Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 18 by JP Cusick]

This analogy with "the 3 pigs and wolf" is really clever and well done.

I am not agreeing with that analogy - but it deserves my praise for being so clever.

Thanks. While it may be bad form for a comedian to explain her or his jokes, as an investigator of the historicity of Jesus I should explain this analogy of the Jesus story to The Three Little Pigs. I'm pointing out that the same evidence for a historical Jesus is to be had for a fictional tale. You can make the same arguments for the validity of either story. One key difference between the stories, though, is that so many of us want to believe the Jesus story while we normally reject The Three Little Pigs as a fairy tale for kids. Belief in a story, of course, does not make it true, and mere belief does not make the Jesus story any more true than The Three Little Pigs.

According to scholars ( and I agree) we can clearly see the beginning of the synoptic Gospels aligning at Mark 1:2 and Matthew 3:1 and Luke 3:2, because that is where the synoptic problem begins = with John the Baptist.

Note that Mark was written earlier than either Matthew or Luke and served as one of their sources. Yet the birth narratives appear only in Matthew and Luke. It appears that we see a story in the making.

...the two (2) birth stories have a different and unique origin which is unknown.

The fact that we do not know the sources of these birth narratives (we know it wasn't Mark) we cannot know if they have any historical validity. Both Matthew and Luke neglect to name any of their sources for anything they say. They don't even bother to tell us who they are or why we should trust them.

The 2 birth stories are just seen as non professional and amateur accounts and they were not necessarily trying to be historically perfect...

I do believe that the birth stories are very charming and exhibit a style similar to that of Homer's works. Some scholars like Robert Price and Richard Carrier maintain that Homer was an inspiration for the gospel writers, and they draw parallels between the gospels and Homer's The Odyssey and The Iliad.

There is no reason to expect the elderly Joseph or the elderly Elizabeth to tell their story to a scribe writing and then get all the details correct...

Yes, and that's another problem for historicity. How would Luke, Matthew, or anybody else know all these birth-story details? Was there an eyewitness to the unborn John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth's womb upon seeing Mary? Details like these are more likely to be part of fiction rather than history. You might argue that Elizabeth or Mary told Luke or Matthew these stories, but you can only speculate that they did because neither Luke nor Matthew bother to tell us. Again, this is very weak evidence for historicity and is therefore probably myth.

[JP Cusick]

What is this Gospel of Jesus? Does one mean the advent of Muhammad/Ahmad*- the corrective messenger/prophet of God Allah YHVH, please?

*Paraclete- the Spirit of Truth

There is some debate as to what is the true gospel, and some of us have found the solution, and it is said like this in one of the most compelling of prophesies:

Matthew 24:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

That is declaring that the one (1) true Gospel that truly counts is the gospel about the coming kingdom of God - on earth as it is in heaven.

That is the gospel that Jesus preached - it was not the gospel about Jesus (not about His self).

Muhammad and the Qur'an also speaks repeatedly about this same message of the coming Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

That same text of Matthew 24:14 is where the "Jehovah Witnesses" get their name as a "witness" to that same "gospel" message of the coming Kingdom. FYI.

[marco]

Does one mean the advent of Muhammad/Ahmad*- the corrective messenger/prophet of God Allah YHVH, please?

*Paraclete- the Spirit of Truth

Muhammad corrected nothing but he muddled up Bible stories. He introduced an Arab setting into heaven and installed some green couches for pretty girls to sit on, waiting for dusty dead soldiers to arrive. It is utterly hilarious and marks one of the greatest miracles: how people can actually believe it is true.


But let us stop calling Muhammad the Holy Spirit who entered the room the apostles were in and breathed tongues of fire. He was just a poor trader who had one daughter who survived. It is amazing that people believe God got personal with the family of Muhammad, with his many wives. It is amazing that one should think this adventurer had anything to do with what is in the New Testament. Corrector he was not. Christ warned about such as he, false prophets. We should maybe heed Christ's warning.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

You may say you can but you didn't. You created a mess of words with no meaning that can be sensibly extracted. I have the same view as you about the Christmas story, but you don't assist your cause by presenting nonsense as parody.

While I'm not sure what my cause might be, I lampooned some of the most common arguments for the historical Jesus to demonstrate that those arguments can be used to lend legitimacy to stories that are fictional. As such they are not legitimate arguments for historicity.

On the other hand, if one is willing to discuss seriously and thoughtfully, there is a meaning to be extracted from angel choirs, gifts and shepherds. One need not take the account as factual as with Adam in his orchard.

I agree with what you're saying here. Just like Eve and Adam in the garden, the story of Jesus in his own garden (of Gethsemane) is probably allegory as well. Little if anything in the gospels makes much sense if we assume it to be historical. For example, why would Jesus attempt to hide in Gethsemane knowing that Judas would know he was there? The story probably has some symbolic meaning and never really happened.

At least we are examining events from history here and separating fact from fiction.

Really? Just like the Three Little Pig scholars sift the "facts" of the wolf and the pigs from the fiction of the wolf's speech and the pig's house? My point is that preposterous stories probably have little if any history in them, and it is folly to think that we can glean much history at all from them.

I will assume that your excursion into lupine-porcine tales was just an indication that you failed to understand completely what point was being made about the Christmas story.

The "Christmas story" as you should know has pagan origins. I assume you mean the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke have some symbolic meaning. It appears that the two stories serve to place Jesus into history as being "born of a woman." In other words, the Christian god has come to earth to live as one of us. The early Christians probably believed a Jesus who has "come in the flesh" would be more impressive than a solely celestial Jesus. After all, so many of the pagan gods never lived among us as one of us. They were just too remote in space and time. Jesus would be different!

[marco]

The early Christians probably believed a Jesus who has "come in the flesh" would be more impressive than a solely celestial Jesus. After all, so many of the pagan gods never lived among us as one of us. They were just too remote in space and time. Jesus would be different!

I'm not in disagreement with you. Jesus was deified probably to emulate the deification of figures such as Augustus. If they can have gods, so can we. I examine these tales as I might critique Hamlet and my task here was to see which Jesus was more fictional. I concluded that the Muslim Jesus appears so. If we take angels soaring across Middle eastern skies and kings from all over the place calling with strange presents, then I agree we are in Wonderland or at home with the pigs. But I don't take these stories as factual and we need not deduce from the Bethlehem story that Jesus was born as a godling. That came later.

The Quran account, given by God himself, is meant as a report of what actually happened. Allah hateth a metaphor, it would seem.

[Goose]

What you're saying here might sound impressive at first blush, but upon closer examination it doesn't stand up.

It sounds impressive because it is impressive by comparison. Four ancient biographies within 70 years. That alone is impressive. Name one other figure from first century Judea which has that going for him.

Paul openly admits that his "knowledge" of Jesus comes from revelations and not eyewitnesses or solid evidence.

And? Don’t forget the parts where Paul tells us he went to see Peter and James in Jerusalem for two weeks (Gal 1:18-19). That word Paul uses, ἱστο�ε�ω,is defined as “to ascertain by inquiry and examination; to inquire of;, in NT to visit in order to become acquainted with.�

Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem he vetted his Gospel through the disciples having met Peter, John, and James that time (Gal 2:9).

In short, whatever we may say about Paul’s personal experiences with Jesus, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and in direct contact with key disciples. That makes Paul a very good historical source.

The four gospels suffer from the following problems as historical evidence:
• The Gospels don't name their sources, discuss those sources' merits, or explain why those sources are relied upon.
• The Gospels do not discuss their methods, the possibility of incorrect information, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts.
• They express no amazement at anything they report.
• They do not explain why they change what their sources say.
• The authors do not identify themselves or why they are qualified to relate the accounts they do.

1. Granting these points you made no argument as to why they create “problems� for the Gospels as historical evidence. You merely asserted they did.

2. These points could all be true of the Gospels (or any work from history for that matter) and they could still yield reliable historical information. So the arguments here are interesting talking points but ultimately fail to prove anything.

3. Some of these points are disputable anyway. For instance, you argue the Gospels don’t name their sources but this objection hinges on the premise the Gospels are not built upon eyewitness testimony. We wouldn’t expect for example John to name his source if it was an eyewitness account. Further, this point seems to be wrong anyway or at least a broad generalization. Luke does tell his sources are witnesses in his opening. John’s Gospel claims to be written by a witness who was a disciple. As for not reporting amazement at anything they report. I have to ask. Have you read the Gospels? The Gospels use the word ἐκπλη�σσω 13 times. As for not identifying themselves. It was more common not to explicitly and intentionally identify oneself as the author in an ancient bio than to do so.

4. You’ve not shown how a single, let alone the majority of, secular biography from the same era pass through this criteria. I can think of several secular works off the top of my head that would suffer most if not all the same “problems� you’ve listed here and yet historians use those works to reconstruct history. For instance, Tacitus bio of Agricola comes to mind. Tacitus doesn’t name his sources nor does he discuss them in Agricola. Nor does he discuss his methods, etc. I can’t find where Tacitus expresses amazement either. He says nothing about his sources so we don’t know if he changed them. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. Lastly, although Tacitus leaves some incidental clues from which we might infer his proximity to Agricola, he does not directly name himself in Agricola. We’d lose the only biography of one Rome’s greatest generals with your criteria. Then there’s Plutarch’s Life Of Caesar, Nicolas of Damascus’ Life of Augustus, and many others. All have at least some of the same “problems.� So your arguments here seems moot unless we are to toss out most of ancient history along with the Gospels.

So good try, but the historical view of Jesus is rapidly going out of fashion.

It is? By whom? Internet sceptics and Richard Carrier? Because the historical view of Jesus is certainly not rapidly going out of style with the vast majority of mainstream NT scholars and historians.

And even it were it doesn’t change the fact the Gospels represent much earlier and therefore more reliable accounts for Jesus than the Quran.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 26 by Goose]

It sounds impressive because it is impressive by comparison. Four ancient biographies within 70 years. That alone is impressive. Name one other figure from first century Judea which has that going for him.

How about an Athenian from 470 – 399 BC? Socrates has the following evidence that is absent for Jesus:

• We know the names of over a dozen eyewitnesses who wrote about Socrates.
• We know the titles of some of these writer's books.
• We have two of those books.
• We have Plato's and Xenophon's works, and they acted as eyewitnesses and disciples to Socrates recording his teachings and stories about him.
• We have a hostile source about Socrates, The Clouds by Aristophanes which pokes fun at Socrates.

By contrast, all we have for Jesus is the gospels and the epistles. The gospels are written by unknown persons who often contradict each other. None of them were eyewitnesses to Jesus. The epistles, most of them written by Paul, have little basis in history considering that many of them have been found to be forgeries. And Paul openly says he got his "information" from visions and revelations! That's not history. I would call it fable although I can think of stronger words to call it.

Don’t forget the parts where Paul tells us he went to see Peter and James in Jerusalem for two weeks...

How is that evidence for Jesus? Paul was a religious propagandist who suffered from hallucinations. His agenda was to get people to convert to his religion. To believe him is like believing Joseph Smith to determine if there really was an angel, Moroni.

Granting these points you made no argument as to why they create “problems� for the Gospels as historical evidence.

I thought it was self-explanatory. If you think unknown people are believable, then please wire some cash to Nigeria to pay the upfront fees asked for in the next email you get that tells you you won the lottery there.

It is? By whom? Internet sceptics and Richard Carrier? Because the historical view of Jesus is certainly not rapidly going out of style with the vast majority of mainstream NT scholars and historians.

In addition to Richard Carrier and Robert Price, both qualified scholars, we now have Raphael Lataster who is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God. You can read his article, "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up."

[Goose]

How about an Athenian from 470 – 399 BC?

Uh, okay. But Socrates wasn’t from first century Judea. You do know that right? I asked for someone from first century Judea since someone from first century Judea would be comparable to Jesus.

Socrates has the following evidence that is absent for Jesus:

You are Begging the Question in the following points. Let’s have a look at your circular argumentation.

We know the names of over a dozen eyewitnesses who wrote about Socrates.

You do, huh? Tell me how you know them.

We know the titles of some of these writer's books.

How do you know them? Is it because later writers attributed titles and authorship to them? I’ll bet it is.

We have two of those books.

Do you? Name them. Tell me how you know who wrote them.

We have Plato's and Xenophon's works, and they acted as eyewitnesses and disciples to Socrates recording his teachings and stories about him.

Begging the Question big time. Tell me the methodology you used to determine these anonymous works were in fact written by Plato and Xenophon. Tell me how you know Plato and Xenophon really were eyewitnesses and disciples.

We have a hostile source about Socrates, The Clouds by Aristophanes which pokes fun at Socrates

The Clouds also features, as one of the main characters in the play, a chorus of winged immortal goddesses (the Clouds). But you don’t think those were real do you?

And you are committing another Question Begging fallacy. The Clouds is an anonymous comedic play (a fictional play by the way, not a bio or history) which was attributed to Aristophanes by later writers.

By contrast, all we have for Jesus is the gospels and the epistles. The gospels are written by unknown persons who often contradict each other. None of them were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

But that would be more than has come down to us for Socrates it seems. Sadly the main primary sources for the life of Socrates that have come down to us are several wildly contradictory (ever heard of the Socratic Problem?) and anonymous works attributed to Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. That’s right, they are all, strictly speaking, just as anonymous as the Gospels. Guess what else. They don’t name their sources or methods either. Uh-oh.

The epistles, most of them written by Paul, have little basis in history considering that many of them have been found to be forgeries.

You mean some are argued to be forgeries. They haven’t been found to be forgeries. And even if we were to grant some are forgeries it doesn’t logically follow the authentic ones therefore have little basis in history. That’s a big fat non-sequitur.

And Paul openly says he got his "information" from visions and revelations! That's not history.

Yeah you said that already and failed to address the arguments I presented to debunk your premise here. Now you are just arguing by mere assertion.

I would call it fable although I can think of stronger words to call it.

But I don’t care what you would call it. I only care about the arguments you can muster up. And they seem to be sorrily lacking any real substance at this point.

How is that evidence for Jesus?

I explained how Paul is evidence. His close proximity to key disciples. But you ignored the entire argument and just ask how this is evidence as though that is a counter argument.

Paul was a religious propagandist who suffered from hallucinations. His agenda was to get people to convert to his religion.

Hello? The people Paul wrote to were already converts. But, yes, Paul was biased of course. Just like everybody else who wrote anything in the ancient world.

To believe him is like believing Joseph Smith to determine if there really was an angel, Moroni.

There could be an analogy there if we are working under the assumption of a divine Jesus. But even then, I think there are sufficient differences for the analogy to fail. One of those differences being Paul was a former enemy of the church and a convert. Whereas Joseph Smith was the originator of Mormonism. It would be a closer analogy between Jesus himself and Joseph Smith in this case.

I thought it was self-explanatory. If you think unknown people are believable, then please wire some cash to Nigeria to pay the upfront fees asked for in the next email you get that tells you you won the lottery there.

That’s your entire response to my four arguments? Wow.

In addition to Richard Carrier and Robert Price, both qualified scholars, we now have Raphael Lataster who is a lecturer in religious studies at the University of Sydney. He is author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God. You can read his article, "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up."

So let me get this straight. Now having Lataster, a self-published Jesus-myther Carrier wanna-be, in addition to Price and Carrier, is why you think “the historical view of Jesus is rapidly going out of fashion�? That statement is almost laughable. Well I guess that is a 50% increase in the number of scholars though. I’ll bet their annual convention is one heck of a humdinger.

The Jesus-myther position is held by a handful of fringe scholars some of which have very heavy agendas against Christianity, such as Carrier. Mythers are a little like YEC in this regard. It’s just not a position held by the overwhelmingly vast majority of scholars, critics and atheists included.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by Jagella]

Hi J:
IAW Goose's request, it may surprise you to know that there are many, many people comparable to Jesus in the first century, and unlike Jesus, there people have census and recorded events that means they actually existed:

Other Jesi

[JP Cusick]

There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.

Many things trouble me about this claim, as like even if there were no Jesus then that does not thereby mean that there is no God.

The claim that - no Jesus means no God - is like a+b=z - or 1+1=0.

The reality and existence of God is not dependent on Jesus, and the real God's existence is not dependent on the Bible.

So the basic premises is wrong and misguided.

Secondly is that the Jesus of the new testament was deemed to be an enemy and a criminal to the powerful Roman Empire, and historical records do tell us that the Roman Empire was aggressively against early Christianity and so Christians were fed to lions and brutally exterminated, and the Christian writing were destroyed, and the Roman authorities destroyed any record of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The fact that the 4 Gospels and the writing of Paul have survived is in itself a huge miracle because the writing had to survive the onslaught of the Roman brutes which surely was no easy task.

There is little historical record - well the Roman savages destroyed everything they could get a hold of.