poor arguments of many outspoken Christians are the ones who I was particularly describing as creating strawmen. More specifically, I was referring to the argument Nickman earlier made to me that "Someone as troubling as Jesus among Herod and Pilate would have definitely made any acta pertaining to the government." That view of Jesus' fame or notoriety is held by some outspoken Christians, based on the gospel stories; but since the gospel stories are obviously highly embellished accounts that view is not held by me (in fact I'd clearly said otherwise) or any mainstream scholar that I have heard of, and thus it's a strawman argument.

I have specifically addressed that portion several times and quite civily - a lot of good that did - wherein I state that the evidential record is quite clear about those things that we CAN verify, and if honest men are telling the truth in things we CAN verfify, why assume that those things we CANNOT verify ... are highly embellished?

By comparison, it's obvious that things like the stories of Jesus' birth and childhood, his predictions of the great tribulation and his second coming, his trial before Pilate and the scene at his empty tomb have all been altered between the different gospel accounts, and usually in a discernable pattern. That's called embellishment. You may not agree with this of course, though I'm not very interested in discussing it further. I'm simply explaining why the argument Nickman addressed to me, which depended heavily on the gospels' stories about Jesus, was a strawman.

Such claims are simply lies to back up a lie Mith - now tell me why, on a Christian forum of all places, we should not demand that such antics, laced in conspiracy, should actually come out and form an evidenced based position to START?

Its pretty easy to use google to form a never ending argument from absurdity, wherein you simply reject what is shown you. But not a single atheist has ever formulated an solid case against historical Jesus, not have they managed to post a credible alternative solution to the problem.

I agree. But when you say things like this -
there is no point in pretending that people publicly admitting they are not checking their sources in line with the conclusions they claim, while in your own opinion, " The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning," should be afforded respect.
- you are essentially saying that debators needn't respect each other at all, because virtually anyone could make those kinds of accusations against their opponents. As Goat pointed out, though you aren't yet "publicly admitting" so, it seems apparent that you yourself had not checked your source in line with the conclusion you claimed about Mark being a first-hand account. Does that mean you shouldn't be afforded some respect?

When, as a Christian am I allowed to take issue with the deliberate spread of falsehood about the foundation of my faith?

You'll pardon the expression Mith, but if I started a conversation with you by claiming you mother was a myth and that you were a creature of delusion ... you might find that offensive. You might find it HIGHLY offensive if I started founding groups to spread the same tomfollery about you when you KNOW its false ...

Well, its EXACTLY what atheists are doing.

Its noticing it however that is uncivil?

Simply put Mith, I disagree ...
quite strongly.

That's not EXACTLY what sceptics of Jesus' existence are doing, not by a long shot. For starters how you feel about a man who you've never even met is not even remotely comparable to how you feel about the person who gave birth to and raised you - and I suspect that most mothers who are not devout Christians would find that suggestion highly offensive!

But really you're just making my point that to the extent such a discussion descends to incivillity, it is at least partly because of those who choose to take it personally. You don't like some folks' views and, for reasons which they probably don't understand, their views are hurtful or offensive to you like insults to your own mother. But to say that those people shouldn't be afforded some respect, based on some inadequacy or other in their discussion technique, is not a good response at all, I think. Far better to at least aim for respect and better understanding of each others views - biases, miseducation and all - even though most of us do stoop to insults and bickering on occasion (I think Historia and Student might have been the only ones in the thread who haven't ). Throwing respect out the window entirely - for whatever reason - largely undermines the very point of debate and discussion forums.

[stubbornone]

by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

Right, after Goat, Danmark, and Nickman did it ... and I have a discussion about it with the mods ... its not happening because you say so. Look harder at Nickman's stuff - and how about you let him defend himself rather than you blindly taking his side?

Or do you enjoy dealing in rash speculation?

I do, sometimes If you recall it was from a discussion between Nickman and I that he confessed that, unlike normally, he had not checked his source. This apparently was enough for you to leap upon, not with any new content, but with the same old accusations that he'd run to moderators, that he has an "offensive position that Christians are seriously nutter" and so on. Of course I myself have jumped in on conversations in the past, so no particular criticism there; but I'd like to think that I've done so with comments of substance, and more to the point I generally don't complain when one of the participants replies to my post.

#1 - Nickman has also had conversations with me, suggest you review them.

#2 - you just avoided the fact that multiple posters engaged in the behavior.

Who is complaining? I pointed out that the Jesus Myth was a massive conspiracy and lie and that, by examining the evidence, the base dishonesty is quickly revealed. Somehow that is MORE offensive that catching them and THEN calling then dishonest?

Once again Mith, hundreds of Jesus Mythers - always the same pattern. Why not make the prediction first? Why not acknowledge the intellectual validity of a conspiracy theory right up front?

You said that "there is no point in pretending that people [of X type]... should be afforded respect," and I am disagreeing with you: There is a real and important point to respecting folk with whom we disagree. Have my criticisms of Nickman's views been over the top and disrespectful? You're probably correct there. But my own actions don't make it right for me or anyone else to disrespect other people because of their views - if we're naming fallacies, that'd be tu quoque - and they certainly don't make it right for anyone to advocate such disrespect.

There is a difference between affording a person respect and affording a POSITION respect.

If you walk into a crowded building and scream fire, no one is going to think that your actions are terribly respectful - in fact, you'd be called to task for it.

So why, in a debate forum, when someone is clearly being dishonest, clearly taking a position that is lie - supported by lies - and then simply using google to find any old reason to resist? That is called an argument from absurdity, and people engaged in using it do not have positions that are terribly respectable.

The reverse, in Christianity, is an ardent Creationist who denies evolution - he too can use that fascinating modern tool known as google to find any evidence he wants to continue his preconception. In fact, just like Nickman did, he would - and, just like Nickman, you would find the same source errors passed on without thought.

However, I do not see too many ardent Creationists on this - or any other site - bashing atheists with Creationism and denying evolution.

But tell me Mith, when someone denies evolution and calls people such as yourself delusional and a threat to modernity? Well, do you respect such positions in the slightest?

I'm not an atheist - see that group under my avatar which says Panentheist?

Yep, and I am also aware that many atheists take the same claim about Einstein and then claim he is atheist anyway.

Nor do I suggest that Jesus didn't exist - I've spent quite a bit of time arguing that he did. If you try to pigeonhole everyone who you discuss things with, rather than taking a few seconds to see or consider that your assumptions may be incorrect, you'll probably find that you keep having difficulties in communicating with them.

You began your claim in this thread denying Jesus, and have indeed clarified your position as against the gospel Jesus - I have rebutted that position several times in this thread, and am now having a vaccuous personal accusation launched rather than a rebuttal.

Perhaps you should examine your own pigeon hole?

It's kinder to believe that someone is a little confused than to believe that they are being dishonest, in my opinion. But since you obviously do know what it means, then presumably you will now acknowledge that your claim - "The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts" - is directly contradicted by your own source, as Goat showed you in the case of Mark. Nickman was honest enough to admit his error in not checking his source earlier, which you took as an opportunity for further ridicule. Are you honest enough to admit your error?

Its not an error. Luke was ostensibly written by ... Luke. The authorship cannot be conclusively determined. That does not mean that it is not a first person source does it?

Lets try the definition for you:

In history, a first person (or primary source) is listed as: "Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information."

So, if I am a witness to the event, and I write it down ... guess what?

Feel free to take your own advice now.

It's generally not a big deal if someone is confused about my views: When I first joined the forum, before I added my 'former Christian' tag, quite a few people thought and spoke to me as though I was a Christian, because generally my posts have been more favourable to Christianity than against. But you seem to be making an awfully big issue out of two positions which I don't hold - one of which I've spend half the thread arguing against. Again I'd suggest that it's best to step back a bit, perhaps calmly mull it over a while, and read what someone is actually writing. I get a bit over-involved in discussions at times too, a little too keen to prove the other guy wrong rather than to exchange ideas with him, so I hope you don't take this as criticism. I think you might find your discussions a bit more productive this way, is all.

I suggest you review my positions Mith.

#1 - your 'gospel Jesus' was rebutted - and ignored.

#2 - You directly accused me of making serious factual errors - worse than Goat actually.

I have spelled out my position on the Jesus Myth in some detail, and yet you seem to be ignoring that in favor of issuing personal advice - advice that is well wide of the mark.

Once again, take a deep breath and re-read what's being said. Unless my memory is much worse in my late 20s than I thought it was, that is a direct quote of the only occasion I used the word 'strawman' in a post directed at you - and very clearly, if you read it again, you'll see the strawmen I'm referring to are over-reactions to Christian arguments. I even specifically explained to you which argument of Nickman's I was alluding to

You began by stating that I was making serious factual errors did you not? Please back it up.

And Nickman is not reacting to any over statements or zany Christian arguments is he? He is passing along the previously disproven 'scholarship' of Wells that litters atheist forums, which he finds on google after the fact, and claiming it was evidence that DROVE him to the position.

Its not a reaction to anything Christian - its the result of atheist peppering of the Jesus Myth in almost everything they do publicly. Its the result of the deliberate miseducation of atheists by atheists.

Once again Mith, do you really think either Goat or Nickman, who cannot list a single biography (a secondary source) they read and were instead sitting around reading the ancient Greek manuscripts, the primary sources, where they just happened to discover a series of flawed errors that are in lock step with Wells much maligned but highly plagurized (at least by atheist web sites) material?

And atheists don't believe in miracles, eh?

By comparison, it's obvious that things like the stories of Jesus' birth and childhood, his predictions of the great tribulation and his second coming, his trial before Pilate and the scene at his empty tomb have all been altered between the different gospel accounts, and usually in a discernable pattern. That's called embellishment. You may not agree with this of course, though I'm not very interested in discussing it further. I'm simply explaining why the argument Nickman addressed to me, which depended heavily on the gospels' stories about Jesus, was a strawman.

Each of the synoptic gospels was written from a different point of view and intended for a different audience Mith.

"Matthew's original, it is thought, may have been made for the church in Jerusalem, from which other churches obtained copies.
Mark may have intended his book for the church of Rome. Copies, no doubt were sent to other churches.
Luke wrote his Gospel for an individual named Theophilus, which may have been a high official in the Roman government.
John's Gospel is thought to have been intended originally for the church of Ephesus.

Not only did the four evangelists write for different readers, but each one reflected his own personality in his writing. They had the same story to tell, the story of a man, of how He lived, and what He did and said. But each told the story in his own way, mentioning that which especially appealed to him, which is what accounts for the differences between the Gospels."

Now, please show evidence of a deliberate pattern of deception and exaggeration - which is what you are claiming. Such evidence simply does not exist.

It goes right back to what I said Mith - you simply extrapolated your own prejudices upon the events of the gospels that we cannot verify or disprove. And upon examination, your claim hold no more weight than any other - save that it assumes that honest men are lying ... quite deliberately.

I agree. But when you say things like this -
there is no point in pretending that people publicly admitting they are not checking their sources in line with the conclusions they claim, while in your own opinion, " The fact that you claim it still "plays on your part" further illustrates your confused reasoning," should be afforded respect.
- you are essentially saying that debators needn't respect each other at all, because virtually anyone could make those kinds of accusations against their opponents. As Goat pointed out, though you aren't yet "publicly admitting" so, it seems apparent that you yourself had not checked your source in line with the conclusion you claimed about Mark being a first-hand account. Does that mean you shouldn't be afforded some respect?

#1 - you keep hammering away at something you are wrong on, and is irrelevant other than apparently, by your own admission, attempting to score points on. And you are STILL wrong.

#2 - Not all POSITIONS deserve respect. Mind numbingly dishonest conspiracy theories do not deserve to be treated as serious academia or scholarship.

Indeed, every - apparently rude - prediction I made about this silly conspiracy has been proven true in this thread.

At some point, just like the boy who cried Wolf - such positions earn their positions of contempt.

Nickman and Goat COULD actually defend their silly position, but the idea that a position that has been PROFESSIONALLY dismissed as utter insanity and beyond reason is not a position, particularly given its popularity in atheist ciricles, that should be afforded a place of honor in the academic sun.

If you think it does? Well, that is your opinion. Yet when people trample history to deface someone else's faith? I think that is FAR more uncivil than rejecting in the strongest terms possible such tomfoolery.

Rather than blast those who strenuously disagree with the Jesus Myth and its tin foil hat wearing conspiraists, I would ask that you direct your ire at the atheists communities who have so badly, and quite deliberately, miseducated their apparently unthinking flock.

That's not EXACTLY what sceptics of Jesus' existence are doing, not by a long shot. For starters how you feel about a man who you've never even met is not even remotely comparable to how you feel about the person who gave birth to and raised you - and I suspect that most mothers who are not devout Christians would find that suggestion highly offensive!

Well, you disagree - with the evidence provided and easily verified in this fascinating modern era we live in.

Again, why when you go to a Jewish Web site, a faith that has every reason to deny Jesus, do you not see the Jesus Myth? Its ONLY on atheist websites or on the fleetingly few academic sources that are ... written and funded by atheists.

Now, would you care to address the evience - or are you once again claiming that the substance of debate should be about whether or not positions are offensive?

I made a claim and backed it up with evidence.

You rejected that claim and called it offensive.

My position is clearly an explanation for what is happening and found on any internet forum where Christianity is debated. Yours? Seems rather emotional.

But really you're just making my point that to the extent such a discussion descends to incivillity, it is at least partly because of those who choose to take it personally. You don't like some folks' views and, for reasons which they probably don't understand, their views are hurtful or offensive to you like insults to your own mother. But to say that those people shouldn't be afforded some respect, based on some inadequacy or other in their discussion technique, is not a good response at all, I think. Far better to at least aim for respect and better understanding of each others views - biases, miseducation and all - even though most of us do stoop to insults and bickering on occasion (I think Historia and Student might have been the only ones in the thread who haven't ). Throwing respect out the window entirely - for whatever reason - largely undermines the very point of debate and discussion forums.

And what possible good comes out of walking around with a Jack and Bean Stalk mentality that assumes every religious person around you is a nit ball who has not taken the time to check their facts - when in fact that would be YOU?

The miseducation of historicity of Jesus is not something you can charge Christianity with. We have the record, we give it freely, there are massive instructional materials that pull the adherents of Jesus ever deeper into the record and a lively debate about what it means ... a lively debate that Goat had no problem deliberately dumping - as a strawman - onto the forum.

The discussion you are engaged in is one thing - that of Nickman and Goat - quite another. It is you who took issue, claimed outright falsehood, in my position against the former two, and for what?

Conspiracy theories based on lies do not deserve respect. In fact, the onus of one claiming that millenia of historical analysis and screaming, "The basis of a major world religion is FALSE," falls entirely upon the person such an incredible claim - and the bar for such a claim is VERY high.

If instead such a silly claim is backed by atheist baseball - wherein EVERYONE else has to provide evidence, and then the atheist just has to use google to find any old excuse to deny it?

Well, that is called an argument from absurdity. Its intellectually bankrupt.

So, it appears you are hung up on the term 'respect'.

Let me clarify in no uncertain terms:

The Jesus Myth is an intellectual position that is utterly without merit and should be treated as such - a position fully supported by the larger academic community.

The same applies to any zany conspiracy theory.

[Mithrae]

It's kinder to believe that someone is a little confused than to believe that they are being dishonest, in my opinion. But since you obviously do know what it means, then presumably you will now acknowledge that your claim - "The Synoptic Gospels. First hand accounts" - is directly contradicted by your own source, as Goat showed you in the case of Mark. Nickman was honest enough to admit his error in not checking his source earlier, which you took as an opportunity for further ridicule. Are you honest enough to admit your error?

Its not an error. Luke was ostensibly written by ... Luke. The authorship cannot be conclusively determined. That does not mean that it is not a first person source does it?

That's a no then.

I agree that Luke was probably written by Luke, who was a gentile companion of Paul (possibly from Antioch) and explicitly stated that he was writing based on earlier accounts (Luke 1:1-4). So at least two of the synoptic gospels are not first-hand accounts.

By comparison, it's obvious that things like the stories of Jesus' birth and childhood, his predictions of the great tribulation and his second coming, his trial before Pilate and the scene at his empty tomb have all been altered between the different gospel accounts, and usually in a discernable pattern. That's called embellishment. You may not agree with this of course, though I'm not very interested in discussing it further. I'm simply explaining why the argument Nickman addressed to me, which depended heavily on the gospels' stories about Jesus, was a strawman.

Each of the synoptic gospels was written from a different point of view and intended for a different audience Mith.

"Matthew's original, it is thought, may have been made for the church in Jerusalem, from which other churches obtained copies.
Mark may have intended his book for the church of Rome. Copies, no doubt were sent to other churches.
Luke wrote his Gospel for an individual named Theophilus, which may have been a high official in the Roman government.
John's Gospel is thought to have been intended originally for the church of Ephesus.

Not only did the four evangelists write for different readers, but each one reflected his own personality in his writing. They had the same story to tell, the story of a man, of how He lived, and what He did and said. But each told the story in his own way, mentioning that which especially appealed to him, which is what accounts for the differences between the Gospels."

Now, please show evidence of a deliberate pattern of deception and exaggeration - which is what you are claiming. Such evidence simply does not exist.

It goes right back to what I said Mith - you simply extrapolated your own prejudices upon the events of the gospels that we cannot verify or disprove. And upon examination, your claim hold no more weight than any other - save that it assumes that honest men are lying ... quite deliberately.

First bear in mind that the gospel of 'Matthew' does not say that it was written by Matthew - and in fact the first information we have about the writings of that apostle come from Papias, who says he wrote the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue. Since canonical Matthew is a narrative in Greek, and appears to have copied extensively from Mark (even the story of Matthew's own call by Jesus!), we have good reason to suppose that it's not the apostolic work Papias mentioned. It's possible that the hypothetical Q sayings source could have been Matthew's work.

As we saw earlier Papias also said that Mark wrote down whatever he recalled of the sermons of Peter, and much later Irenaeus (c.180CE) agreed that he wrote after Peter's death - hence sometime after 64CE. Like Paul, to many readers Mark's gospel appears to imply that the return of Jesus is just around the corner; in it Jesus says that "there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power" (9:1) and that "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (13:30).

The gospel of 'Matthew' - which most scholars agree was based on Mark for reasons such as its correction of Mark's poor Greek grammar - changes one of those verses and goes much further in expecting Jesus' immediate return. The "kingdom of God present with power" in Mark could be ambiguous, and might be interpreted as the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but Matthew changes it to "there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). In fact frequently throughout his work Matthew changes 'kingdom of God' into 'kingdom of heaven,' the only evangelist to use that term. He also adds another comment not found in Mark, that "assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:23). These are not ambiguous; obviously 'Matthew' expected Jesus to return very soon. Why? Probably because of the Jewish revolt which culminated in the Roman armies in Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70CE; he suggests to his readers that these are in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (24:15), so it's likely that the gospel was written within a year or three afterwards.

Luke, who specifically mentions the written accounts which had been made before his (Luke 1:1-4), was written later still. In fact there's compelling evidence that Luke was familiar with the work of Josephus, who wrote his Jewish War around 76CE. Luke does not say that Jesus will come before the cities of Israel have been visited. In fact in Luke, when asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come Jesus replies that "the kingdom of God is within you" (17:20-21). Whereas Mark and Matthew both write about the abomination of desolation in the temple, Luke changes this to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies":

• Mark 13:14 “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’ standing where it ought notâ€� (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house.
  
  Matthew 24:15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place� (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house.
  
  Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her

In Luke's gospel, "Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" (21:24). Luke continues the tradition that Jesus will return soon, but unlike 'Matthew' he really doesn't pretend to know how soon it'll be.

John, which is almost universally agreed to be the last gospel written, scarcely writes about the return of Jesus at all. Jesus privately tells his disciples that he's going to prepare a place for them, for an indefinite period of time during which the Holy Spirit will come to guide them while they remain on earth (John 14). In the appendix to the gospel, the "saying [that] went out among the brethren" that someone would live until Jesus' return (so strongly emphasised in Matthew!) is carefully downplayed (21:20-23). For the record, I consider that quite strong evidence that John (alone among the gospels) actually is a first-hand account, since this appendix was evidently written not long after John the last apostle's death - after the terrific hopes of Matthew's day had finally been brought down to the more patient waiting of the last 1900 years.

Would you say that "honest men are lying" in these expressions of their opinions? That's your call I suppose, though I'd say that's rather harsh language to be using. But however you choose to describe it, it is very clear that we have here at least one example of the story of Jesus changing over time to reflect the needs and beliefs of those who presented it.

[stubbornone]

That's a no then.

I agree that Luke was probably written by Luke, who was a gentile companion of Paul (possibly from Antioch) and explicitly stated that he was writing based on earlier accounts (Luke 1:1-4). So at least two of the synoptic gospels are not first-hand accounts.

Agh, no - that would be a yes. If Luke is writing a more detailed recount of his experiences ... while relying on his own notes ... like ..GASP ... modern historians do ... that is STILL a primary source.

Luke was there to witness the events ... pretty simple.

You were saying about the inability to acknowledge when one was wrong?

First bear in mind that the gospel of 'Matthew' does not say that it was written by Matthew - and in fact the first information we have about the writings of that apostle come from Papias, who says he wrote the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue. Since canonical Matthew is a narrative in Greek, and appears to have copied extensively from Mark (even the story of Matthew's own call by Jesus!), we have good reason to suppose that it's not the apostolic work Papias mentioned. It's possible that the hypothetical Q sayings source could have been Matthew's work.

I am aware if this. None of it points to a deliberate pattern of deception does it? You have made the case that the extraordinary claims of the Bible are 'obviously' exaggerated, and what you have dumped out is the historians view of how much we can verify and how much we cannot.

That does not point to deliberate deception.

As we saw earlier Papias also said that Mark wrote down whatever he recalled of the sermons of Peter, and much later Irenaeus (c.180CE) agreed that he wrote after Peter's death - hence sometime after 64CE. Like Paul, to many readers Mark's gospel appears to imply that the return of Jesus is just around the corner; in it Jesus says that "there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power" (9:1) and that "this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (13:30)

Once again, nothing that points to great 'exaggerations' merely toward human errors of those who were not the Son of God.

Being wrong as a human and deliberately exaggerating are two very different things.

The gospel of 'Matthew' - which most scholars agree was based on Mark for reasons such as its correction of Mark's poor Greek grammar - changes one of those verses and goes much further in expecting Jesus' immediate return. The "kingdom of God present with power" in Mark could be ambiguous, and might be interpreted as the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but Matthew changes it to "there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matthew 16:28). In fact frequently throughout his work Matthew changes 'kingdom of God' into 'kingdom of heaven,' the only evangelist to use that term. He also adds another comment not found in Mark, that "assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:23). These are not ambiguous; obviously 'Matthew' expected Jesus to return very soon. Why? Probably because of the Jewish revolt which culminated in the Roman armies in Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70CE; he suggests to his readers that these are in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (24:15), so it's likely that the gospel was written within a year or three afterwards.

Once again, these are not exaggerations. That one of the earl evangelists calls something the Kingdom of heaven and others do not, simply points to the difficulty of turning Jesus's life into a church - not to a pattern of extraordinary claims.

This is not what you claimed, but merely - once again - back to question of how much we can verify. Its the historians problem of weighing these sources as they HONESTLY and with their own lens of perception attempt to interpret what they saw. That does not point to a series of calculated, deliberate, and patternable extrapolations - and that is what you claimed.

Luke, who specifically mentions the written accounts which had been made before his (Luke 1:1-4), was written later still. In fact there's compelling evidence that Luke was familiar with the work of Josephus, who wrote his Jewish War around 76CE. Luke does not say that Jesus will come before the cities of Israel have been visited. In fact in Luke, when asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come Jesus replies that "the kingdom of God is within you" (17:20-21). Whereas Mark and Matthew both write about the abomination of desolation in the temple, Luke changes this to "Jerusalem surrounded by armies":

• Mark 13:14 “So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation’ standing where it ought notâ€� (let the reader understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house.

Once again, you are merely quoting historians - but you are not making much of a case for deliberate exaggerations. You are, to quote:

"The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ."

http://bede.org.uk/price1.htm

You are arguing about contradictions in minutia, what you claimed was an established pattern of exaggeration.

I am going to stop there, because its the same pattern throughout your analysis. You are arguing bits of minutia that have been poured over even by critics within the church. There are people WITHIN the preistly ranks of the Catholic Church that point out many of the same things - for example, claiming that the virgin birth of Christ is an exaggeration - one that in no way takes away from the steller life and accomplishments of Jesus Christ.

The same can be said of your presentation, which is simply matters of minutia that in no way even so much as speak to the life of Jesus and his miraculous works, ignores entirely the much greater harmony rather than discordance between the accepted epistles - more importantly, it makes no case whatsoever of a pattern of deliberate exaggeration - merely in disagreement in the details ...

Anyone familiar with the early church history or the creation of the Canon, the heretical and gnostic gospels, is not surprised by any of what you write - and indeed why the early church fathers so often attempted to create Church Canon before finally succeeding under Constantine.

Once again, a reminder of the conclusion of actual scholars at the end of the debate ...

" That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

The historicity of Jesus is beyond question. How much we know, and indeed can know, is perhaps a worthy debate ... that is not what this OP started out as. It started out as a Jesus Myth thread, and having examined, and understanding the difficulties in the VERY ABUNDANT evidential record, my position remains the same:

Study it and arrive at your own conclusions. The record in not hidden, and I would challenge any to make an honest examination of the records that are available.

Whether you come away convinces that Jesus was of the gospel or merely an extraordinary man, (I will say there is no way a sane man examining the record would come away convinced that Jesus was not real), but you will come away deeply touched by a story of tremendous compassion and selflessness.

But then, that was kind of the point.

[Goat]

by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

Right, after Goat, Danmark, and Nickman did it ... and I have a discussion about it with the mods ... its not happening because you say so. Look harder at Nickman's stuff - and how about you let him defend himself rather than you blindly taking his side?

Or do you enjoy dealing in rash speculation?

But heh, you need to go personal because a Christian was beating an atheist ... and atheists can't allow that! No SIR!

\
Of course there's a point in respecting other people, even if their arguments are not very good. In fact I'd say there's more reason to respect folk who don't check their sources but admit it when called on it, than folk who don't check their sources and throw insults when called on it. I'm thinking of the following exchange, in which you claimed that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts > provided a 'source' for that claim > were shown that your source directly contradicts your claim > and then simply responded with insults:

No Mithrea, what you are doing is saying its fine when you do it, but a crime when others do it.

Its called the fallacy of special pleading.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

And when atheists lash out as you are - it usually is with such double standards. You were every bit as rude to Nickman as I was, the difference is ... I am quoting actual scholars.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

Yes, lets do it again shall we?

#1 - Thomas is listed and dated before Mark - so we have established that there is another atheist not bothering to check sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

#2 - Here is the evidence on Mark, from the same site.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

It has references to the entire academic debate about Mark. The ENTIRE thing. But somehow, if I go in and quote parts that support my position, and you quote parts that support your positions ... we'll arrive at what? The fact that in such a debate we are simply picking and choosing?

Yes, there is the arguments about Mark. Now, what was your claim again?? Ah yes..that the synoptic gospels were written by eye witnesses.

I will agree. that page has lots of references about all the academic debate about Mark.

now, where in all that debate can you find someone who says Mark is an eye witness?? That IS the source you used of course.

[stubbornone]

by Nickman was that "I have never reported anyone on this forum for any rule broken." Your ongoing accusation of 'running to moderators' is slander, pure and simple

Right, after Goat, Danmark, and Nickman did it ... and I have a discussion about it with the mods ... its not happening because you say so. Look harder at Nickman's stuff - and how about you let him defend himself rather than you blindly taking his side?

Or do you enjoy dealing in rash speculation?

But heh, you need to go personal because a Christian was beating an atheist ... and atheists can't allow that! No SIR!

\
Of course there's a point in respecting other people, even if their arguments are not very good. In fact I'd say there's more reason to respect folk who don't check their sources but admit it when called on it, than folk who don't check their sources and throw insults when called on it. I'm thinking of the following exchange, in which you claimed that the synoptic gospels were first-hand accounts > provided a 'source' for that claim > were shown that your source directly contradicts your claim > and then simply responded with insults:

No Mithrea, what you are doing is saying its fine when you do it, but a crime when others do it.

Its called the fallacy of special pleading.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ading.html

And when atheists lash out as you are - it usually is with such double standards. You were every bit as rude to Nickman as I was, the difference is ... I am quoting actual scholars.

There, the very first one, and the one that the others copied, by church tradition,was not written by an eye witness. This directly contradicts your claim. Your very own source contradicts your claim in not only about the passion narrative.. since it claims there is doubt it even existed,.. but about Mark being an eye witness.

Would you care to back up your claim about the other synoptic gospels.. or do I have to show that you are not even reading the very web site you are pointing me to?

Yes, lets do it again shall we?

#1 - Thomas is listed and dated before Mark - so we have established that there is another atheist not bothering to check sources.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

#2 - Here is the evidence on Mark, from the same site.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

It has references to the entire academic debate about Mark. The ENTIRE thing. But somehow, if I go in and quote parts that support my position, and you quote parts that support your positions ... we'll arrive at what? The fact that in such a debate we are simply picking and choosing?

Yes, there is the arguments about Mark. Now, what was your claim again?? Ah yes..that the synoptic gospels were written by eye witnesses.

I will agree. that page has lots of references about all the academic debate about Mark.

now, where in all that debate can you find someone who says Mark is an eye witness?? That IS the source you used of course.

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.