There are a million “interpretations” of who Jesus is and even who people think Jesus claimed to be. Would the real Jesus please stand up? It’s like the clamor of rebels crying out “I’m Spartacus!” “No! I’m Spartacus!” Confusing? Definitely, but impenetrable? Thankfully, no. Most people (I was included) probably think they have better things to do than to form an educated opinion about who Jesus was or what he really said and did or didn’t. They probably don’t think it matters to their life either way. Most people would rather come up with an explanation that feels good to them of what they think probably happened and many with strong opinions have surprisingly not even read anything about Jesus. It’s a bit odd as he’s probably one of the only persons from history who we treat this way in terms of identity. Even in his day, people were awash with differing opinions as to his identity. Was he a prophet? Another teacher? A political rival? A rebel leader? The Messiah? At that time, it appears in the gospels that he left them to their guesses mostly and only told those who seemed to care about the question. But without a doubt his teaching, both public and private, (and even excluding what is dubbed not authentically attributed to him by skeptical critics) reveals that he thought he was equal with God. Certainly it is undeniable that his earliest followers thought he did. Even Jesus’ execution was due to “blaspheming” in front of the high priest by claiming to be God. It is well established that the Roman governor—as a slap in the face to the leading priests who opposed Jesus—posted his crime as being “The King of the Jews” (something that was never a Christian title for Jesus). This was a title reserved for the one who would be the supernatural king-priest-prophet that was to lead Israel as prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. These are just a small handful of the historical facts which must be encountered when piecing together realistic conclusions about the man who is “the historical Jesus.”
So who did Jesus say Jesus was? That seems to be one of the most clouded issues of this day still, so one might be led to think that history on the matter is a guess at best, spoiled forever amidst religious talk that’s impossible to separate from the real man, but this also presupposes that the truth is apart from the religious talk of the time. Our view of what is recorded must not be colored by modern biases but taken in their context which includes the background story and religious climate of the time. Jesus was not a Buddhist or a Hindu or of some mystical culture. Jesus was a Jew and that must be taken into consideration when judging his teachings. “Is the Pope Catholic?” garners the obvious “yes” answer without having to say it, but we’re understandably not so eager to answer the question of whether Jesus is Messiah or not. Why is it, though, that many are even so reluctant to admit that Jesus so much as claimed it? That should be a matter for historians regardless of the religious nature involved! I can believe that Julius Caesar (100 B.C. to 44 B.C.) probably said words like, “I am Emperor of Rome,” but I have never been shown written proof that he had. Checking what we know, historically, we will find this matter regarding claims to Christhood is not as ambiguous as it has been made to seem. It should not be controversial to say that the historically certain facts of Jesus must be our boundaries (disputed and ambiguous passages aside for the moment) for any useful, informed theory about those facts to touch on reality just as any other historical conclusion attempts to do. Whether he really was the messiah or not is another matter (See my next post on the resurrection).
Here’s just a couple things most scholars seem to agree on (even the radical consensus of the Jesus Seminar admits at least 18% of the sayings we have of Jesus are authentic):
Jesus really told the parable of the wicked servants of the vineyard.
The parable of the wicked vineyard tenants in Mark 12:1-12 is one of three passages in particular which are considered to be authentic sayings of Jesus by even liberal NT scholars. This parable is even accepted by radical critics like the Jesus Seminar (as it also appears in their favorite source, the so-called Gospel of Thomas). It points at Jesus’ divine self-understanding as the unique Son of God and that he is the last to be sent from God to warn Man. (Dr. Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008)
Jesus’ opposed the way the Torah was being interpreted using his own personal teaching (which implies his presumed right to interpret God’s Laws on his own authority). He even seemed to be adding to it! The Jews of that time are recorded as remarking in utter amazement that someone (Jesus) would teach by their own authority. The same could be applied for how he did miracles in his own power and he expected the disciples to get that it meant something about his identity (Mark 8:11-21).
Jesus’ remark “Truly, truly I say to you” as his authoritative mark on some subject he was teaching on (perhaps most notably on the way God’s kingdom works) is unique to Jesus.
And other commonly held facts about Jesus’ life:
Jesus really entered Jerusalem on a donkey to the cheers of the crowd hoping in his messianic identity.
Jesus really caused some sort of disturbance in the temple (overturning the merchant tables), calling it his house. Later leading Jewish leaders demanded that he tell them “by what authority are you doing these things.”
Jesus claimed he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (According to Dr. William Lane Craig, only divine authority could build and destroy the temple by the Jewish reckoning of the day, and this saying is also used against him as evidence in the court of the high priest).
And many more:
Ben Witherington, NT Scholar, says that any conclusion about the identity of Jesus and who he said he was must take into consideration at least thirteen established facts about him (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 2008, p76):
- his independent approach to the Law
- his feeding of the 5,000
- his interpretation of his apparent miracles and exorcisms
- his proclamation of the kingdom of God as present and in-breaking in his ministry
- his choosing of twelve disciples
- his use of the Son of Man
- his use of amen amen (translated as “Truly, truly…”)
- his use of abba (calling God his “Father” in intimate terms)
- his distinguishing himself from his contemporaries
- his belief that one’s eternal standing with God hinged on how one reacted to his ministry
- his understanding that his death was necessary to rectify matters between God and his people
- his sense of mission to the whole of Israel, especially to sinners and outcasts which led to “forbidden” table fellowship with such people
- his raising messianic expectations in a repeated pattern of controversy with his contemporaries (and not correcting them when they understood he was claiming to be equal with God)
And I would add, his family worshipped him as God (Mary and James in particular, the later having become the leader of the Jerusalem church and writing a letter about such beliefs). How does anyone’s mother or siblings start doing that without the person, at the very least, insinuating strongly that he is somebody divine?
Finally:
If Jesus didn’t claim to be God, then how do we explain the existence of the Christian church at all and how they have been proclaiming it since then? It is known that there was already a well established understanding of Jesus as God in the early church by at least 50-55 A.D., twenty years after Jesus’ crucifixion. How is this unanimous? Why did the leaders and a host of their followers all die in proclaiming it across the Roman Empire and beyond for the next 250 years or so? People are still dying proclaiming it. They were sincere about their belief, unquestionably, but the question is did they make it up? Who would die for something they knew as a lie? And have you ever tried to make up a really good lie? Ever found that often there are holes in it? The truth in a half-truth often is the undoing of a lie. Imagine making up not only one really solid lie well mixed with half-truths, but a lie that was a web of many other lies, all of them complimenting the others perfectly so that there was no theological inconsistency. Lies that were so convincing that it all seemed to make sense logically and existentially as people lived it out, so that through the centuries geniuses and skeptics alike would become convinced it was true. That’s what the disciples would have had to do, and in a very short period of time under strain of persecution, to start the explosion of conversions that became the early church which changed the course of history.
Which is more plausible: that they were geniuses with a death wish that made it all up for no benefit of fame or fortune and were all unified about it? Or that they were witnesses to the real thing? Regardless of whether Jesus was the real thing or not, to know that he claimed it is not so controversial and explains where the disciples and early church leaders got their unified view of him from. The question remaining, however, is another story entirely. If the history about who Jesus thought he was is not legend, then he is either the Lord, a liar, or an absolute lunatic. C.S. Lewis’ famous trilemma endures for good reason as a challenge not to place unwarranted trust in waving him off with an inconsequential manufactured Jesus. Together with the evidence for the resurrection and the explosive growth of the church the trilemma points to the most plausible conclusion being Lord. So then the history regarding the proclaimed resurrection observed next would, if found reasonable to accept, put the seal of approval on all of Jesus’ messianic claims.
The early Christians did not invent the empty tomb and the meetings or sightings of the risen Jesus in order to explain a faith they already had. . . . Nobody was expecting this kind of thing; no kind of conversion experience would have invented it, no matter how guilty (or how forgiven) they felt, no matter how many hours they pored over the scriptures. To suggest otherwise is to stop doing history and enter into a fantasy world of our own.”
– N.T Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God
Your article is entirely comprised of naked assertions, though worded in such a way so as to lead the reader to believe that there must be some truth to them. The capitalized words and phrases were calculated to have that effect:
“… WITHOUT A DOUBT his teaching, … reveals that he thought he was equal with God.”
“CERTAINLY it is UNDENIABLE that his earliest followers thought he did.”
“It is WELL ESTABLISHED that the Roman governor …”
“… the HISTORICAL FACTS which must be encountered when piecing together realistic conclusions about the man who is “THE HISTORICAL JESUS.””
“Checking what we KNOW, HISTORICALLY, …”
“… the HISTORICALLY CERTAIN FACTS of Jesus …”
“… at least thirteen ESTABLISHED FACTS about him …”
There are virtually no established facts about Jesus. All claims to CERTAIN, UNDENIABLE, WELL ESTABLISHED facts are single-sourced from the Bible which is highly suspect on many grounds. Most arguments for its authenticity are of the contrived nature of the EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION presented earlier. If one applies the same standards that one would apply to any other ancient “history”, there is precisely nothing. Although the consensus is that someone by that name and having some significant role on the local scene more likely existed than not, it is nowhere close to a slam dunk that he even existed.
“… most scholars seem to agree on (even the radical consensus of the Jesus Seminar admits at least 18% of the sayings of Jesus are authentic)”
Most Christian religious scholars. Most of the other, non-circular reasoning scholars seem to agree that he existed and was locally important in some respect, but nothing with certainty or even close to it. In spite of apologists claims to the contrary, non-Biblical references to Jesus are very close to non-existent and those that do exist reveal nothing upon which to draw any conclusions.
“Together with the EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION and the explosive growth of the church the trilemma points to the most plausible conclusion being Lord.”
I think I destroyed the first claim previously. The explosive growth of the church is the fallback apologist position and also the fallback position for supporting the first claim. It amounts to – “A lot of people at the time apparently believed X, therefore X is likely true.” Logic 101 anyone? What fallacy(s) are we dealing with here?
The apologist trilemma is a false trilemma. At minimum, there are at least two other possibilities. He could have been the real thing, a liar, a nut, somebody totally unlike the “historical” Jesus, or non-existent.
Kyle
PS – This is particularly egregious – “all of them complimenting the others perfectly so that there was no inconsistency and that it all seemed to make sense logically and existentially as people lived it out. That’s what the disciples would have had to do, and in a very short period of time under strain of persecution, …”
This just flat ignores the huge inconsistencies and direct contradictions in the NT and therefore is essentially as dishonest as all of the assertions of certainty. It also ignores the fact that the writings we have were not winnowed, edited, and settled for centuries later than your claim. It also is followed immediately by “… to start the explosion of conversions that became the early church which changed the course of history.”, which is just another repetition of the same lame fallback argument.
BTW, I recently browsed an N.T. Wright book and his arguments and evidence are like that of all apologists. If you cribbed your basic argument from him, thinking that you were being fed bulletproof rhetoric, you’re deluded.
Naked assertions? No established facts about Jesus? I quoted and referenced the experts, even including what the critics and non-Christians believe to be undeniable historical facts about Jesus. Which one was not true?
“All claims to CERTAIN, UNDENIABLE, WELL ESTABLISHED facts are single-sourced from the Bible” is just not a true statement but instead it is a naked assertion without much support. There are extra-biblical sources that I garner facts from for my case.
Huge inconsistencies in the NT? Like what? From my experience, I haven’t met one yet and I’ve tried.
Generalities won’t make specifics go away, no matter how lucid one may be. You have to fight specifics with specifics.
Yes, naked assertions and no established facts. You quoted and referenced but the opinions of a couple of apologists. As for quoting and referencing “what the critics and non-Christians believe to be undeniable historical facts about Jesus”, I see only one reference: “even the radical consensus of the Jesus Seminar admits at least 18% of the sayings of Jesus are authentic”.
Wiki:
The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 150 individuals, including scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religious studies or related fields as well as published authors who are notable in the field of religion, founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.
The Westar Institute is best known as the sponsoring organization of the Jesus Seminar[1]. A non-profit foundation founded in 1985, it is, according to its mission statement, a “research and educational institute dedicated to the advancement of religious literacy.”[2] It is considered to be one of the major organizations promoting liberal Christianity, as evidenced by a list of accolades on its website by such figures as Karen Armstrong, Richard Holloway, and John Dominic Crossan [3].[original research?] All three are listed as fellows of the institute.
“Which one was not true?”
If by true, you mean adequately evidenced so as to warrant your assertions of certainty, all of them.
I’m out of time for now. Most of what we are disagreeing on is moot unless you can either overcome the monumental issues with the Bible or come up with non-Biblical sources. I’ll address your question about Biblical contradictions, etc. in other posts. I’m sure that there are size limits on posts. In the mean time, perhaps you could research and post all of the non-Biblical evidence that Jesus even existed. That shouldn’t take you long. I know the answer. It should fit on 3 lines.
Some extra Biblicals I’ve already listed in a previous blog post through a link to a site of the quoted sources themselves. I think it was the one called “An Atheist who doesn’t know Jack” (a reference to one atheist’s attempt at butchering the trilemma of C.S. Lewis, aka Jack, who sorted out those other two “possible” options before he got down to the three). Even if we didn’t have those outside sources which alone convince many historians and NT scholars (Christian and non-Christian as I have put, especially on the three passages I listed. The religious beliefs of the Jesus Seminar are that Jesus was NOT divine.) of the belief in Christ being divine existing from the get-go of the church, the Bible is considered many independent sources under one cover, not one source since it isn’t one book by one author or even by one group or organization of people. You have to deal with each author in particular (Paul, Luke-Acts, Mark, James, etc). Even if the Bible is approached skeptically as a potential propaganda, this does not dismiss it entirely as non-historical. In fact, many elements of history and archaeology have confirmed the historicity of Bible passages in pieces of what can be confirmed. The only reason people resist this is that it is a group of documents with religious claims, and we don’t like to put the stamp of approval on ANYone’s religion since that would exclude all the others from being wholey true. We don’t even need to accept the whole deal to use it for the history that it gives, and one of those uncontroversial things should be that Jesus *claimed* Godhood (hence the 18% saying acceptance by the most skeptical and radical scholarship out there which is hardly the consensus of the mainline; heck, some of the Jesus Seminar aren’t even scholars. I understand one of the main guys voting on what Jesus said or didn’t say was a film maker. Anyway, merely affirming the parable of the wicked servant as authentically Jesus’ serves to undermine their overall view that he wasn’t divine). It’s only controversial to say that he was right. Why does that scare people? I’m sure there are a million individual reasons.
The position you take that *nothing* can be confirmed about him historically may be a fashionable viewpoint, but it isn’t historical from my understanding. You might double check that, if it matters to you. I’m pretty sure if you look, you’ll see that most experts these days, “heathen,” “liberal,” Jewish, and “reformed” scholars alike don’t find your view very convincing. I’ll try to drop a few more refs in my next post about the confirmed stuff we know which must be taken into consideration when building some conclusion that tries to explain the resurrection appearances and such. Prayin for you. Happy Easter!
Next, I address your assertions regarding the Bible qualifying as multiple sources, being well-evidenced, etc. I left the introductory portion for completeness, but posted this mostly for what begins a few paragraphs below after “GOSPEL RECORDS”:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm
David H. Lewis of Queensland is an ancient history teacher and author of the forth-coming, The Book That Changed the World, a novel about the gospels that is not based on a true story!
[comment edited by moderator due to too much cut n paste spamming of the article which is easily accessible by the link above.]
In the case that one might choose to dismiss all such criticisms on the grounds that they are some modern contrivance, I present something written 88 yrs ago:’
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
[comment edited by moderator due to too much cut n paste spamming of the article which is easily accessible by the link above.]
Erik, you asked earlier about inconsistencies in the Bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Bible Inconsistencies: Bible Contradictions? Compiled by Donald Morgan
——
NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.
IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by “inconsistencies” I do not necessarily mean “contradictions.” Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions.
[comment edited by moderator due to too much cut n paste spamming of the article which is easily accessible by the link above.]
[examples from the link above]
MT 10:34, LK 12:49-53 Jesus has come to bring a sword, fire, and division–not peace.
JN 16:33 Jesus says: “In me you have peace.”
MT 10:22, 24:13, MK 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
MK 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
JN 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
AC 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
AC 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
RO 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved.
1JN 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)
MT 10:28, LK 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.)
MT 12:15-16, JN 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped, went secretly, etc.
AC 9:7 Those present at Paul’s conversion heard the voice but saw no one.
AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice.
Erik,
In an earlier post, you say that you quoted and referenced experts regarding the “established facts” about Jesus. So have I, or rather I have referenced the lack thereof. I gave URLs so that one can dig deeper if so inclined.
In that post, you also said that I was making a naked assertion with my claim of single-sourcing from the Bible and claimed that you have “garnered facts” from “extra-biblical sources” for your case. I anxiously await your citations of said sources.
You claim to have actually tried to find an inconsistency in the NT and have yet to find one. I posted a list that had a large NT contingent. I can post others, some of which are NT-specific or even gospel-specific. Did you not look very well or are you able to explain them away in the usual apologist fashion?
In your own words, “Generalities won’t make specifics go away, no matter how lucid one may be. You have to fight specifics with specifics.”
Here’s some gospel-specific contradictions. Each of the 8 has a hyperlink to more detail:
http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/Gospel_Contradictions_Gospels_are_Full_of_Contradictions_Errors.htm
Gospel Contradictions – Gospels are Full of Contradictions & Errors
The four canonical gospels are supposed to record the events in the life of Jesus Christ. If that’s the case, why do they contain so many errors and contradictions? Believers tend not to notice the problems because they blend the stories together as a single text. If you focus on the details, though, it’s clear that they aren’t compatible. This is to be expected, given how long they were written after the events and because they were based on oral traditions.
Passion Week in Jerusalem: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
During Holy Week Christians are expected to devote time to the study of the passion of Jesus Christ – his suffering, his death, and his eventual resurrection which is commemorated on Easter. For something so important, it’s curious how contradictory the gospel accounts are. Did Jesus ride one or two animals into Jerusalem? Was the Last Supper a Passover meal or not? How and where was Jesus anointed? The gospels don’t agree on any of these events.
The Last Supper: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
There are good reasons why Jesus’ ‘last supper’ with his disciples has been made the subject of so many artistic projects over the centuries: here, at one of the last gatherings attended by all, Jesus delivers instructions not on how to enjoy the meal, but how to remember him once he is gone. Much is communicated in just four verses. Unfortunately, it is difficult to say with any precision what really happened at this supper because the gospel accounts all differ so much.
Judas Iscariot: The Gospel Accounts of Judas’ Betrayal are Inconsistent & Unreliable
There was no option for Jesus not to be executed because without his crucifixion, he could not rise again in three days and thus save humanity. To be executed, though, he had to be betrayed to the Jewish authorities – if Judas hadn’t done it, someone else would have. In Mark, the motive of greed is ascribed to Judas. Matthew agrees with Mark but Luke claims that Judas was led astray by Satan. John, on the other hand, attributes the motivation to both Satan and a penchant for theft.
Arrest of Jesus & Denial of Peter: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
It was crucial for Jesus to be arrested and taken before the authorities, otherwise he would never have been executed, and that’s that whole point of the Passion narrative. For the purposes of the story, it was also important that Peter deny Jesus in order to show Christians that even as important a figure as Peter could be weak and do the wrong thing. Unfortunately, the gospel accounts are not at all consistent in how they portray these events.
Trial of Jesus: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
The trial of Jesus provides readers with a stark contrast between the figure of Jesus and the corrupt authorities, be they Jewish or Roman. This allows the gospel authors to more easily portray Jesus as a heroic figure, someone worth following. For some reason, though, the gospel authors have conflicting information about what occurred during Jesus’ trial. It isn’t even clear how they would have known any of the details in the first place.
Crucifixion of Jesus: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
Crucifixion may be one of the most horrible methods of execution ever invented. A person is nailed to a cross or stake and hangs there until their own weight suffocates them. The horrors of crucifixion are glossed over by the gospel authors, however, in favor of the deeper theological meanings behind these events. Perhaps that is why the gospel authors are inconsistent in describing what happened.
Jesus’ Burial & the Empty Tomb: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
Jesus’ burial is important because without it, there can be no tomb from which Jesus can arise in three days. It’s also historically implausible: crucifixion was intended as a shameful, horrible execution which included allowing the bodies to remain nailed up until they rotted off. It’s inconceivable that Pilate would have agreed to turn the body over to anyone for any reason. This may have something to do with why the gospel authors all have different stories about it.
Jesus’ Resurrection & Ascension: The Gospel Accounts are Inconsistent & Unreliable
Christians point to Jesus’ resurrection as one of the things which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. After all, the founders of other religions (like Muhammad and Buddha) are all dead; Jesus conquered death. Or did he? For something so important and central to the message, theology, and very nature of Christianity, it’s curious that the gospel authors would all have such radically different stories about what happened.
A few cautionary statements:
Apologists almost always engage in at least three of the many dozens of logical fallacies, namely, special pleading, question begging, and arguing by assertion.
Special pleading – My playing field needs to be superior to yours
What you do: You insist that we accord to the Bible a special status as the “inspired Word of God,” thus granting it an exemption from logic, reason, human experience, history, contrary evidence, textual analysis, and every other tool that humans use to separate fact from fiction. If the Bible claims that Jesus rose from the dead, then, by George, we’re obligated to accept that as a historical fact.
My response: No problem. In exchange for this concession, you agree to accord to the Qu’ran a special status as the “inspired Word of Allah,” thus granting it an exemption from logic, reason, human experience, history, contrary evidence, textual analysis, and every other tool that humans use to separate fact from fiction. If the Qu’ran claims that Mohammed split the moon into two pieces, then, by George, you’re obligated to accept that as a historical fact. If not, why not?
Moral of the story: I won’t grant you a free pass for your holy book, especially since it’s only one of many holy books in existence.
Question begging – Let’s reason in circles
What you do: You insist that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you know this because the Bible says of itself that it’s the “inspired Word of God,” and you know the statement is true because “God never lies,” and you know “God never lies” because he says of himself in the Bible that he “never lies,” and you know that God must have ACTUALLY SAID THIS because the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you know this because the Bible says of itself that it’s the “inspired Word of God,” and …
My response: No problem. In exchange for me allowing you to drive me batty with your circular reasoning, you agree that agnostics and atheists are WAY smarter than you. We know that we’re way smarter than you because we have the smarts to know that we’re smarter, and …
Moral of the story: Two (or more) unproven claims don’t equal one proven claim, even if they go ’round and ’round in a circle.
Arguing by assertion – It’s true because I say so
What you do: You claim that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God,” and you insist that we accept this because you said it.
My response: No problem. In exchange for this concession, you agree to disprove my assertion that the moon is made of green cheese. You’ll break in to a NASA facility, steal some moon dust or moon rocks, pay to have a private laboratory analyze the stolen material, and report your findings to us. To keep our behavior consistent with biblicists, when you’re all done disproving our assertion, we’ll still go on asserting that the moon is made of green cheese. Remember: We’re WAY smarter than you (see above).
Moral of the story: Arguing by assertion is a practice that comes straight from Satan and the bowels of hell. If you don’t want to accept this truth, then prove me wrong.
Wow, that’s weird. You consistently claim fallacy all the while using the same fallacy to prove it. The links are enough, you don’t have to post other people’s entire articles. I have no time to read all of that right now, but I have a feeling it will not change that 1) Many historians and NT scholars of all sorts agree that, among other passages, the parable of the wicked tenants is attributed historically to Jesus authentically and 2) Jesus as a myth is a complete myth dismissed by most of the scholarly world. He was a person. 3) That the deity of Jesus was a belief of the church from the very beginnings according to documents from the church, Bible, and writings of enemies of the church, and the most likely explanation for the reason for the beginning of the church itself. This is not saying anything about whether the Bible is the “inspired Word of God”. I’ve taken a minimalist approach to accept what the skeptics have accepted and even with that it strongly suggests that Jesus claimed Messianic identity. By definition that isn’t arguing by assertion!
Erik,
“You consistently claim fallacy all the while using the same fallacy to prove it.”
The fallacy that I’ve claimed you’ve made is that of naked assertions. As evidence, I present:
“… WITHOUT A DOUBT his teaching, … reveals that he thought he was equal with God.”
“CERTAINLY it is UNDENIABLE that his earliest followers thought he did.”
“It is WELL ESTABLISHED that the Roman governor …”
“… the HISTORICAL FACTS which must be encountered when piecing together realistic conclusions about the man who is “THE HISTORICAL JESUS.””
“Checking what we KNOW, HISTORICALLY, …”
“… the HISTORICALLY CERTAIN FACTS of Jesus …”
“… at least thirteen ESTABLISHED FACTS about him …”
These declarations of certainty are not supported by anything you’ve posted and, I can guarantee, not by your original sources either. They are conclusions – more aptly “opinions” or “beliefs” – taken without regard to the facts. I realize that you are not about to concede to the realities of apologetics and will never agree with this observation; however, you have claimed that I’ve done the same. Could you please elaborate?
“The links are enough, you don’t have to post other people’s entire articles.”
Are your concerns in regard to plagiarism? Or are they in regards to the many-fold increase in the odds that readers will actually read my sources? Or are they in regard to your drastically reduced ability to ignore, obfuscate, or cherry-pick that which appears directly within the thread?
“I have no time to read all of that right now, but I have a feeling it will not change that 1) Many historians and NT scholars of all sorts agree that, among other passages, the parable of the wicked tenants is attributed historically to Jesus authentically …”
You are still failing to grasp that even the liberal group that you chose to quote is comprised primarily of religious individuals acting out of religious motives. Using the term “historians” without a preceding modifier such as “Bible” or “religious” is equivalent to using the term “basketball” without the preceding modifier “donkey” and the cadre of “NT scholars” is overwhelmingly biased. In your eyes, many in the Jesus Seminar may be biased against belief, but the reality is that the vast majority are biased in favor of it. This is the only way that people can support the laughable arguments used.
If we use a court of law as an analogy, these apologists are not judges or jury members; they are the defense atty’s, who are sleeping with the defendant and/or whose fees will go unpaid if they lose.
If you want to get beyond the level of naked assertions, you need to construct an argument from accepted premises (facts) to your conclusions of certainty by means of valid logic. Considering the strength of the arguments that have been made against such certainty, your argument must also refute those. As I’ve said before, it is rather difficult to conceive of a valid and well-evidenced argument for such certainty regarding very specific events and even words used, when the arguments for his very existence are circumstantial at best. And make no mistake (though I’m pessimistic) – Yours IS the positive claim and has the evidentiary burden.
“… and 2) Jesus as a myth is a complete myth dismissed by most of the scholarly world.”
That is a distortion of reality. That may be true if you just happened to neglect to type the appropriate modifier. If you instead reference those who are not religiously biased, the reality id that they have determined that, on the balance of very skimpy circumstantial evidence, there probably was a contemporaneous guy(s), likely named Jesus, who was somehow of importance locally in the areas of religion and/or politics. Period. Nothing more.
“3) That the deity of Jesus was a belief of the church from the very beginnings according to documents from the church, Bible, and writings of enemies of the church, and the most likely explanation for the reason for the beginning of it.”
The Bible and whatever other church documents that you may be referencing are only convincing to circular-reasoning and biased apologists. I’ve already posted at length on the many reasons for extreme skepticism towards historicity of the NT in regards events within Jesus’ lifetime. I see no reason to repeat what has not been addressed. By “writings of enemies of the church” you are alluding again to non-Biblical sources, but again without specifics. I’ve already addressed the specifics anyway, because there are virtually none and what there is either obvious forgery or meaningless. Therefore your 3rd conclusion, that you’ve just declared that you’re unlikely to ever question, still stands as a naked assertion.
“This is not saying anything about whether the Bible is the “inspired Word of God”. I’ve taken a minimalist approach to accept what the skeptics have accepted and even with that it strongly suggests that Jesus claimed Messianic identity. By definition that isn’t arguing by assertion!”
At this point, I don’t know whether you really believe that, but I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt. Regardless of your sincerity, without constructing an argument in the accepted manner of all debate, you’re effectively presenting a fallacious argument from authority which in turn rests upon the opinions of biased “experts” who in turn have not made valid, well-evidenced arguments. You’ve hit the trifecta.
Thank you for the list of apparent contradictions. I’d put in that it doesn’t seem the list is always a very fair one as many are easily pointed out as clearly not contradictory. Others it’s taken to be contradiction by taking it out of context. Others ignore that reality is complex and it requires more than a sound bite answer to answer questions about life’s many tensions and paradoxes. It can rain and be sunny at the same time. Rain is not the contradiction of sun, for example. Some truths have many facets (like salvation) and so Jesus mentions it in many ways. I think this deserves it’s own blog entry on another day. Hopefully I can find time to sort through it to pick some of the less obvious tensions and see what explanation can reasonably be given without force fitting things into some view or another. Did you read the verses in the list or just copy it and take it for granted that the person that made the list did so without much bias?
Example of poorly picked “contradiction”
AC 9:7 Those present at Paul’s conversion heard the voice but saw no one.
AC 22:9 They saw a light but did not hear a voice.
Acts 9:7 doesn’t imply that they didn’t see a light but that they saw no person. Also, written work is not a photograph. Eye witnesses frequently leave out different side details. When the Titanic sank survivors differed over whether it broke in two or not. Some saw it, others did not. The Titanic sank is the main idea.
Acts 22:9 doesn’t say that. “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice”
Erik,
Yes, I did read most of the list, as well as several other lists, prior to posting it. I knew that you would pull out all of the usual arguments, which in some cases have merit, and would specifically address, if any, only those from the more easily rationalized and relatively unimportant categories.
In fact, your list of ways to rationalize was likely cribbed from a source that exists for the purpose of rationalizing Biblical inconsistencies. I suspect that your Titanic analogy may have been as well.
The question is did you really not know of the existence of any of these until I brought them up? How likely is it that someone who has undertaken internet apologetics as an avocation has never been exposed to even the blatant and important direct contradictions, or the obvious misstatements of historic and scientific facts, etc. that are, to the unbiased, clear evidence for conclusions that you must refute?
As for whether I think the person making the list was biased? Take the example that you chose. Do you think it biased that this person flagged this inconsistency? Just because you can rationalize it away doesn’t necessarily mean he was biased. Are you willing to admit that approaching them all from the standpoint of finding a way to rationalize them is obviously biased?
The utterly predictable and utterly biased approach that all apologists have taken to all such examples could be described as, “If there is any conceivable explanation, no matter how contrived, then there is no contradiction”. Used once or twice, this would be egregious enough, but using it for hundreds of examples is beyond the pale. If the subject were anything else, perhaps another religion or legal depositions, or ANYTHING else, these same apologists would apply an entirely different – rational – criteria. This is the fallacy of special pleading that I’ve cautioned you about.
Is it an oversight that my first post of 4/2 is still awaiting moderation? Or are all others following it as well, but just not identified as such? Or is too damaging to your arguments?
Kyle,
When pointing out “Obvious contradictions” in the Bible, you must be careful of your Hermeneutic.
the list you provide here falls into a fallacy known as, proof-texting, and far too many Christians fall into this as well. What this means is that you don’t consider the context of the verse, the way in which it was written, to whom it was written, by whom it was written and why it was written that way. you need a lot more than single verses pulled out of their context and make them into seemingly contradictory pairs to which I would respond – So what? All you’ve done here is prroftexting? have you read the context? have you examined what the verses are saying when they’re saying it and to whom?
we need to look at all of that before we even begin to say it’s a contradiction. so please go and do that with each pair that you have listed and then would I be willing to listen. until then you’re simply proof-texting and ANY scholar even the most liberal would talk to you about the dangers in doing that.
but I fear we’ll be going in circles here, so I’m going to leave it at that.
Liam,
I see that, unlike Erik’s claim, you’re not unschooled in the finer arts of apologetics and inconsistency-rationalizing.
I find your request that I undertake your proposed apologetic vetting procedure, on every item in the list, before you deem any of them worth listening to, to be one of the most egregious apologetic abuses of basic debating principles to which I have ever been personally subjected. Then you have the temerity to accuse me of bringing an end to honest debate should I not do so!
For now, I’ll only ask how you apply your apologetics, in plain English, to rationalize just a couple of examples. From the category of unimportant, but seemingly impossible to rationalize:
GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
From the category of somewhat important (to some xtians) and fairly hard to rationalize:
MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John’s baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.
From the category of very important to most xtians:
MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
LE 10:8 – 11:47, DT 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean foods.
MK 7:14-15, MK 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
1TI 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
EP 2:13-15, HE 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law.
MT 7:21, LK 10:36-37, RO 2:6, 13, JA 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith.
JN 3:16, RO 3:20-26, EP 2:8-9, GA 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works.
You have your talking points all in a row in regards this list, which is arranged as pairs or groupings of short passages with contradictory language and therefore presumably you will insist on ignoring it, which you have preemptively justified.
Perhaps you can address some of the more egregious of Erik’s implicit mistakes. For example, while discussing subject matter addressed in the gospels, he made the claim that the Bible is not to be taken as one source, but as several under one cover and sufficient to establish historical facts as narrow as specific events and even specific words spoken.
No one plausibly claims that any of the gospels were written by the disciples for which they are named nor that they were written anywhere near contemporaneously with the the period in which Jesus supposedly lived. All are conceded to have come from oral traditions generations removed from even his death, recorded far from Israel in a foreign language.
It is also the consensus – and quite obvious – that Mark was written first and that Matthew and Luke were written using Mark as the starting point. The same applies for the fact that John is written last and as allegory. That said, Mark fails to mention events of Jesus’ life that are hailed as very important in the later texts, such as the virgin birth. It is also clear that Mark in turn was based on some earlier document, code name Q.
So we have very good reason for the inconsistencies such as those I listed earlier, but we also have the vaunted “experts” that Erik relies upon destroying his claims of duplicate independent sources for things so specific as words spoken. They are not only clearly not independent, only an apologist could claim that they have the necessary reliability and resolution.
Erik,
You did not respond previously. Why is my first post of 4/2 still awaiting moderation and all later ones are not? Or are they and only I can see them?
What is the reason? I believe that post to be one of the most important as it definitively addresses all claims to non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus and shows how vacuous the assertion of independent historical sources really are. Or is that the reason?
Kyle
Kyle,
I asked you to do it first.
Liam,
Do I understand you correctly? Are you still insisting that I make your argument for you before you do so yourself? It appears that you’ve clearly demanded that I identify some particulars for the apologists’ “any explanation will do” arguments against Biblical inconsistency.
Among the potential candidates, you demand that I “the way in which it was written” when we all know that the gospels are generations-removed accounts based on previous generations-removed accounts of oral traditions, written in a foreign land in a foreign language, edited over centuries, and then cherry-picked from many other potential writings that would present far more inconsistencies had they not been rejected. What conceivably reliable information should anyone expect to glean from “the way in which it was written”?
Other candidates for YOUR “any excuse will do” are those involving context. I see no reason to be repetitive, so referencing the above paragraph, what conceivably reliable information should anyone expect to glean from context?
You also mention the identity of, and presumably some known relevant characteristics of, or information regarding, the writer and/or the addressee as potential sources of the “any excuse”. As previously mentioned, and roundly ignored, no one has a clue who wrote any of the gospels, so half of that category of excuses is moot. Referencing the paragraph before last, what conceivably reliable information should anyone expect to glean from presumed addressees?
Is this really how honest debate works? Ignore the fact that you are making the positive claim, demand that your opponent make your argument before you will be bothered, and stick to it even when called out for it? It appears that “any excuse will do” is being used in another context as well – any excuse not to engage with intellectual honesty.
After the first evasion/demand, I could give the benefit of a doubt. After this second occurrence, I’m forced to conclude the strong possibility that you know that you have poor arguments and that you know that your structuring of the debate is brazenly disingenuous.
So, are you going to concede on both the issue of inconsistencies and the issue of the murky, unreliable origins of Bible and the NT and the derivative origins of the gospels especially? Another non-response is effectively that.
Then we can move on to the serious internal contradictions that are “a lot more than single verses pulled out of their context”. Then what candidate apologetic “any excuse will do” will you demand that I produce for you?
Or perhaps I should insist that you deal with the facts of the origins of the gospels that I posted – and you’ve ignored – and their effects on Erik’s arguments. You haven’t even given an excuse for ignoring that!
Erik,
“Even if we didn’t have those outside sources which alone convince many historians and NT scholars (Christian and non-Christian as I have put, especially on the three passages I listed) of the belief in Christ being divine existing from the get-go of the church, the Bible is considered many independent sources under one cover, not one source since it isn’t one book by one author or even by one group or organization of people.”
Besides being very confusing, the above is just riddled with error. I’m going to presume that you are referring to the usualo “outside sources”, so I’ll address them.
In regards to “the belief in Christ being divine existing from the get-go of the church”; that is both untrue and, if it were true, not evidence for the historical Jesus.
In regards to “the Bible is considered many independent sources under one cover, not one source since it isn’t one book by one author or even by one group or organization of people”; that is only true of apologists, and aonly a subset of them. I will address this as well.
First, the outside sources:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
Historicity Of Jesus FAQ (1994) by Scott Oser
Kyle,
I have no idea why the 4/2 is still under moderation (probably due to chain spamming many long articles), but looking at it now I think it should be placed under my next post as it has more to do with quotes I will use there (btw like the “inconsistencies” list it too does a bad job of addressing the quotes and doesn’t even show the quotes apparently so no one will know he did a bad job of explaining them which is a bit dishonest of the critic who wrote it). I have a problem believing that you are communicating with me. It seems that you prefer draggin in your views as if I’m other Christians you have quarreled with. Straw manning (about circular arguments which are not central to my original post’s argument nor were they offered nor will they be as you wrote them. In fact I’d join you in denouncing such argumentation to support the Bible as God’s word as there are reasonable ways to get there instead) and bringing in loosely associated or entirely disassociated arguments won’t help your case to bring down what I posted. Nor will long extravagant spamming of comments be helpful which is why I said use links (that’s what they’re for) instead of attaching entire articles. I do not fear the critics of Christianity (another false assumption you went on a tirade about). I just think they’re tragically wrong. I welcome them to try and poke holes in it (respectfully) as that makes our arguments for theism and Christianity stronger whether our opponents fail utterly or succeed in exposing a weak methodology. I may have made some strong statements, call them naked if you like, but I didn’t make them out of thin air. There are arguments behind them. The one’s I was concerned about supporting (and had spacetime for), I gave support for. You didn’t like the support, but you haven’t refuted it. You linked articles which I have no time for and have nothing to do with 1) refuting that the Jesus Seminar has reason to think some parts of the gospels are historic (as they’re not the only ones biased *against* a messianic Jesus who think so). Whether they’re religious people too or not has nothing to do with it (not all of them are, I think, and certainly not all of them are Christian as some have made up their own humanistic religion with a metaphorical God and Jesus). So I used the Jesus Seminar because they accept even less material as authentically from Jesus as historical than the historians would (which is more than you would accept apparently). Did you know that even myths of Alexander the Great contain historical elements which can be trusted (which by contrast to the very early sources we have from the New Testament, a couple decades from their subject, were written over 400 years after Alexander). Likewise, the wicked tenants vineyard parable was one that is trustworthily Jesus’ by even the most skeptical of Bible critics, those with an invested interest and those who decidedly have none. 2) Jesus as an utter myth has been debunked by your own words if I’m not mistaken or at least by your internet infidel article about not knowing the whole story about Jesus. They confirmed for me that “virtually nothing can be known about Jesus and whether he even existed” is a false statement simply by stating some things that can be known about a guy who really did exist. Wikipedia also agrees with me that I am not “distorting reality” by such a modest claim as Jesus as a myth is a myth. I quote:
“Proponents of a mythical origin of Christianity occasionally allow that some gospel material may have been drawn from a historical preacher or preachers, but that these individuals were not in any sense “the founder of Christianity”. Rather, they contend that Christianity emerged organically from Hellenistic Judaism.” (which even supports my 1st claim about some sayings being found to be historically accurate. Even the conspiracy theorists have to admit to the historical nature of some or else this myth story wouldn’t sound very authentic if it were just *completely* made up. Half-truths, as you and I know, work better than outright lies.)
“The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles . . .” (which actually shows that my 2nd claim is a modest understatement)
Again there’s nothing naked about these claims. You can say that they are wrong, but they are not simply assertions as I have repeatedly backed them up (though it may not be as airtight as you’d like, this is just a blog and so not meant as an exhaustive source book but rather an introduction for people to get deeper as they desire). It seems we will have to agree to disagree. I pray you are able to let go of this strange hostility and that desire to belittle others that you seem to have.
3) The belief that Jesus was God being among the earliest beliefs in the church is a historic statement disagreed with only by people who wanna be paranoid, edgy, or unnecessarily skeptical. It’s up there near people who believe the U.S. never sent a man to the moon. I gave reasons, and a quote by an enemy of the church from 111 A.D. will be forthcoming in my next post which colaborates that. We hardly need that though, as Paul’s letters (even excluding the 6 letters that are somewhat disputed as being from him) show us that’s exactly what the early church was teaching in the first century.
As for my treatment of the “inconsistencies” of Paul’s conversion, you didn’t even touch my rebuttal. You ignored it with ad hoc assumptions that I didn’t do the work, but you didn’t approach the work itself which is easily verifiable by looking at the passages themselves (which is all I did). There’s no harm in admitting the wrong of someone else’s shoddy list. Whether I copied it (I didn’t, but I did steal the Titanic illustration, so what? It’s a true story. Why all the hostile attacks and red herrings? Is there some sin that Christians perpetrated on you that you’d like us to apologize of for you? I’m being serious because I will offer that.) has nothing to do with whether my statement was fact or not.
You have given us some good specifics like the so-called contradictions and inconsistencies, but that’s for another topic at another time (as I suggested). I can’t possibly address every claim or statement you made here as I don’t have that kind of time, nor do I think it essential to the life of the original post. That’s why I focused on the above three and then showed that your “contradiction” list was not checked out as trustworthy to treating the text with context and authors’ intent in mind.
Don’t waste time by arguing simply for argument’s sake. That’s what it seems like you’re doing. Why fight with contention on the simple issues when there are many other more ambiguous things to disagree on? I’m not saying that all historians or NT scholars agree (but that many do) that Jesus claimed godhood, but that it is very reasonable to conclude that he did.
I don’t believe I conceded anything. Just asked you to let me know where the contradictions lie without proof-texting which you keep doing.
I don’t see them as contradictions. it’s your challenge that they are, that makes the burden of proof yours.
Liam,
You ARE clearly demanding that I identify some particulars for the apologists’ “any explanation will do” arguments against Biblical inconsistency, AFTER I’ve shown how utterly upside down that is. And you do so even in the face of some of the most blatant of these contradictions!.
Your argument for doing so seems to be that obvious contradictions such as one sees with verses in seemingly contradictory pairs are not worthy of your response because they may be out of context, even AFTER I’ve shown the extreme issues with determining context with ANY reliability!
YOUR “fallacy” (actual) for invoking the “fallacy” (faux) of “proof-texting” shows that you either actually believe that I must show whatever your necessary presumed contextual “anything will do” excuse is without you revealing it!
I tire of your infantile apologetic inversion of the evidentiary burden. That dishonest tactic is as old as apologetics itself and, as it’s necessary to be so dishonest to stay in the argument, it obviously isn’t going to be abandoned by shaming you. That hasn’t worked even with the pros, who’ve used it for centuries. This inversion was the subject of a thread here and the resident apologists were willing to say that black was white before abandoning it.
That is why I also CLEARLY requested that you deal with issues other than “proof-texting”! If the clearest contradictions result in this inversion, perhaps the more complex ones do not? Please explain the “historicity” of the gospels when they very clearly place Jesus’ birth at different dates – a decade apart. I know that that doesn’t flow from two simple contradictory verses, so I can’t post them as such. However, this matter is well-known and you obviously have internet to investigate it. I hereby declare that the burden of evidence is upon you to make my argument for me. What’s good for the goose …
Have you no shame? Pick any one of the contradictions in my last short list and tell me what the contextual issue(s) is/are.
Else you HAVE concede, but in the usual dishonest way of the apologist.
This is going nowhere again. Whosever burden it is, Liam’s point is well taken as I pointed out myself (two posts up) and got ignored for “cribbing” the response. We don’t lie, but I’m sorry if someone else “through the centuries” did. It doesn’t bear on what we argued. If you tire of us, then I’m afraid we’ll just have to part ways. I perceive that you might have no wish to truly engage in the matters at hand anyway but if you have any questions or counter-arguments you wish to bring up in the future, we might be willing to discuss with you again. However, since this is a burden of joy for us and not a hobby of verbal pugilism (having no wish to be quarrelsome) it will have to be far more civil than what you’ve exhibited thus far. To your credit, you thankfully did try at times to deal with the arguments themselves, but there’s nothing more to do when you disagree for the sake of it by adding things like “Your argument for doing so seems to be that…” and inserting whatever you care to straw man us with. I’ll be prayin for you.