Once Upon A Time Sunday, August 13, 2017

Christian fundamentalists dismiss as liberal nonsense any interpretation of scriptures that is based on the existence of myths and legends in the biblical text, yet they themselves often take doctrinal positions that reflect a fairy-tale view of the Bible.

An example would be the miracles-have-ceased doctrine that is taught by all but the charismatic (Pentecostal and Holiness) churches. The New Testament describes a first-century church in which Christians could speak in tongues, prophesy, heal the sick, and even raise the dead. Such charismatic practices were apparently so commonplace in the early church that the Apostle Paul saw the need to regulate them in 1 Corinthians 14.

Bible fundamentalists generally reject the claims of the charismatic groups who teach that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit still exist. No inerrantist would say, however, that such gifts were not given to the early Christians; they simply say that they no longer exist. They even have a scripture to quote in support of their position: quot;Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away quot; (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Fundamentalists who quote this passage to prove the cessation of miraculous gifts would argue that quot;that which is perfect quot; was the completely revealed word of God or New Testament, which has now come, so the miraculous gifts present in the early church have now ceased. In this, they betray their fairy-tale mentality, because they believe that miraculous gifts existed once upon a time but that now they don't.

Except for the charismatics who believe that miracles still exist, if a modern day fundamentalist experiences an illness, he will seek medical advice. However, this was not the way it was done in New Testament times. Jesus went about casting out devils that presumably possessed people and caused all kinds of physical and mental ailments. Those who were mute (Mt. 9:32), blind (Mt. 12:22), epileptic (Mt. 17:14-18), and mentally ill (Mk. 5:1-16) were thought to be demon-possessed, and Jesus healed them by casting out the demons.

Again with the possible exception of ultraconservative charismatics, Christian fundamentalists today do not believe in demon possession. Few would even consider taking a deaf, blind, or epileptic child to an exorcist to cast out the devils causing the affliction. They do, however, believe that demons were active in human affairs in New Testament times, a position they must take or else risk making their blessed redeemer look pretty foolish. In this, their fairy-tale mentality is very much in evidence again. Once upon a time, devils possessed human beings but not anymore.

This hermeneutic approach to the Bible becomes a convenient catch-all solution to many problem situations in the Bible. In Genesis 9:13-17, for example, we are told that after the flood, God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign of his promise never to destroy the world again by water. To the prescientific minds of the time when this was written, it probably sounded pretty convincing. We know today, however, that rainbows are caused by the refraction of sunlight by rain or mist. Knowing this, the modern mind quite naturally is inclined to ask how the rainbow in Genesis 9 could have in any sense been understood as a sign of God's covenant with Noah, because many rainbows must have been seen in the sky before the flood.

Bible fundamentalists have a once-upon-a-time explanation for this problem. They argue that it had never rained on the earth until the flood. How then did crops grow and people obtain fresh drinking water? The answer is in the Bible, they tell us. quot;There went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground quot; (Gen. 2:6), but rain as we know it simply didn't exist until the flood. So once upon a time, we are assured, it didn't rain on the earth. One wonders just how the sun shined on the earth for so long without causing that mist on the ground to evaporate and form clouds that eventually brought rain, but to the fundamentalist this is nothing to fret about, because anything can happen in fairy tales.

Modern medicine, despite all the progress it has made in recent years, can give us a lifespan of only 70 some years. Just a relative few live beyond the century mark. Biblical characters, however, routinely lived much longer than the rare centenarians of our time. The patriarch Abraham lived to be 175 (Gen. 25:7), and his son Isaac 180 (Gen. 35:28). Jacob lived 147 years (Gen. 47:28), Levi 137 (Ex. 6:16), Kohath 133 (Ex. 6:18), and the list could go on and on. These ages, although incredibly long by modern standards, were quite short compared to the ages that the Bible attributes to their ancestors. The Genesis 5 genealogy contains a list of patriarchs who routinely lived over 900 years. Methuselah, of course, lived 969 years (v:27), whereas his son Lamech died a mere youngster at the age of 777 (v:31).

If you ask a Bible fundamentalist if these were literal ages, he will tell you without even batting an eyelash that they were. In quot;The Bible, Science, and the Age of Patriarchs, quot; an article in the May 1992 issue of Reason & Revelation, Dr. Bert Thompson discussed various attempts to assign figurative interpretations to these ages but concluded that they were intended to be understood as literal ages. Dr. Thompson didn't attempt to explain why people lived so long in those days when it is a medical struggle for people in modern times to live even a tenth as long, but this is apparently no problem for the fundamentalist mind. Once upon a time, people routinely lived for 900 years; now they don't.

We have to consider too the frequent appearances that God made in biblical days. He was always dropping in unannounced to chew the fat with Abraham (Gen. 15:1-17; 17:1-21; 18:1-32) and the other patriarchs (Gen. 28:10- 15; 35:1; 46:2-4) or even to do a little wrestling (32:24-30). God appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Ex. 3:4) and again on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:20-22). If we accept the Bible at face value, divine appearances in those days were almost as common as dirt. We could fill a page with scripture citations that tell us God appeared to so-and-so in a dream. If someone today claims that God has appeared to him, we try to get psychiatric help for him. If someone 3,000 years ago claimed that God appeared to him, we believe him and call him a prophet.

Inerrantists have a response to all this. They tell us that God had a plan that he was working on in biblical times that required him to appear to people but that now his plan is complete, so he doesn't need to do this anymore. However, it all amounts to the same kind of fairy-tale hooey: once upon a time God appeared to people but not anymore.

In an earlier article (quot; If It Walks Like a Duck..., The Skeptical Review, Autumn 1991, pp. 2-6), I said in reference to the sons-of-God / daughters-of-men issue in Genesis 6:1-4 that if a story looks like mythology, sounds like mythology, and reads like mythology, one is safe in concluding that it is mythology. The same principle is true of the once-upon-a-time mentality so characteristic of fundamentalist attempts to explain away serious problems in the Bible text.

Once upon a time happens in fairy tales but not in real life. We can only conclude, then, that much of the Bible does not reflect what happened in the real life of the times that we read about in it. After all, if the emissary of an allegedly inspired book like the Avesta, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon could resolve contrary-to-fact problems in his quot;inspired quot; text only by telling us that once upon a time it was this way but not anymore, who in our society would believe him? Why then should we accept the same intellectual insult from those who want to sell us the far-fetched idea of an inerrant Bible.

[Source: ONCE UPON A TIME | From The Skeptical Review Pages 7-9: summer 1993 | By Farrell Till]

WHO IS THE SUFFERING SERVANT OF ISAIAH 53? Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Isaiah 53 – A Jewish Perspective

Wasn’t the Prophet, in fact, referring to Jesus in this chapter? And didn’t all Jews before the Middle Ages recognize this chapter as “messianic“? We hope to assist you in interpreting a chapter which has become a cornerstone of Christian evangelism to Jews.

Our Jewish sages teach that “whoever saves a single Jewish soul is considered as if he had saved an entire world.” How precious is the Jewish soul! Though the Bible study which follows is a lengthy one, we have prepared it in the belief that – as a Jewish soul – you are worthy of any method which may be required. We hope that you too will value your soul highly enough to prayerfully ponder that which follows. God’s truth is not always easy to discern, but we are possessors of a Divine promise; “you will find Him if you search after Him with all your heart and all your soul” (Deut. 4:29). As faithful Jews have attested for over 3500 years, it’s worth the effort. And now – on with the search!

A. PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.” Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no “proof” at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus’ own disciples didn’t view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: “God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn’t see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims – why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God “remove this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36) – didn’t he know that a “removal of the cup” would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this “Messiah” to get the benefits?

B. CONTEXT

Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God’s revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you “tackle” Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah’s “Messages of Consolation“, which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God’s chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as “oppressed without cause” (v.4) and “taken away” (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53’s promise of a reward for God’s servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: “`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the L-rd.”

C. ISAIAH 53

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God’s servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) – the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God’s servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

52:15 – 53:1 “So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?” Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the “servant of the L-rd,” and they will say “who would believe what we have heard?“. 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations’ astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 “And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?” In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God’s “arm” refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.” While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 “A man of pains and acquainted with disease.” Israel’s adversities are frequently likened to sickness – see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.” In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted.” See Jer. 30:17 – of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

53:5 “But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities.” Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant’s sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures – see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.” Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).

Regarding the claim that Jesus “did not open his mouth” when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.” Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since – by Jesus’ own testimony – he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the “first coming.” See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living.”

53:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as “cut off” and God promises to open its “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to them.” Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word “lamoh“, when used in our Scriptures, always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 – “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them.”

53:9 “And with the rich in his deaths.” Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 “He had done no violence.” See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.

53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed“, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as “sons“, is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 “He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 “With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just.” Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not “justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations” which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God’s Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 “Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty.” If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people – who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) – who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?

[Source: Jews for Judaism]

Five Myths About Jesus Thursday, September 26, 2013

Reza Aslan is the author, most recently, of “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”

Perhaps no historical figure is more deeply mired in legend and myth than Jesus of Nazareth. Outside of the Gospels — which are not so much factual accounts of Jesus but arguments about His religious significance — there is almost no trace of this simple Galilean peasant who inspired the world’s largest religion. But there’s enough biblical scholarship about the historical Jesus to raise questions about some of the myths that have formed around Him over the past 2,000 years.

1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The first Christians seem to have had little interest in Jesus’s early years. Stories about His birth and childhood are conspicuously absent in the earliest written documents about Him: the letters of Paul (written between A.D. 50 and 60) and the Gospel of Mark (written after A.D. 70). But as interest in the person of Jesus increased, the nascent Christian community tried to fill in the gaps of His youth to align His life and mission with the myriad, and often conflicting, prophecies about the messiah in the Hebrew scriptures.

One of those prophecies requires the messiah, as a descendant of King David, to be born in David’s city: Bethlehem. But Jesus was so identified with Nazareth, the city where most scholars believe He was born, that He was known throughout his life as “the Nazarene.” The early Christians needed a creative solution to get Jesus’s parents to Bethlehem so He could be born in the same city as David.

For the evangelist Luke, the answer lay in a census called by Rome in A.D. 6, which he claims required every subject to travel to his ancestral home to be counted. Since Jesus’s father, Joseph, was from Bethlehem, he and his wife, Mary, left Nazareth for the city of David, where Jesus was born. And thus the prophecy was fulfilled.Yet this Roman census encompassed only Judea, Samaria and Idumea — not Galilee, where Jesus’s family lived. What’s more, since the purpose of a census was taxation, Roman law assessed an individual’s property in the place of his residence, not his birthplace.

Simply put, Luke places Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem not because it took place there but because that story fulfills the words of the prophet Micah: “But you Bethlehem . . . from you shall come for me a ruler in Israel.”

2. Jesus was an only child.

Despite the Catholic doctrine of His mother Mary’s perpetual virginity, we can be certain that the historical Jesus came from a large family with at least four brothers who are named in the Gospels — James, Joseph, Simon and Judas — and an unknown number of sisters. That Jesus had brothers and sisters is attested to repeatedly by the Gospels and the letters of Paul. Even the 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus refers to Jesus’s brother James, who would become the most important leader of the early Christian church after Jesus’s death.

Some Catholic theologians have argued that the Greek word the Gospels use to describe Jesus’s brothers — “adelphos” — could also mean “cousins” or “step-brothers,” and that these could be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. While that may be true, nowhere in the New Testament is “adelphos” used to mean anything other than “brother.” So there is no rational argument for viewing Jesus as an only child.

3. Jesus had 12 disciples.

This myth is based on a misunderstanding of the three categories of Jesus’s followers. The first was made up of those who came to hear Him speak or to be healed by Him whenever He entered a village or town. The Gospels refer to this group as “crowds.”

The second category was composed of those who followed Jesus from town to town, village to village. These were called disciples, and according to the Gospel of Luke, there were 70 or 72 of them, depending on which version of the text you believe.The third category of Jesus’s followers was known as the apostles. These 12 men were no mere disciples, for they did not just follow Jesus from one place to another. Rather, they were given permission to go off on their own and preach His message independently and without supervision. They were, in other words, the chief missionaries of the Jesus movement.

4. Jesus had a trial before Pontius Pilate.

The Gospels portray Pontius Pilate as an honest but weak-willed governor who was strong-armed by the Jewish authorities into sending a man he knew was innocent to the cross. The Pilate of history, however, was renowned for sending his troops onto the streets of Jerusalem to slaughter Jews whenever they disagreed with even the slightest of his decisions. In his 10 years as governor of Jerusalem, Pilate eagerly, and without trial, sent thousands to the cross, and the Jews lodged a complaint against him with the Roman emperor. Jews generally did not receive Roman trials, let alone Jews accused of rebellion. So the notion that Pilate would spend a moment of his time pondering the fate of yet another Jewish rabble-rouser, let alone grant him a personal audience, beggars the imagination.It is, of course, conceivable that Jesus would have received an audience with the Roman governor if the magnitude of His crime warranted special attention. But any “trial” Jesus got would have been brief and perfunctory, its sole purpose to officially record the charges for which He was being executed.

5. Jesus was buried in a tomb.

The Gospels say that after the crucifixion, Jesus’s body was brought down from the cross and placed in a tomb. If that were true, it would have been because of an extremely unusual, perhaps unprecedented, act of benevolence on the part of the Romans.

Crucifixion was not just a form of capital punishment for Rome. In fact, some criminals were first executed and then nailed to a cross. The primary purpose of crucifixion was to deter rebellion; that’s why it was always carried out in public. It was also why the criminal was always left hanging long after he died; the crucified were almost never buried. Because the point of crucifixion was to humiliate the victim and frighten witnesses, the corpse would be left to be eaten by dogs and picked clean by birds of prey. The bones would then be thrown onto a trash heap, which is how Golgotha, the place of Jesus’s crucifixion, earned its name: the place of skulls.

It is possible that, unlike practically every other criminal crucified by Rome, Jesus was brought down from the cross and placed in an extravagant rock-hewn tomb fit for the wealthiest men in Judea. But it is not very likely.

[Source:The Washington Post]

outlook@washpost.com
Read more from Outlook, friend us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter.

There Were No Eye Witnesses To Jesus's Life Tuesday, September 4, 2012

From: Simon Ewins

To: Andrew Ruys

Problem is I do not attempt to address secular evidence of anything to do with Jesus Christ because, (a) Christ is a title, not a surname (it should be Jesus the Christ), (b) Christ is a title designating one who is annointed and I don't have a big quarrel with the stipulation that he was annointed, in fact I think it is very likely that he was, its significance has, however, been greatly exaggerated.

The main reason that I am more than willing to state that "a man named Jesus was executed by the Romans during the period governed by Pontius Pilate", is because there are so many non-Christian sources that support the idea. Roman, Jewish and gnostic sources as well as the gospel authors and virtually all competent biblical scholars, agree that this was the case.

That is evidence that is satisfactory to me. However, I question to the point of dismissal claims that he was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, rose others from the dead or walked on water because Roman, Jewish and gnostic sources as well as the gospel authors and biblical scholars do _not_ agree and in fact either contradict each other most of the time or totally ignore such events, never mentioning them at all.

To convince me of the divinity of Jesus will require the same kind of evidence that has convinced me that he existed and was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate. No more and no less. The sources that you cite as being supportive of the more outlandish claims made in the NT in actual fact do not only not support those claims but they speak loudly against them since they ignore them. Yet these events are too fantastic to be ignored if they actually happened. The more mundane claims, I do not deny. However, for the more extraordinary claims equally extraordinary evidence is required.

I assure you that I _can_ be convinced... given the right kinds of evidence.

Then you should realize that there is nothing in extant that was written about Jesus any earlier than Paul's letters which are still, at the very earliest, dated to ten years after Jesus' death. As you should know, Mark is dated by most scholars to 70-75 C.E. which is about forty years after Jesus' death. Matthew at about 80-85 C.E., Luke at about 85-90 C.E. and John at 110-120 (if not as late as 140) C.E.

You should find it suggestive that the earliest (Paul) make no mention of a virgin birth, raising the dead or walking on water kinds of miracles. A little healing but no big "WOW" except the resurrection. The next earliest source, Mark, adds a few miracles but no virgin birth and no raising people from the dead. Matthew has a virgin birth and even more miracles. Luke adds to the virgin birth and presents a slightly more miraculous being. John takes it another step by making Jesus the son of a god, raising Lazarus and generally being more spirit than human. The later the source the more fantastic the reports.

• Jesus dies.
• Paul adds resurrection.
• Matthew/Luke add virgin birth.
• John makes him a god.

As I say, that should be suggestive of something to you. If nothing else Paul and the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke should have noticed something as phenomenal as the raising of Lazarus from the dead (especially Paul, that would have been something that he would have made a very big deal about). None even mention it. Even the editor of the "The Abingdon Bible Commentary" finds that hard to swallow, "He [John] is the only one to record the miracle of Lazarus, a miracle so incredible that it could hardly have escaped the attention of Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke had it really happened. Why did they not make mention of this miracle?"

My answer is "Because it never happened." So, if John is considered to be accurate history by yourself then you must dismiss the others as inaccurate or at least very bad history for missing such a phenomenally noticeable thing.

How you can assert with any honesty that what ended up in the gospels is related to accurate history is beyond me.

[Source: HolySmoke.Org]

No Evidence Of Jesus

Recently, several fundis have asserted that there is much historical evidence that Jesus acyually existed as have alluded to a few round about references by early writers. I can accross the following in a file in America OnLine Religion library:

The early Christians, Origin, for instance, in his reply to the rationalist Celsus who questioned the reality of Jesus, instead of producing evidence of a historical nature, appealed to the mythology of the pagans to prove that the story of Jesus was no more incredible than those of the Greek and Roman gods.

This is so important that we refer our readers to Origin's own words on the subject. "Before replying to Celsus, it is necessary to admit that in the matter of history, however true it might be," writes this Christian Father, "it is often very difficult and sometimes quite impossible to establish its truth by evidence which shall be considered sufficient" [Origin Contre Celsus. 1. 58 et Suiv.]

This is a plain admission that, as early as the second and third centuries the claims put forth about Jesus did not admit of positive historical demonstration. But in the absence of evidence Origin offers the following metaphysical arguments against the skeptical Celsus:

1. Such stories as are told of Jesus are admitted to be true when told of pagan divinities, why can they not also be true when told of the Christian Messiah?
2. They must be true because they are the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies [Ibid.]

In other words, the only proofs Origin can bring forth against the rationalistic criticism of Celsus is, that to deny Jesus would be equivalent to denying both the Pagan and Jewish mythologies. If Jesus is not real, says Origin, then Apollo was not real, and the Old Testament prophecies have not been fulfilled. If we are to have any mythology at all, he seems to argue, why object to adding to it the myths of Jesus? There could not be a more damaging admission than this from one of the most conspicuous defenders of Jesus' story against early criticism.

Justin Martyr, another early Father, offers the following argument against unbelievers in the Christian legend: "When we say also that the Word, which is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [First Apology, Chapter xxi (Anti-Niacin Library.] Which is another way of saying that the Christian myths is very similar to the pagan, and should therefore be equally true.

Pressing his argument further, this interesting Father discovers many resemblances between what he himself is preaching and the pagans have always believed: "For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribe to Jupiter. Mercury, the interpreting word (he spells this word with small w, while in the above quotation he uses w to denote the Christian incarnation) and teacher of all; Aesculapius ... to heaven; one Hercules ... and Perseus; ... and Bellerophon, who, from mortals, rose to heaven on the horses of Pegasus." [Ibid.] If Jupiter can have, Justin Martyr seems to reason, half a dozen divine sons, why cannot Jehovah have at least one?

Instead of producing historical evidence or appealing to creditable documents, as one would to prove the existence of a Caesar or an Alexander, Justin Martyr draws upon pagan mythology in his reply to the critics of Christianity. All he seems to ask for is that Jesus be given a higher place among the divinities of the ancient world.

[Source: WAS JESUS A MYTH? by M.M. Mangasrian | Reviewed by Larry Sites]

• Read also what Bart Ehrman said about this issue right here.