Neal Cary - American Atheists, Inc.

[Churchwork]

Given all of the contradictions in the Bible, given that there were so many different early sects of Christianity (some gnostic sects believing that Jesus was not an actual living person), given that most of the elements in the story of "Jesus" can be found in religions that preceded Christianity...
I've never found any contradictions in the Bible, but you don't even need to rely on inerrancy to prove the resurrection, but by simply treating the 66 books of the Bible as a historical document to glean what you can from it using historical standards and methodology. There is always competing views, so just because there was then, many of which are weeded out by God's word, is not a valid reason to deny the truth. There are common elements in the human condition across all religions, but there are no resurrections before Christ. Gnosticism is something that developed in later centuries after the word of God was completed. Those books, therefore, are too late to be considered.


Given that much of the symbolism in the Jesus story has roots in astrology, and given that the town of Nazareth was not in existence at the time of this supposed birth of Jesus, it is highly likely that the whole persona of Jesus began as a fictional story to teach lessons from the Old Testament, and then evolved through exaggeration and retelling. I couldn't find any symbolism having to do with astrology. Have you thought you are perhaps reading into the text that which is not there? There is no reason to think Nazareth didn't exist at the time when Jesus was born. If Jesus is fictional then you would have to throw out every historical figure in antiquity since Jesus is the most documented person with 45 sources within 150 years of His death. Whereas Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9. By your approach Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Julius Caesar never existed. Of course no credible historian is so cavalier to disregard evidence.

Legends theory is not possible because the eyewitness testimony goes right back to the original disciples and people don't willingly die for what they know is a lie,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/legendstheory.htm


The church has had plenty of time and power to make up "evidence" to support this story as fact, and there have been many instances where Christians have been caught lying and creating fraudulent "evidence."I am not aware of any situation where Christians have been caught lying and creating fraudulent evidence, and even if there was in subsequent centuries that doesn't discount what the 66 books of the Bible says, since the Bible must be merited on its own account.

There was not plenty of time to make stuff up. For example, Acts gives a biography of Paul but makes no mention of his death after recounting several instances where he almost died. In a biography that's not something you would leave out. Paul died in 65 AD. Therefore, Acts can be placed around 55 AD. But Luke said Acts was part two of his former work, so that places Luke around 45 AD. Since Luke took in part from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross. And since Mark worked closely with Peter that places Peter's two books quite early also. Such closeness to the events holds the highest standards in antiquity. There is just not enough time for your legends theory to develop. Paul recounts the gospel message, and he said he spent 15 days with Peter, with James and John. Most of the books of the Bible were written before 65 AD, because they were martyred around then. And you can recite all the verses of the NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the church fathers in late first century and second century.


Josephus lived after this supposed Jesus so his writings about Christian events are at best second hand. After all, he was Jewish wasn't he, so even he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. The original manuscripts of Josephus have not survived, and the various copies of his work do not agree on wording and content. This variance in content and other evidence seems to indicate later scribes (Christian, of course) interpolated material many times over hundreds of years into his work -- and did so in a very sloppy manner. That Josephus spoke of Jesus but did not agree with his divinity is called enemy attestation which gives support for the historicity of Jesus. The original manuscript of all writings in antiquity have not survived but what historian closes up shop because the original papyri are no longer in existence? Whatever portion you think is not of Josephus almost all scholars agree he was nonetheless talking about Jesus and the brother of Jesus who was James, an Elder of the church of Jerusalem and was killed for his faith. All of Josephus' writings are consistent. There are not subsequent copies that disagree with Josephus' writings so that is just wishful thinking on your part.


I doubt whether Jesus and the disciples ever lived at all. The story has all the earmarks of any fish tale. The resources to back up my statements can be found on the American Atheists website (atheists.org), in the collected writings of Frank Zindler, and in books such as "The Jesus Puzzle."
Cordially,

Neal Cary
Chairman of the Board
American Atheists, Inc.
There are no earmarks of a fish tale to speak of, perhaps that's why you are being coy, because you have no evidence for your accusations. Praise the Lord!

All the responses to to alleged claims by Frank Zindler can be found in the award winning, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (2004) by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona. Also check out The Historical Jesus by Habermas. And see Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus by Habermas.

[Churchwork]

You have a lot of research to do...I am not being coy, just realistic. You can easily find supporting material for my statements if you are willing to look.
Of course you are being coy and unrealistic as well proven. You can find supporting material for my responses in those 3 books I gave to you. Looks like you got lots of research to do.


Just to be clear, the evidence points to whole paragraphs added to the work of Josephus. It is likely that Josephus never wrote of Jesus.You are contesting parts which there is some dispute over, which I don't favor any dispute at all, but almost all scholars concede that Josephus was talking about Jesus as a historical figure as well as James, the brother of Jesus who was killed for his faith (which would be the gospel of salvation through Christ by His atonement and resurrection).


To assert that denying the existence of Jesus as a real person would mean that one would have to deny the existence of other historical figures is not really logical when examined more carefully. It is important to note the large number of historians who would have been contemporaneous with Jesus who never mention him at all, the questionable nature of the evidence that is offered in support of his existence, the number of times evidence offered for a historical Jesus has shown to be false, and the motivation for Christians to make up evidence to support their faith. It does not make sense to discard the evidence offered for other historical figures unless there is a good reason to do so. The claims made for Jesus are extraordinary, and extraordinary claims need evidence of quality -- not quantity of questionable and fraudulent evidence.The demand you are placing on requiring there be writers writing about Jesus when he is alive does not equate with the historical standard, since the earliest texts we have of other figures of antiquity date over a 1000 years after they died. Though there were a lot following Jesus in His 3 years of ministry, it was largely local and ignored by the powers that be as were other Messiah's at the time so it wouldn't stand to reason that there should be a big write up about him at the time until later when the Church started to grow. And that's exactly what we find as you would expect.

One clue to this fact is that Pilate really had no concern for Jesus and had nothing against him, but it was only upon the pressing of Jews that they demanded Jesus be killed.

The non-Christian sources of Jesus are totally credible which is excellent enemy attestation from Roman, Jewish and other sources (total of 17 non-Christian sources). Even so these are just secondary sources anyway. The primary sources are what count. You have been unable to dissuade either the Christian or non-Christian sources. Lots of talk but no action! Being busy in the world is not a valid excuse though for your negligence.

If Jesus didn't exist then you ought to find some people arguing that in the first century but you don't. Even the second generation Apostles said they knew by name some of the original 12 Apostles, e.g. Clement of Rome knew Peter personally, and Polycarp was a student of John. Have you considered the possibility you are just erecting yourself in hostility by being belligerent and obtuse? Put your emotions aside and ask yourself if you are really being honest with the evidence. The Church could not have been born and grew if it was not for the original eyewitness testimony of seeing Jesus' alive from the dead, since the Church was founded on the resurrection claim.

Since the evidence we have for Jesus exceeds that of any figure in antiquity multiple times over both in nearness of the sources to the timing of the event and number of sources, we see the highest of standards being met. Since you have no good reasons to throw out sources of other figures that pale in comparison to the evidence we have for Jesus, then by your own standard you ought to accept Jesus is a historical figure. That Jesus is a historical figure requires no more extraordinary evidence than for anyone else because we are firstly just talking about his historicity and not whether He is God or resurrected or not. We can discuss that after you realize the doublestandard that you face.

Hopefully you will repent since the quality, nearness and quantity of sources for Jesus far outstripped any evidenced person in antiquity. That's why almost all scholars don't use your approach, so basically you are going to have to come up to my level of understanding, otherwise you remain in a state of belligerency and obstinacy that has no basis or ground to stand on.

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm


Some early church writings such as those by Eusebius advocate lying if it supports their faith. It is interesting that much of this so-called evidence offered for a historical Jesus can only be traced back to Eusebius and no further. It is likely that much false evidence was created by Eusebius and his scribes. I have enjoyed our communication and appreciate your polite and rational approach, but I do not have the time to continue this thread.I can't comment on any allegations that you make unless you are specific so I can respond specifically. What I can say is you are acting like Satan the great accuser who also never backs up anything he says. Don't take offense to what I have said, just realize this is the character of the Devil and those who would follow him. So try not to be like that if you want to come to the table honestly and discuss.

Moreover, I never even brought up Eusebius, so you are arguing on another hill. To deal with what I said you would need to join me on this other hill I am standing on and address the points I have given. Since the material that I give you predates Eusebius then you, obviously, have some mistaken assumptions your flesh is unwilling to let go of.

My prayer is that you realize your time in the world remaining unsaved is not worth it. It is better you address these problems I pose to you. That's all I can do is encourage you by checking yourself by seeing these assumptions are without foundation.