John writes:

I would say that they (the Gospel authors) were either idiots or lazy writers. Consider the story in the Gospel of Luke of the census that Joseph and Mary had to register for.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcac.htm

"Luke 2:1 talks about Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem in order for Joseph to register in "his own city," for taxation purposes. There is no record of a Roman tax system that required people to go to the city of their ancestors. It would be totally impractical. All agriculture and commerce would ground to a halt; the empire would be paralyzed for months. A woman in 1st century Palestine was either under the control of her father or her husband. There would be no necessity for her to go to Bethlehem to be registered; only adult males were recorded.  There is no evidence of Luke's world-wide census during the reign of Caesar Augustus, who ruled from 27 BCE to 14 CE. There was a local census in 6 CE, but this is at least a decade after the probable time of Jesus' birth.

In Luke 3:2, the author refers to the high priesthood of "Annas and Caiphas." But the temple only had one high priest at a time. Annas and Caiphas never served together or even consecutively. What we have here is when somebody contrives something to advance the plot. Same thing with the Passover Privilege and Barabbas. If the US caught Osama Bin Laden, would they give the Afghans and Iraqis a chance to vote to see if he would be set free?

(from my page linked above) " There's a saying that if Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be, then He was either a liar or a lunatic. I'd say a similar argument applies to the NT writers, as well, that if what they weren't writing was the truth, then they were either liars or lunatics. I'm just not seeing any evidence that they were liars or lunatics."

Look above. Aside from that, consider the fact that no non-Gospel sources refer to the titanic miracles Jesus supposedly performed.

(from my page linked above) "But I've never heard of the original creators of those religions suffering persecution rather than deny their religion, like the early Christians (including most, if not all, of the NT authors) did. Why on Earth would the early Christian writers be risking their lives, and the lives of those they preach to, over someone they knew wasn't the prophesied Messiah?"

Many martyr stories have been shown as spurious and unreliable. Aside from that, the Romans did not actively seek out Christians, and many of them gave Christians a multiple chances to just do a nominal act of worship, such as just burn a few grains of incense.  Trajan told people not to seek out Christians, or to accept anonymous testimony. Of course, these Christians thought they would go straight to Heaven for martyrdom.

Aside from that, maybe the early Christians were charlatans out for power, but the later ones sincere believers? Of if they were sincere, what probably happened was that they reasoned backwards; that if Jesus was the messiah, therefore he must have fufilled prophecies. This probably happened, because no strain in Judaism before the 1 CE posited that the messiah would suffer and die.

Paul probably concluded that Jesus was the messiah when he had his "vision" of Jesus. (I wonder, though, if Paul knew what Jesus looked like.) He then probably reasoned backwards. Sadly, Paul did not have well-developed critical thinking skills, but then Jesus did not encourage critical thinking.

"Luke 2:1 talks about Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem in order for Joseph to register in "his own city," for taxation purposes. There is no record of a Roman tax system that required people to go to the city of their ancestors. It would be totally impractical. All agriculture and commerce would ground to a halt; the empire would be paralyzed for months.

What are they talking about? In those days, most people LIVED in “their own cities” (as do most people today), so taking the time to register would not paralyze anything. I doubt that many people were any more inconvenienced than Joseph was, and he only had to travel about fifty miles, a trip which would hardly take "months".

A woman in 1st century Palestine was either under the control of her father or her husband. There would be no necessity for her to go to Bethlehem to be registered; only adult males were recorded.

But if she was about to give birth, it makes sense that she’d want to be with her husband instead of by herself. There’s nothing in the story suggesting that Mary was forced to go against her will.

There is no evidence of Luke's world-wide census during the reign of Caesar Augustus,  who ruled from 27 BCE to 14 CE. There was a local census in 6 CE, but this is at least a decade after the probable time of Jesus' birth.

I admit the evidence isn’t as strong as it could be (which is to be expected when we're dealing with events from 20 centuries ago), but there is quite a bit. This page: http://askelm.com/star/star014.htm gives a pretty good overview of the evidence, with support by historians Josephus and Orosius.

In Luke 3:2, the author refers to the high priesthood of "Annas and Caiphas." But the temple only had one high priest at a time. Annas and Caiphas never served together or even consecutively.

Annas was high priest until 15 CE, but remained the virtual head of the priests until his death many years later. You’re right that he wasn’t technically the high priest, but he was referred to as such. Just like people today still call Jimmy Carter “Mr. President”, even though he’s been out of office for years.

What we have here is when somebody contrives something to advance the plot. Same thing with the Passover Privilege and Barabbas. If the US caught Osama Bin Laden, would they give the Afghans and Iraqis a chance to vote to see if he would be set free?

Barabbas was no bin Laden, and if he remained a problem for Rome could easily have been recaptured, since he wasn't being acquitted of anything - his charges still stood. Besides, the event is not only mentioned in the Gospels, but also in Acts, making it unlikely to be the invention of one author. Besides that, there is strong evidence in Josephus and other historians of the time that political prisoners (such as Barabbas) were often let go for reasons that served the politicians themselves.

Aside from that, consider the fact that no non-Gospel sources refer to the titanic miracles Jesus supposedly performed.

Are you kidding? Paul’s writings refer several times to Jesus’ resurrection (or is that not a miracle?). Or did you mean non-Biblical sources? In that case, we have Quadratus, Barnabas, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and many others. There’s a good overview of early non-Biblical mentions of Jesus here: http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html

Aside from that, the Romans did not actively seek out Christians, and many of them gave Christians a multiple chances to just do a nominal act of worship, such as just burn a few grains of incense.

And what was the punishment if they refused? Were they just allowed to go on their merry way?

Trajan told people not to seek out Christians, or to accept anonymous testimony.

Yes, Trajan did have a "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, but still put people to death if they admitted being Christians. I'd call that persecution, wouldn't you?

Of course, these Christians thought they would go straight to Heaven for martyrdom.

No, you’re confusing Christianity with Radical Islam. Christians (at least generally) believe that only accepting Jesus as your savior can get you into Heaven, and nothing else.

Aside from that, maybe the early Christians were charlatans out for power, but the later ones sincere believers?

The earliest Christians demonstrate far more sincere belief than the later ones, though. Can you really read the Biblical writings and conclude that those doing the writing aren’t sincere? Do you see any evidence of insincerity in their writings?

Of if they were sincere, what probably happened was that they reasoned backwards; that if Jesus was the messiah, therefore he must have fufilled prophecies.

There's no evidence to support that backwards reasoning, though. If Jesus didn't fulfill prophecies and do miracles, what would have convinced them that Jesus was the Messiah?

This probably happened, because no strain in Judaism before the 1 CE posited that the messiah would suffer and die.

That doesn’t follow, though. You’re arguing that they believed that Jesus was the messiah, and then concluded that he must have fulfilled prophecies. But if there was no prophecy that the Messiah would suffer and die, then Jesus’ suffering and death don’t fulfill anything (to their mind). Or am I missing your point?

Paul probably concluded that Jesus was the messiah when he had his "vision" of Jesus. (I wonder, though, if Paul knew what Jesus looked like.) He then probably reasoned backwards. Sadly, Paul did not have well-developed critical thinking skills, but then Jesus did not encourage critical thinking.

I've never heard of a "vision" that affects those around you that way, or one that causes you to join with those you were previously persecuting. It's pretty clear to me that Paul was having more than a simple hallucination. But thanks for the feedback.

David

Ah, but the problem is that no contemporary non-Christian source refers to Jesus' miracles. Justin Martyr et al. lived about a century after the alleged life of Jesus. As for the authors referenced at http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html :

By the way, that page you list has from the beginning a bit of confusion. It is titled "Secular Historians Outside The Bible That Record Jesus Christ And Christianity"-but many of the people they cite are Church fathers or Christian authors-so they are not *secular* historians!

Anyway:

Josephus: do you really think that an Orthodox pharisee would write so lovingly about Jesus? Joseph would have to be a Christian to talk like that!

PLINY THE YOUNGER: wait a minute. He does not mention Jesus. He only mentions Christians. He does not, most pertinent here, say anything about Jesus performing miracles.

Suetonius: He wrote about a person named Chrestus in Rome, so it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Thallus: Thallus' work is lost to us. You are only relying on Julius Africanus' alleged preservation of his text. However, remember that Christians have been known to lie to bring about the greater good of salvation-remember Eusebius? (In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Julian the Apostate: lived 300 years after the time of the alleged Jesus. How does this help?

Seneca: only mentions Christians, not Jesus' miracles.

A warning.

W. P. Crozier's 1928 book titled, "Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome" is often presented as a source of letters of Pilate to Seneca. This work is actually an epistolary *novel*, a work of fiction.

I've never heard of a "vision" that affects those around you that way, or one that causes you to join with those you were previously persecuting.   It's pretty clear to me that Paul was having more than a simple hallucination. But thanks for the feedback.

Good points. The first question is easy to answer, the second much more complicated and interesting. In sum, not believing in the infallibility of the Bible, I feel free to question anything reported in it*, but there is a contradiction that helps me here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#hear_voice

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

If you take 22:9 over 9:7, then according to Paul

Of course, Paul does not describe such a scene in his letters anyway, his authentic letters.

..................................................

On Paul doing a 180 degree turn:

Yes, Paul joining Christians seems odd, but remember that many fanatics swing 180 degrees. In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer quoted Hitler about fanaticism.  I can't reproduce the exact text of the quote, but in essence Hitler claimed that he could convert a communist into a fascist with very little work, but would have difficulty working with a typical European centrist.* The similar nature of fanatics on both sides of a great philosophical or political difference must provide the necessary hook to pull a zealot from one extreme to another.

http://www.quarterbin.net/politics/pol02.html

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/visionorigin.html#paul

This would explain Paul, as Paul Tobin writes: Here Ludemann takes us through the steps, using a psychodynamic approach, in seeing how this is so: [4]

Many fanatics suffer from inner turmoil. Their basic instincts long to do things their beliefs tell them they cannot.  Thus they suppress their instincts. This leads to a hatred of their own situation. Which in turns turns into hatred for those who could do what they themselves cannot do. For example, the "disgust" most religious fanatics feel towards sex of any kind is but one manifestation of this. In some fanatics, a crucial turning point occurs which releases them from previous inhibitions and they become free of their previous shackles.  In other words within the inner turmoil, the "emotional dialectic", already lies the new "synthesis" or world view.

We find Paul's situation to follow these steps very closely:

Paul (or Saul) was a fanatic. He was, in his own words full of zeal and faultless in keeping to legalistic requirements to Jewish law (Philippians 3:6).  Although he claimed to be faultless in following the law, he suffered from inner turmoil and fought to suppress his instincts. The passage below clearly shows this:

Romans 7:7-12

Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the laws had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it kill me.

His obvious hatred of his own situation is turned outwards towards the Christians. Paul probably saw within the Christian movement the very antithesis of his position towards the law. This is more so in its preaching of a crucified messiah in express contradiction to the law (Deuterenomy 21:23 "anyone hung under a tree is under God's curse"). In zeal he presecuted the Christians. (Galatians 1:23)  This inner turmoil came to a climax on his trip to Damascus, where probably suffering from sunstroke or an epileptic seizure, Paul had his vision which "released" him from his inner turmoil and converted him.  To again quote Ludeman directly:

Paul's appearance did not depend on Peter's vision, since here it was not a follower but an "enemy" of Jesus or his supporters who was affected. Here Paul's biography gives strong indications that his vision of Christ is to be explained psychologically as an overcoming of a smouldering "Christ complex" which led to sever inner (unconscious) conflicts in him and finally released itself in this vision. [5]

*I question many things. I seriously doubt that the Roman empire would force people to travel sixty or so miles for a census. The roads could not handle such traffic, despite what the nativity stories claim.

Ah, but the problem is that no contemporary non-Christian source refers to Jesus' miracles.

We can't say that for sure, since 99% of the texts from that time have gotten lost between now and then. We can only say that no surviving non-Christian source from Jesus' day refers to Jesus' miracles.

Justin Martyr et al. lived about a century after the alleged life of Jesus.

Yes, all history is written after the fact. The writers we would expect to mention Jesus, did. The one we would not expect to mention Jesus, did not. There were no historians writing of events of Jerusalem around Jesus' time who were oddly silent about Jesus. There are no texts on which we would expect to see Jesus' name on which we do not.

As for the authors referenced at http://www.myfortress.org/historians.html :

By the way, that page you list has from the beginning a bit of confusion. It is titled "Secular Historians Outside The Bible That Record Jesus Christ And Christianity"-but many of the people they cite are Church fathers or Christian authors-so they are not *secular* historians!

True. It does qualify it as "secular historians and others from antiquity" before it gets around to naming them, but the heading itself should be changed.

Anyway:

Josephus: do you really think that an Orthodox pharisee would write so lovingly about Jesus? Joseph would have to be a Christian to talk like that!

I agree. My impression of the 18:3:3 passage is that it was likely far shorter, but someone (presumably a Christian) added to it later on. I find it amusing when it calls Jesus a man, then notes an objection to calling him a man. Obviously two authors with differing opinions at work here. But even skipping that one entirely, Josephus certainly mentioned Jesus in book 20, Chapter 19, where he refers to James as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ"

PLINY THE YOUNGER: wait a minute. He does not mention Jesus. He only mentions Christians. He does not, most pertinent here, say anything about Jesus performing miracles.

Yes, this page is about authors who mention Jesus and Christianity, not just ones who mention his miracles. For non-Gospel authors those who mention his miracles specifically, we're left with:
Paul, Peter, Timothy, whoever wrote the Talmud, Celsus, Julian the Apostate, Clement of Rome, Quadratus, Barnabus, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Hierocles.

However, remember that Christians have been known to lie to bring about the greater good of salvation

That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with.

-remember Eusebius? (In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Have you read the entire quote, and not just that portion? He was clearly only saying that he had large amounts of source material, and was only going to use what was needed for the subject at hand, which is what most historians do. There's nothing suggesting that he was going to tell lies, only that he was being choosy in what he uses. When Woodward & Bernstein wrote "All The President's Men", I'm sure they left out many things they could have mentioned in order to tell a more solid story, using only that which was most useful to their purposes. We wouldn't accuse them of lying because of this, would we?

In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

Wrong. It's titled, "How it may be lawful and fitting to use fiction as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment". The word for fiction there, "Pseudos", refers to any non-literal device, including parables and novels. In fact, if you read the text, that's clearly what he's referring to. Whoever mistranslated "pseudos" as "falsehood" and "require such a mode of treatment" as "want to be deceived" was the one being deceptive.

In sum, not believing in the infallibility of the Bible, I  feel free to question anything reported in it*, but there is a contradiction that helps me here.

I will say here that if the Bible has minor errors in it, it wouldn't shake my faith at all. There may well be minor errors, for all I know. But I've looked into many hundreds of claims of contradiction and error, and haven't found one yet that doesn't have a reasonable explanation from the Christian camp. I find that the Gospels, if put to the same scrutiny we tend to put to other ancient historical writings, stands up admirably, convincing me that the basic events described within more likely happened than not. For example, if one historian claimed that Caesar's assassination happened about 6 o'clock and another claimed that it happened about 7 o'clock, would that cause you to doubt whether Caesar was actually assassinated? Of course not. At least not to any reasonable person. The same goes for the Gospel writings. If you could show me an absolute, irrefutable error in the Bible, it wouldn't make any reasonable person doubt the historical reliability of the Bible. An error would have to be pretty darned big before it would make me question whether Jesus was resurrected or not. All a minor error would mean is that the authors, though inspired by God, were fallible humans just like the rest of us. Which is what I believe anyways.

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

There are two possible answers to this one. First of all, if the two men heard the sound of the voice, but could not make out exactly what it was saying, then could they be said to have heard the voice? Some would say yes, some would say no. This goes for the Greek word used, "akouo", also (which is used in both texts). It can mean to perceive a sound, or to understand what is being said. So if they could tell a voice was speaking, but couldn't make out the specific words, then they both heard it, and didn't hear it.

Also, think about this. Paul wasn't writing Acts 22:9. Luke was. Luke was merely quoting Paul at this point. So if Paul mistakenly said that his companions didn't hear the voice, but Luke accurately recorded Paul's words, then the Bible itself is making no mistake. Just like if I said "my neighbor says his cat can fly a helicopter", you would not say that I am speaking falsely, only that my neighbor is. So if Paul spoke falsely, then this would only mean that Paul made a mistake, not that there is an error in the Bible. There is no contradiction between the idea that they heard the voice and the idea that Paul claimed they didn't hear the voice. It would only mean that Paul was mistaken in what he said, not that the writer of Acts was mistaken in reporting what Paul said.

Paul's appearance did not depend on Peter's vision, since here it was not a follower but an "enemy" of  Jesus or his supporters who was affected. Here Paul's biography gives strong indications that his vision of Christ is to be explained psychologically as an overcoming of a smouldering "Christ complex" which led to sever inner (unconscious) conflicts in him and finally released itself in this vision.

I'll say this. If it's true that Jesus was never resurrected, then I would agree with you that Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus was probably a hallucination of some sort. So I can certainly understand why those who don't believe in the resurrection would believe such. But I feel that the evidence strongly favors the idea that Jesus was resurrected, which makes Paul's 180-degree turn more likely an encounter with the risen Jesus.

I question many things. I seriously doubt that the Roman empire would force people to travel sixty or so miles for a census. The roads could not handle such traffic, despite what the nativity stories claim.

I'm saying that the vast majority of the people of the time didn't have to travel at all. In those days, most people lived in the towns they were born in. Registering for the census didn't take a 50 or 60 mile trip for most everyone, but merely a trip from one part of town to another. There's no reason that the roads couldn't handle a mere handful of people returning back to their hometowns and the vast majority staying where they were.

David

Many historians reconstruct that a historical Jesus would not have believed that he himself was the messiah, but rather the prophet of the Messiah.

http://home.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html

In other references to the son of man , however, Jesus is clearly not referring a himself but to the coming from heaven of a cosmic judge whose mission it will be to destroy the wicked and take the righteous up into heaven. The obvious source is Daniel 7 describing a vision in which four kingdoms appear that are represented as beasts coming up out of the sea each of which wreaks great havoc on the Earth. After the appearance of the fourth beast the visionary sees the son of man coming on the clouds of Heaven, coming to the rescue, so to speak. Other such references, again selected, include Mark 8:38; 13:26, Matthew 24:27; 25:31, John 3:13.”

However, it appears then that Paul conflated Jesus with the Messiah after his alleged vision.

John,

Historians can believe what they want, but all four gospels make it clear that the authors believed that Jesus was the Messiah. This was not something that originated with Paul.

---He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father." (Mt. 16:15-17)

This exchange also appears in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and John has Jesus telling the Samaritan woman that He is the Messiah in 4:25-26.

Obviously, if one does not believe that Jesus was resurrected, then there is no reason to believe that Jesus was who He, or His apostles, claimed He was. If they were wrong about the central event in their story, then who cares what else they said about him - why should anyone believe it? The Gospels then become utterly without authority in practically all matters. But if (as I believe) Jesus was resurrected, then this makes it pretty clear that Jesus was more than a mere prophet.

I'm someone who believes that the entire New Testament stands or falls on the question of Jesus' resurrection. If He was resurrected, then it's quite authoritative. If He wasn't, then it isn't.

Peace,

David

We don't have the original copy of any gospel. We only have copies of copies. As Bart D. Ehrman has pointed in his book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, by examining manuscripts*. So I feel free in positing Pauline fanatics doctored scripture based on their feeling of what had to be the truth based on "divine revelation" or convulted and abstruse theological reasoning.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.

-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

forgery examples.

*(the oldest sheet of paper size copy of a gospel extant does not go back further than 299 CE; a credit card size chip of the Gospel of John [apparently] may go back further, based on the style of the writing and letters. This scrap is called P52. So do a web search for Gospel and P52)

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

If you want to take a look at a scan of this scrap.

We don't have the original copy of any gospel. We only have copies of copies.

That we do. But, again, my approach is to treat the Gospels and other New Testament texts the way historians would treat other historical texts. So if I'm going to ask if the "copies of copies" we have compare to what the authors originally wrote, I'll apply the same method historians use in determing how reliable copies of other ancient texts are. For example, all we have of Homer's "Iliad" is copies of copies, but historians have determined that the copies of copies are likely very close to what Homer actually wrote. In fact, the Iliad is considered to have the strongest manuscript support of any ancient text of which the originals do not exist. Well, the strongest except for the New Testament, that is.

When historians are trying to determine whether a certain ancient writing is likely similar to what we have now from copies of copies, they take into account four factors:

1) How many existing copies are available? (the fewer we have, the less we can be certain they are reliable)

2) Where were the copies found? (if they were all found in the same place, then collusion in changing the copies is more likely since this would mean a single group had control of them - if found in different places, it's less likely)

3) What length of time passed between the writing and the earliest copies or portions? (a shorter interval of time makes them more reliable)

4) What variances exist between the copies? (the more differences we have, the more changes were made, obviously)

So how does the New Testament do on this test?

As far as existing ancient copies, or portions, we have 24,000. Homer's Iliad has 650.

As far as places found, portions of early copies of the NT have been found in places such as Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy. It would be nearly impossible for there to have been collusion given the great distances involved. No single group had total access to the texts.

As far as length of time, the earliest fragments have been dated to within 50-100 years (some arguably even less), with the earliest complete texts dating to within 300-400 years. As far as Homer's Iliad goes, the earliest fragments date to about 900 years after it was written, with the earliest complete texts dating to about 2000 years after it was written.

As far as variances between the copies, the NT copies are 99.5% in agreement on wording, and 100% in agreement in doctrinal issues. There are no significant differences, the only differences being mostly things like saying "Christ Jesus" as opposed to "Jesus Christ". With Homer's Iliad, about 5% of the text is considered to be in question.

I found a web site giving more detail about the manuscript support for the New Testament here: http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

So it isn't a question of whether the copies we have now are roughly the same as what was originally written. We can be more certain that they were than we can for any other ancient text. If we're going to doubt that the NT copies are accurate, then we have to be fair and doubt every other ancient text even more.

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.

No, if they had, then we would have ended up with many Gospels that were wildly different from one another. No single group had their hands on all copies. They were spread out all over the civilized world.

*(the oldest sheet of paper size copy of a gospel extant does not go back further than 299 CE; a credit card size chip of the Gospel of John [apparently] may go back further, based on the style of the writing and letters. This scrap is called P52. So do a web search for Gospel and P52)

Which, as far as ancient texts go, is quite strong, actually. As I said, the earliest portion of Homer's Iliad is about 900 years after it was written, and its manuscript support is considered stronger than any other non-Biblical text.

The evidence strongly suggests that all four Gospels were written in the first century, Mark's and Luke's by 63 AD at the latest, Matthew's by 70 AD and John's by 90 AD, and that no significant changes were made afterwards.

I know, that doesn't necessarily mean that what the original authors wrote was true, but it does strongly suggest that the copies we have now are likely very similar to what they actually wrote.

David

"As far as variances between the copies, the NT copies are 99.5% in agreement on wording, and 100% in agreement in doctrinal issues. There are no significant differences, the only differences being mostly things like saying "Christ Jesus" as opposed to "Jesus Christ". With Homer's Iliad, about 5% of the text is considered to be in question."

Actually, quite a bit ofanti-adoptionist doctoring took place.

http://www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/bible-notes/adoptionists.html

Luke 3:22 (read both KJV and RSV). The variation, footnoted by the RSV, is, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten thee." [Sidebar from John: I always found it amusing to note the difference between this and the doctored version, which reads "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." The original phrase has an epic, cosmic quality to its wording; the doctored version sounds as if a father was thanking his son for mowing the lawn and helping senior citizens with their groceries.]

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/orthodox.htm

Given the adoptionists understanding that Christ became God only at his baptism (some claimed only at his resurrection), it is utterly fascinating to know that Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", that the end of the phrase "The Son of God" is *missing* in most of the earliest manuscripts! This was added later on (Ehrman examines at length the information - pp. 72ff) in the 2nd century, so that originally Mark may not have even understood Jesus to be the Son of God! Most interesting!

Other corruptions:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/orthodox.htm

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/manufall.html#result3

Let us look at another, weighter, example - the Johanine comma:

I John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one.

Remember that modern textual evidence shows that the italicised words above are not found in the earliest manuscripts. In other words, they do not form part of the original autograph of I John. Yet this statement is the clearest and most direct support of the doctrine of the trinity in the New Testament.

Luke 3:22 (read both KJV and RSV). The variation, footnoted by the RSV, is, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten thee." [Sidebar from docsavage80: I always found it amusing to note the difference between this and the doctored version, which reads "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." The original phrase has an epic, cosmic quality to its wording; the doctored version sounds as if a father was thanking his son for mowing the lawn and helping senior citizens with their groceries.)

I'd say, coming from God Almighty, even a "not bad, sport" would be a pretty awesome thing.

Given the adoptionists understanding that Christ became God only at his baptism (some claimed only at his resurrection), it is utterly fascinating to know that Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God", that the end of the phrase "The Son of God" is *missing* in most of the earliest manuscripts! This was added later on (Ehrman examines at length the information - pp. 72ff) in the 2nd century, so that originally Mark may not have even understood Jesus to be the Son of God! Most interesting!

These are examples of the less than 0.5% of the text that was altered. I think you (or your sources) may be reading motivations into it that aren't there, but this isn't an issue that I've really explored, so I don't feel qualified to give much of a response at this point (except maybe to say that whether Jesus became God's only begotten son at the baptism or was God's only begotten son from the beginning, I find Jesus worthy of my praise). I'm involved in some projects that don't give me the time to do much in the way of research at the moment, but I would like to look into this issue at some point later.

Let us look at another, weighter, example - the Johanine comma:

I John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that witness on earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood and these three agree in one.

Remember that modern textual evidence shows that the italicised words above are not found in the earliest manuscripts.

Oops, I think we lost the italics. But, yes, I do know that the part that goes "...in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one..." were originally a marginal note (codex 221 - 10th century) that ended up being incorporated later, perhaps due to a copyist mistaking the marginal note for part of the actual text. it ended up becoming an official part of the NT when the Catholic Church pressured Erasmus, against his protests, to include it in the Greek NT in the 16th century.

In other words, they do not form part of the original autograph of I John. Yet this statement is the clearest and most direct support of the doctrine of the trinity in the New Testament.

But hardly necessary for someone to accept the Trinity. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all do appear in the New Testament and it's clear that Jesus and the HS, while neither are God in the same sense that God is God, are manifestations of God.

I don't need someone to tell me my car has four wheels when I can count the wheels myself.

David

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html#himcalled

I found a helpful write-up on that second alleged reference to Jesus by Josephus-in an extremely awkward introduction. "One is the puzzling word order of this paragraph - why would Josephus have thought to mention Jesus first, when the passage is actually about someone else entirely?  But it makes perfect sense that a Christian interpolator, consciously or unconsciously, would have given pride of place to his savior's name."

There is another brief passage in Josephus that mentions Jesus. Antiquities, book 20, chapter 9, contains the following:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...."

This passage is not as obviously a forgery as the Testimonium Flavianum. However, a more oblique line of attack is possible, which runs as follows:

Josephus was a Jewish historian, but he worked under the sponsorship of the Roman emperor Vespasian; he was writing for a Roman audience. A Roman audience would not have been familiar with the concepts of Jewish messianic expectation, and would not have known what the word "Christ" meant. It would only have confused them if that idea had been thrown in without explanation - and yet, if we reject the Testimonium as the obvious forgery it is, this brief snippet is the only use of the term anywhere in any of Josephus' writings, provided without further elaboration. Since it is highly unlikely that Josephus would have used this term without explaining what it meant, it is therefore probable that this phrase is an interpolation as well.

When we conclude this, several things fall into place.  One is the puzzling word order of this paragraph - why would Josephus have thought to mention Jesus first, when the passage is actually about someone else entirely? But it makes perfect sense that a Christian interpolator, consciously or unconsciously, would have given pride of place to his savior's name. Another is the phrasing of the passage. Some have translated the crucial phrase as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." However, this translation is not supported by the original Greek - in fact, the original Greek words used are identical (except for being in a slightly different case) to the wording of Matthew 1:16.

It is true that these things might be coincidences.  However, there is yet another anomaly. Reading the rest of chapter 9, we learn that the Jews were so angered by the stoning of James that they wrote to the king, Agrippa, demanding that Ananus be fired. Why would Jews be so upset over the killing of an apostate, a Christian leader, that they would attempt to depose their own high priest?

None of these four points are conclusive by themselves. However, when we add them all up, the combined weight of the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that this, too, is a later Christian interpolation. Perhaps Josephus was discussing someone else, some random Jew named James, and a later Christian commentator mistakenly assumed that it was Jesus' brother who was being referred to but was bothered that Josephus did not say so, so made that connection himself by inserting the "brother of Jesus, him called Christ" phrase.

This conclusion makes good sense and makes the passage less jarring, more easily fit within context. After all, if Josephus really had written the "him called Christ" phrase, it is difficult to believe he would have left it at that without further elaboration.  After all, to call someone "Christ" is a claim that is presumptuous in the extreme - it makes that person out to be the God-sent messiah, the long-awaited savior the Jews had been promised who would establish God's kingdom on earth for all time. It seems very likely that Josephus would include at least a brief discussion of the actions of the person who would dare to take such a lofty mantle on himself, even if he did not believe that person's messianic claims. But no such discussion is to be found anywhere in Josephus, and thus we can confidently conclude that this is because he never wrote this phrase in the first place.

I found a helpful write-up on that second alleged reference to Jesus by Josephus-in an extremely awkward introduction. "One is the puzzling word order of this paragraph - why would Josephus have thought to mention Jesus first, when the passage is actually about someone else entirely?But it makes perfect sense that a Christian interpolator, consciously or unconsciously, would have given pride of place to his savior's name."

Actually, putting James first would have made the wording quite awkward, since it's followed by "and some others". If it said "James, the brother of Jesus, him called Christ, and some others", then it would have sounded like James was the brother of Jesus and some other people. The wording as Josephus wrote it makes it clear that the "others" were people accused alongside James, not his brothers.

Josephus was a Jewish historian, but he worked under the sponsorship of the Roman emperor Vespasian; he was writing for a Roman audience. A Roman audience would not have been familiar with the concepts of Jewish messianic expectation, and would not have known what the word "Christ" meant. It would only have confused them if that idea had been thrown in without explanation - and yet, if we reject the Testimonium as the obvious forgery it is, this brief snippet is the only use of the term anywhere in any of Josephus' writings, provided without further elaboration. Since it is highly unlikely that Josephus would have used this term without explaining what it meant, it is therefore probable that this phrase is an interpolation as well.

At the time Josephus was writing, Christianity had gained enough attention that most Romans had to have been at least marginally aware that Christians considered Jesus their "Christ". This was after the time that Nero had blamed the fire on Christians, something he would not have done if the response from his fellow Romans would have been, "ummm...who are the Christians?".

Another is the phrasing of the passage. Some have translated the crucial phrase as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." However, this translation is not supported by the original Greek - in fact, the original Greek words used are identical (except for being in a slightly different case) to the wording of Matthew 1:16.

Except that every time Josephus used the phrase (the greek "legomenos"), it did mean either "alleged" or "so-called". In fact, the complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus translates "legomenos" as "so-called" or "alleged". He never used it to say that one thing actually was another, but only to say that they were not. A Christian interpolator would not have used the phrase unless he wanted to give the impression that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ.

It is true that these things might be coincidences. However, there is yet another anomaly. Reading the rest of chapter 9, we learn that the Jews were so angered by the stoning of James that they wrote to the king, Agrippa, demanding that Ananus be fired. Why would Jews be so upset over the killing of an apostate, a Christian leader, that they would attempt to depose their own high priest?

Probably because many of those Jews, if not all of them, WERE Christians. At the time, the Romans considered Christians to be a sub-category of Jews.

None of these four points are conclusive by themselves. However, when we add them all up, the combined weight of the evidence points strongly to the conclusion that this, too, is a later Christian interpolation. Perhaps Josephus was discussing someone else, some random Jew named James, and a later Christian commentator mistakenly assumed that it was Jesus' brother who was being referred to but was bothered that Josephus did not say so, so made that connection himself by inserting the "brother of Jesus, him called Christ" phrase.

We'd need stronger evidence to assume this. Unless we have some copies that are missing this passage or show other, stronger, evidence of tampering, assuming an interpolation is never done. When historians come across an ancient text that has something that they find a tad questionable (which is the most anyone can say about this one), they never just write it off to "interpolation". Unless the forgery is glaringly obvious, such as a writer talking about something that happened in the future (from his perspective) or was totally out of character for him (like the other Josephus passage), or is missing from earlier copies or conflicts with external references to those copies (as happens with the other Josephus passage - early Christian references to it show that it was clearly different than the version we have now), historians always assume the passage to be genuine. As they should.

This conclusion makes good sense and makes the passage less jarring, more easily fit within context. After all, if Josephus really had written the "him called Christ" phrase, it is difficult to believe he would have left it at that without further elaboration. After all, to call someone "Christ" is a claim that is presumptuous in the extreme- it makes that person out to be the God-sent messiah, the long-awaited savior the Jews had been promised who would establish God's kingdom on earth for all time. It seems very likely that Josephus would include at least a brief discussion of the actions of the person who would dare to take such a lofty mantle on himself, even if he did not believe that person's messianic claims. But no such discussion is to be found anywhere in Josephus, and thus we can confidently conclude that this is because he never wrote this phrase in the first place.

Or, more likely, because Josephus was writing history and wouldn't bother to write of actions that he believed never happened, or claims that he believed were bogus. It would have been out of character for him. Usually when mentioning a claim that Josephus himself did not believe, he would write of it in a brief, dismissal fashion instead of elaborating on it. Exactly as he appears to do here.

David

Hey, John.

Since we're discussing Josephus, I thought I'd mention this, which I found on this site: http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

It appears to be a reference to what Josephus actually wrote about Jesus in Antiquities 18:3:3 ("Now there was about this time...") before the interpolations were added.

-----------------------------------------
Finally, an Arabic version of the Testimonium recounted in the Tenth Century work, "Book of the Title." The author was Agapius, a Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. His recitation of the TF did not come to light until 1971. It is translated thus:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

This version lacks some of the obvious Christian interpolations, such as "he was the Messiah" and "if he can be called a man," though apparently adds glosses such as "and his conduct was good," and "he was known to be virtuous." James Charlesworth, a leading New Testament scholar at Princeton, states that this Arabic version "provides textual justification for excising the Christian passages and demonstrating that Josephus probably discussed Jesus in Antiquities 18." (James Charlesworth, "Research on the Historical Jesus Today: Jesus and the Pseudigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Codices, Josephus, and Archeology," Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. Vi, page 110).
----------------------------------

David

Incidentally, when talking about the virgin birth, some issue came up with similar myths where the child was miraclously conceived by a mother who had unrelated sex (and thus was not a virgin). I propose that the term "non-coital conception" be used to avoid confusion.

John,

It's definitely a more accurate term in those instances, which makes me wonder why most Christ-mythers prefer not to use it.

David

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

A page on Horus and Jesus that readers might enjoy.

John,

I certainly enjoyed it. Almost everything on that page is false, and would only convince someone completely unfamiliar with the Horus story.

Horus' conception was not by a virgin (his parents were married and there's nothing suggesting Isis remained celibate while married).

His mother's name was Isis, not Meri (Meri isn't even part of her name).

Seb was Horus' paternal grandfather, not foster father.

Horus was born in a swamp, not in a cave.

Horus' birth was not announced by an angel or heralded by a star.

Horus' birth date was November 15 (the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak), not in December. Jesus' birthdate probably wasn't in December, either.

There were no Shepherds at Horus' birth.

There weren't three solar deities at Horus' birth. This appears to refer to the Orion constellation, which includes three stars on the belt. The Orion constellation is associated with Horus, but not specifically with his birth. And besides that, the "three wise men" in the Jesus story weren't associated with His birth either, but found Jesus at his home when he was at least a year old. And Jesus is not associated with the Orion constellation.

Herut never tried to kill Horus as an infant, and doesn't appear to be part of the Horus story at all.

The god "That" never tells Isis to hide herself.

Horus didn't have a special ritual at age 12 where his eye was restored.

There is no 18-year break in his life story.

He wasn't baptized in any river at any age by anyone.

His baptizer wasn't beheaded (since there was no baptizer).

Seth never tempted Horus on a mountain.

Horus didn't have 12 disciples (he had either 4, 16, or an unnumber amount of followers, depending on which version of the story you use)

Horus never walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, or stilled the sea with his powers.

Nor did he raise Osiris from the dead.

Horus wasn't transfigured and did not have a sermon on the mount.

Horus was never crucified in any version of the myth. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

There were no two thieves crucified alongside Horus, since he was never crucified. And he was never buried, not even in the version in which he died.

Horus wasn't resurrected, even in the version in which he dies, and thus there was no resurrection announcement by any women.

Horus didn't (and isn't supposed to) reign for 1000 years.

Horus wasn't the savior of humanity in any way, shape or form.

He was never referred to as the KRST (which means "burial" in Egyptian, by the way)

He was never referred to as the good shepherd, the lamb of god, the bread of life, the son of man, the word, the fisher or the winnower.

It's true that Horus was associated with pisces, the fish. But Jesus was not.

Not sure if Horus was associated with the beetle, but Jesus was not. Horus was not associated with the vine or the shepherd's crook.

If you want to prove me wrong on any of these, just find any version of the Horus story in which these things happen, or point me to a general mythology website, or book, that lists these things, but is not trying to promote parallels to Jesus. There are many, many Egyptian mythology websites which give details of Horus' life (just google "Horus Egyptian Mythology" and you'll find thousands). I've searched several myself, and these details do not exist on any that I've seen.

David

On, Jesus and diabolical mimcry; http://www.kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterMimicry.html

"There are over 100 prophecies about the coming messiah in the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled.  Other people wanting to make others believe that their "godman" was the coming messiah would logically use the Old Testament predictions and claim that their "godman" fulfilled them."

Well if those people could anticipate that the authors of the Gospels would take so many verses out of context to present as "prophecies" of Jesus, then they deserve some regard. After all, if they could guess that someone would take the following verses out of context to pass it off as a prediction of the messiah, then they could really forward think.

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/prophecy.shtml#MICAH5-2

"Called out of Egypt - Hosea 11:1

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Matthew is the only Evangelist to use Hosea 11:1 as a Messianic prophecy, and with good reason: it is hard to find a more blatant misuse of an Old Testament passage anywhere in the Christian Bible. The very verse quoted by Matthew quickly establishes that Hosea never intended this verse as a Messianic prophecy. It is, in fact, a remembrance of the time when Israel was rescued out of Egypt by God. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a coming Messiah."

Born of a Virgin - Isaiah 7:14

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This is a fairly famous prophecy, which the New Testament claims was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus to Mary, a virgin. In fact, a cursory examination of the context of Isaiah 7:14 will quickly reveal that it was not intended to a Messianic prophecy at all.  And so it is in chapter 7 that Isaiah introduces a child with the name of Immanuel. This name means "God is with us", and Isaiah used it in the sense of "God is on our side" to predict that the alliance between Syria and Israel formed against Judah (7:1) would fail. In fact, Isaiah even put a time limit on his prophecy. In verse 16, he states that "...before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." The Jews put the age of accountability at about eight years, so we may therefore assume that Isaiah expected his prediction to be fulfilled within this time limit. (It is also not clear that Isaiah's prophecy came true. II Chronicles 28 seems to indicate that Azah was indeed defeated by the kings of Israel and Syria).

To summarize: Isaiah does not refer to a virgin, nor does he expect his prophecy to be fulfilled centuries in the future. He gave his sign at a specific time for a specific purpose. That epoch had long since passed by the time that Matthew thought to use Isaiah out of context to lend credibility to his Messiah."

As the author of this webpage notes, Isaiah did not use the word for virgin.

"Whenever we examine a prophecy, two facts will be scrutinized. First, the prophecy itself must be examined in its historical context in order to verify that the author did indeed intend it to be a Messianic prophecy. Generally, we will find that this is not the case. Of course, many apologists are aware of this problem, and so have invented the rule of "double fulfillment". This states that a prophecy often has dual application - one in the immediate future, and another that refers to the Messiah, at a time far distant. It should be obvious that this principle is in no way supported by the text itself, and that it exists solely to explain the problem that the prophecies do not always appear to refer to the Messiah when closely examined."

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/prophecy.shtml#ISAIAH7-14

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/library/tough.shtml

3. Why did Matthew and Peter take Old Testament passages out of context to make them into prophecies, when they were never indicated to be prophetic by the Old Testament author (Acts 1:20 versus Psalm 69:25, for example)? "

Of course, many apologists are aware of this problem, and so have invented the rule of "double fulfillment". This states that a prophecy often has dual application - one in the immediate future, and another that refers to the Messiah, at a time far distant. It should be obvious that this principle is in no way supported by the text itself, and that it exists solely to explain the problem that the prophecies do not always appear to refer to the Messiah when closely examined."

This is the central crux of the letter, but the idea that "typology" (the idea of past events having a predictive element) is unfairly refuted here, when it's clearly acknowledged in the Old Testament itself. This is hardly something "invented by apologists" but exists throughout the Old Testament. One of the most obvious is the typology between Moses and Joshua. Glenn Miller has a page here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html

which is loaded with examples of typology within the Old Testament itself (too lengthy to copy into this letter).

As the author of this webpage notes, Isaiah did not use the word for virgin.

Sorry, should have responded to this, too. The author of the webpage is wrong on this count. The word the author claims they should have used, "bethulah", does not always refer to virgins. It's used to describe a widow in Joel 1:8, for example. The word used, "almah" is never used except to describe virgins.

On the Gospel writers as lunatics; well, normally we would say that someone who claims that people who disagree with them should be burned and eaten by worms have serious psychological problems. Similarly, someone who claims the world will end soon usually get stares.

Which passages are you referring to?

David

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

By the way, Muslims do not view Mohammed as a god man anyway.

John,

I know Mohammed isn't seen as a god-man, but I included him because he is on some of the "copycat" lists (as are Lao-Kiun and Julius Caesar, also not a god-men, or Bacab, Beddru, Bremrillah and several others who aren't even mythological figures but are whole-cloth inventions of Christ-mythers).

David

Here the intolerance comes in. I could not put it more eloquently that perhaps William Floyd:

Eternal Damnation

Whether Jesus was mistaken or not in his estimate of his close relationship with God is for each person to decide; but his theory of the disasters that would follow unbelief in his divinity leads to serious difficulties if accepted literally. For not only was Jesus in error when he insisted that salvation depended upon belief, he was also reconciled to eternal suffering for unbelievers. Note some of his expressions:

"If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." ["John viii, 24.]

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." [Matt xxv, 31-46.]

"Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of etemal damnation." ["Mark iii, 29.]

"Except ye repent ye shall perish." [Luke xiii, 3.]

"If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." [Mark ix, 43.]

"How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [Matt.xxiii, 33.]

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, buthe that believeth not shall be damned." [Mark xvi,16.]

It is evident from these quotations that Jesus not only preached belief in his divinity as essential to salvation, but endeavored to terrify people into belief by threats of eternal torment. Jesus was responsible for the theological conception of a fiery hell. If he was mistaken, if there never was a place of torment for the wicked after death, is it not an act of constructive criticism to expose the person most responsible for the false doctrine that has caused so much fear and mental suffering? Must we not deplore this mistake of Jesus and recast our entire opinion of him as a religious teacher?

Are we not justified in stating positively that Jesus made a mistake when he taught a physical hell and condemned people to spend eternity in torment for the doubtful sin of disbelief?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/william_floyd/mistakes_of_jesus.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/william_floyd/mistakes_of_jesus.html#

17 End Of The World

Jesus was decidedly mistaken in his theory of the approaching end of the world.

"Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [Matt. iv, 17.]

"Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." [Matt X, 23.]

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." [Matt. xvi, 28; Mark ix, 1.]

"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 ... Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." [Matt. xxiv, 74-34; Luke xxi, 32.]

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand." [Mark i, 15.]

"So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." ["Mark xiii, 29-30.]

"The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." ['John v, 28-29.]

Jesus was confident that the day of judgment was coming in the first century, but it has not come yet, nineteen hundred years later. This erroneous belief in the imminent end of the world had an important bearing upon his entire philosophy; for if the end of the world was so near it was far more important to prepare for life hereafter than to be concerned over mundane affairs. May we not view with doubt any of Jesus' teachings that depended upon his mistaken conception of the duration of the world?

John,

Doesn't answer my questions. You claimed that the Gospel writers were lunatics for saying they believed that those who disagreed with them should burn or be eaten by worms, and nothing you've sent suggests punishment for mere disagreement with the authors.

Also, as I've stated on my website, I don't believe that hell is a place of eternal physical torture. This would be impossible since all that is physical about us ceases to exist when we pass on. Also, hell is described as a dark place, so if one takes both the darkness and the flames as literal, then wouldn't the flames light up the darkness? Hell is a place of eternal shame, not physical punishment.

Are we not justified in stating positively that Jesus made a mistake when he taught a physical hell and condemned people to spend eternity in torment for the doubtful sin of disbelief?

First of all, He didn't say that hell was a physical place. That's how some interpret His words, but I don't. Secondly, He didn't say that the "sin of disbelief" sent people there. It's the sins we commit in this world that keep us out of Heaven, and belief in Jesus can lead to our sins being forgiven, thus getting us into Heaven. But we aren't refused entrance to Heaven because we disbelieve, but because we sin. This guy is purposely twisting Jesus' words.

End Of The World

Jesus was decidedly mistaken in his theory of the approaching end of the world.

No, I believe Jesus was talking of an approaching judgment upon Jerusalem, which occured in 70 AD. I'm what they call a "Partial Preterist". If you aren't familiar with Preterism, there's a page about it here: http://www.apocalipsis.org/preterism.htm

David

I would not find the concept of my astral form being psychically or psionaclly assaulted by astral forms of worms and fire very appetizing.

Oh, yes, people did figure out that yes, fire normally gives off light. Actually, people came to guess that hellfire has different properties than normal fire.

Aside from that, here are a few verses where the Biblical Jesus threatens people with damnation if they do not believe in him.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth onhim.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father. . .-Matthew 10:33 (KJV)

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. -Mark 3:29 (KJV)

That the Biblical Jesus claims the end of the world would come soon:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.-Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

Unfortunately, every disciple died without seeing the "coming."

Behold I come quickly...-Revelation 3:11 (KJV)

Rev. 22:20 also matters here.

I would not find the concept of my astral form being psychically or psionaclly assaulted by astral forms of worms and fire very appetizing.

I really need you to tell me where you're reading this stuff about being psionically assaulted by astral forms of worms and fire.

Oh, yes, people did figure out that yes, fire normally gives off light. Actually, people came to guess that hellfire has different properties than normal fire.

And your source for this too, please.

Aside from that, here are a few verses where the Biblical Jesus threatens people with damnation if they do not believe in him.

And damnation equals being assaulted by astral worms?

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And condemnation involves astral worms?

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Nothing I disagree with here.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Yep, without Jesus' forgiveness, we will die without having our sins forgiven.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Agree here, too. There is a judgment upon those who refuse Jesus, since their sins haven't been forgiven.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Agree here, too. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is the only reason any of us are getting into Heaven.

Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father. . .

I agree here, too.

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. -Mark 3:29 (KJV)

I agree here, too (still not seeing anything about astral worms, though)

That the Biblical Jesus claims the end of the world would come soon:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. -Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

Refers to the events of 70 AD, the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, every disciple died without seeing the "coming."

No, many of them lived past 70 AD

David

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

Here are the worms

Worms -- apparently flesh-eating: Mark 9:44-48:

"Where their worm dieth not..." The immortal worm is repeated three times in this passage for emphasis. One point of interest is that the author of Mark refers to "their worm" not to "the worms." That seems to imply that each prisoner has his own worm.

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. -Mark 3:29 (KJV)

Blashemphy is a victimless crime, as Yahweh is supposedly invulnerable. Yahweh's moronic intolerance has caused many problems, but freethinkers have done much to improve the human condition, while slavery-loving Yahweh worshipping Southerners and others create more problems.

In any event, I seem to have strongly established that the authors of the Gospel propounded the idea that people who did not believe in Jesus would get damned or not achieve salvation. The link above describes their vivid descriptions of Gehenna and damnation.  These warped, disgusting ideas may reasonably lead  reader to think of them as lunatics.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. -Matthew 16:28 (KJV)

Refers to the events of 70 AD, the judgment upon Jerusalem.

Sorry, that does not work. I don't recall Josephus mentioning that the Son of man came in 70 CE when the Romans attacked Jerusalem. People would have noticed the "end of days" had it happened back then (the rapture and so forth).

Here are the worms

Worms -- apparently flesh-eating: Mark 9:44-48:  "Where their worm dieth not..." The immortal worm is repeated three times in this passage for emphasis. One point of interest is that the author of Mark refers to "their worm" not to "the worms." That seems to imply that each prisoner has his own worm.

Or, better yet, that the worm is referring to something which people tend to have in the singular, such as their sense of shame. The worm is commonly used as a metaphor for shame in the Old Testament (Job 25:6, Psalms 22:6, Isaiah 41:14, Isaiah 66:24, among others)

Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. -Mark 3:29 (KJV)

Blashemphy is a victimless crime, as Yahweh is supposedly invulnerable.

Forgiveness is a reward, so withholding forgiveness isn't a punishment. Are you saying God should reward people for blasphemy?

Yahweh's moronic intolerance has caused many problems, but freethinkers have done much to improve the human condition, while slavery-loving Yahweh worshipping Southerners and others create more problems.

So you're saying that Christians are only capable of causing problems and non-Christians are the only ones trying to solve them? I'm sorry, but if you're that narrow-minded, then there's not much I can say.

In any event, I seem to have strongly established that the authors of the Gospel propounded the idea that people who did not believe in Jesus would get damned or not achieve salvation.

Right, but you seem to be under the impression (and correct me if I'm wrong) that God is specifically punishing people for the sin of non-belief. It's not that way at all. People are punished for the sins they commit in this world, and accepting forgiveness means that you are given mercy instead.

The link above describes their vivid descriptions of Gehenna and damnation.

It's funny how non-believers often take the descriptions more literally than believers do. Even among those who believe that hell is a place of eternal physical torture (which I, and many others, don't), most don't assume that the single worm is some sort of flesh-eating one.

These warped, disgusting ideas may reasonably lead a reader to think of them as lunatics.

Especially if you remove them from their context.

Sorry, that does not work. I don't recall Josephus mentioning that the Son of man came in 70 CE when the Romans attacked Jerusalem.

Because Jesus' return was a symbolic one. The fall of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies.

People would have noticed the "end of days" had it happened back then (the rapture and so forth).

There's nothing saying the "end of days" or "rapture" were occuring at the time.

David