Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[Brian2]

Do you have any sources?

Josephus and gnostic sources speaks of James, Jesus brother.
Acts of the apostles speak of James the brother of John.
Early Christian writers mention the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as if it was common knowledge.
Nobody says that the apostles denied their faith.
Christian sources have various stories of the deaths of most of the apostles, but martyrdom is a common cause even if the actual cause of death varies.

Did Christians Lie About the Martyrdom Accounts of the Apostles?

 

[Brian2]

For one thing, people in cults die for their belief too. But, about the physical resurrection of Jesus, the Baha'i Faith denies it. Who's wrong? The Baha'is and their prophet or the gospel writers? In a lot of ways, I think it might be both. But I do not deny that the NT claims that the tomb was empty and a flesh and bone Jesus appeared to the disciples.

Why would the Baha'i denial be correct unless Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God and Jesus is not and the witnesses He appointed to spread the gospel and story of what happened told lies?
Do you really think they did not know whether Jesus had died and was resurrected to life again and made up the resurrection account.
With other would be Messiahs their movement died out, so what happened to make it different for the disciples of Jesus?

 

[InChrist]

Many Muslims are willing to die for their Islamic beliefs and have done so. What is the distinction between the apostles and other Christians who willingly die for their faith and Muslims who willingly die for their faith? Why would a Christian's martyrdom be more spiritually significant than that of a Muslim?

True many Muslims are willing to die for their faith. I think there’s a difference though, between between the way Muslims choose to die and the way Christians accept their death.

Christians martyrs, as the Apostles were persecuted and put to death for refusing to renounce their faith in Jesus Christ and the gospel message. They did not purposely choose to die, but were willing to die. When Christians are put to death for their faith in Christ they face their death peacefully with hope and confidence in Christ, even praying for their enemies or those harming or killing them… as Christ did from the cross, “Father, forgive them…”.
When Muslims are martyred for their faith it’s usually not due to a situation where they are being forced to renounce their faith. Rather, it’s often their deliberate choice to die, impress Allah, usually killing others (those considered enemies) along with themselves.

 

[InChrist]

How old are you? You are from the US, right?

I ask because you seem completely unaware of how the "Elvis is alive" legend sprang up and took hold immediately after his death.

I’m likely older than you. I live in the U.S. and am well aware of the Elvis thing. I guess I never even took that seriously and don’t find it at all comparable to the resurrection account of Jesus Christ.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why would the Baha'i denial be correct unless Baha'u'llah is a messenger from God and Jesus is not and the witnesses He appointed to spread the gospel and story of what happened told lies?
Do you really think they did not know whether Jesus had died and was resurrected to life again and made up the resurrection account.
With other would be Messiahs their movement died out, so what happened to make it different for the disciples of Jesus?

The virgin birth, a star moving in the sky guiding the Magi, Jesus' many miracles including walking on water, then his resurrection and ascension into the sky? If it's all true, then it's the greatest thing to ever happen. But could it have been made up? 2000 years ago, I think it could have been made up and been passed on to others as true, and they would have believed it. But still, that's what the gospels say and the Baha'i Faith denies it.

So, if the resurrection is true, the Baha'is are wrong. And if it was false and a hoax, they also lose, because they don't call it out as being false. Their claim is that it was misinterpreted as being a literal, physical resurrection, when, to them, in actuality, it was only a "spiritual" resurrection. And the physical body of Jesus never came back to life.

There is no way that I see how the Baha'i interpretation can be made to work considering what is said and how it is said in the gospels. To me, the resurrection is either true or a hoax. But not a "spiritual" resurrection. So, for me, that's a big strike against the validity of the Baha'i Faith right there.

But I think there are similar strikes against all religions and their beliefs. But I don't see it as necessarily being that bad for most of them, because I'm okay with religious people in ancient times to have made up myths and stories about the Gods. But these days, a new religion like the Baha'i Faith doesn't have the benefit of unprovable claims of Gods and prophets being easily believed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I’m likely older than you. I live in the U.S. and am well aware of the Elvis thing. I guess I never even took that seriously and don’t find it at all comparable to the resurrection account of Jesus Christ.

That's a matter of perspective; I think the Elvis story is very illuminating on how the Jesus myth could have developed.

In any case, your point was about legends generally, and the Elvis myth certainly qualifies.

 

[Brian2]

The virgin birth, a star moving in the sky guiding the Magi, Jesus' many miracles including walking on water, then his resurrection and ascension into the sky? If it's all true, then it's the greatest thing to ever happen. But could it have been made up? 2000 years ago, I think it could have been made up and been passed on to others as true, and they would have believed it. But still, that's what the gospels say and the Baha'i Faith denies it.

So, if the resurrection is true, the Baha'is are wrong. And if it was false and a hoax, they also lose, because they don't call it out as being false. Their claim is that it was misinterpreted as being a literal, physical resurrection, when, to them, in actuality, it was only a "spiritual" resurrection. And the physical body of Jesus never came back to life.

There is no way that I see how the Baha'i interpretation can be made to work considering what is said and how it is said in the gospels. To me, the resurrection is either true or a hoax. But not a "spiritual" resurrection. So, for me, that's a big strike against the validity of the Baha'i Faith right there.

But I think there are similar strikes against all religions and their beliefs. But I don't see it as necessarily being that bad for most of them, because I'm okay with religious people in ancient times to have made up myths and stories about the Gods. But these days, a new religion like the Baha'i Faith doesn't have the benefit of unprovable claims of Gods and prophets being easily believed.

I don't think the ancients were that gullible about claims of miracles, but many people these days are at the other end of the spectrum and want proof and are unwilling to believe anything that requires the supernatural.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you know Christ and the Bible are true?
What makes you so sure?

Replace Jesus with Bahaollah and Bible with Kitab-i-Aqdas, and you get your answer.

I don't think the ancients were that gullible about claims of miracles, but many people these days are at the other end of the spectrum and want proof and are unwilling to believe anything that requires the supernatural.

What is the evidence that ancients saw miracles happening? Why should people of these days not ask for evidence for supernatural claims?

 

[joelr]

I missed out on book 10 and notice it is nothing like the story in Mark's Gospel either.

The Odyssey Books 10 & 11 Summary & Analysis | SparkNotes

A summary of Books 10 & 11 in Homer's The Odyssey. Learn exactly what happened in this chapter, scene, or section of The Odyssey and what it means. Perfect for acing essays, tests, and quizzes, as well as for writing lesson plans.

www.sparknotes.com

Is the full story similar to the story in Mark's Gospel and the condensed version is not?



I read the short version to find out the story without spending hours doing it.
McDonald and Carrier are obviously more talented than I am at seeing similarities between stories and concluding that the Gospel of Mark was copied from Greek myths, and you must also be more talented. But you have to remember that I am biased about the source of Mark's work and that probably blinds me to what you are saying. To me the bits and pieces that are picked out of the stories and paralleled with Mark might do that to an extent but the overall stories don't resemble Mark at all so it is cherry picking, like those people who saw that Paul had died in the Sgt Pepper's album cover.

Those are only a few examples from McDonalds book. I cannot judge the argument until I read his main book:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

www.amazon.com

Mark is definitely pulling sources and writing as a myth based on the OT narratives he uses, the Epistles and the literary style.
Carrier breaks it down in his book and some of it is in this blog post:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

www.amazon.com

Here Carrier sums up the latest scholarship on Mark's use of Paul:

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

He uses other stories as well such as Jesus Ben Annius

 

[joelr]

Sounds like you believe any scholarship which is supposed to show that the Gospels are made up.
We have something in common. I tend to not believe that sort of scholarship.

No, I believe scholarship that can present evidence and sources and back things up with facts. All historical scholarship shows the Bible is a syncretic work which uses older theology and evolves it to include Jewish additions. The OT used Mesopotamian mythology and the NT used Hellenism and Persian myth and combined it with Jewish ideas. This is consensus, the details are what is debated.

All of this is backed up by known facts. Facts which you are unaware of because you avoid things based on belief which is the absolute worst way to find out what is true. You just admitted you use confirmation bias to keep your beliefs safe.

And as you pointed out, you believe the same about any prophecy in the Bible, they were made up after the event.

The Bible can be demonstrated to be a myth. There is also no way to determine any prophecy. Again, would you read the Quran and decide to believe any supernatural story, or Hindu scripture? What about JW theology?

Then we have all the prophecy in the OT that never happened. Yahweh made many promises that did not happen. So now we overlook those and assume others are real?

I already pointed out Mark is using prophecy is a specific way in Mark, it's part of the story, not literal prophecy.

This prophecy thing is so played out. There are literally thousands of pieces of evidence you ignore and hang on this one mention of the temple destruction.

Scholarship like that does not show that prophecies were made up after the event however, all it does is make that skeptical idea sound scholarly.
Why would people make up a prophecy after the event? To make it look as if the prophet is a real prophet. Wow, never would have guessed it. That's the same thing I have been hearing for many years and now it is the scholarly pov.
There are many scholarly pov about what is in the Bible which are wrong imo. I don't believe them just because they are the opinion of scholars.

They are the opinion of scholars because there is evidence for them.

Jesus also says -
Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Some of you in this generation will still be alive when these all things happen.

31Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

None of the Persian Revelation myth he preached happened. There is also no evidence of a supernatural Jesus and massive evidence of borrowed mythology. So you expect scholars to overlook all that and still say the temple thing is an actual prophecy because Jesus was the Gospel Jesus. Despite zero evidence and endless evidence it's a myth?

Meanwhile you don't buy into one single supernatural event in the Quran, Mormon scripture, Jehovas Witness updates?
I don't know why you won't just admit you do have a supernatural bias as well.
What you are doing is the same as all scholars you criticize. There isn't enough evidence to warrant belief in those other things so you don't.
It's the same for the Gospels.

 

[Brian2]

What is the evidence that ancients saw miracles happening? Why should people of these days not ask for evidence for supernatural claims?

They tell us of the miracles they saw.
People these days can ask for evidence for supernatural claims.
Or to put it another way, they can ask for evidence of the evidence.
People telling us about miracles they have witnessed is not evidence for many people and even if the people who claimed they saw miracles are alive today, their testimony is not seen as evidence by many it seems. Certainly not as evidence for something like the supernatural.
Many people seem to want scientific evidence that there is such a thing as the supernatural before they accept any other evidence for it.

 

[joelr]

Yeah, it is dumb. I don't care who this guy is. Some people eating in both of the stories doesn't mean they're the same. I mean, really. Basically all of your examples were general things like that. Talk about reaching. I guess all stories are ripoffs of all other stories since they have humans in them.

Those are just a few of the examples from McDonalds book.
It's known Mark is using other stories as sources for his narrative so it isn't unreasonable he's also using Greek poetry.
Mark is full of fictive literary devices, re-worked narratives from Kings, verbatim lines from Psalms, re-writes of stories from Paul and Jesus ben Ananias.

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.

Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.
As for some other notable coincidences, we see Mark reversing a few details in his version of the story. Instead of a woman begging for her son, it is a man begging for his daughter. While in 2 Kings, an unnamed woman comes from a named town (Shunem) which means “rest”, in Mark we have a named man coming from an unnamed town, and the man’s name (Jairus) means “awaken”. In Mark’s conclusion to this story (5.42), he mentions that “immediately they were amazed with great amazement”, and he appears to have borrowed this line from 2 Kings as well (4.13 as found in the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings), which says “You have been amazed by all this amazement for us”. It’s important to note that this verse from 2 Kings (as found in the Greek Septuagint), refers to an earlier encounter between the unnamed woman and Elisha where he was previously a guest in her home and this verse was what the woman had said to Elisha on that occasion. Then Elisha blesses her with a miraculous conception (as she was said to be a barren woman in 2 Kings). In fact, this miraculous conception was of the very son that Elisha would later resurrect from the dead. So to add to this use of 2 Kings we also have another reversal from Mark, reversing the placement of this reaction (double amazement) from the child’s miraculous conception (in 2 Kings) to the child’s miraculous resurrection (in Mark 5.42).

The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark

Previously, I’ve written about the historicity of Jesus, and mentioned how the most recent analysis, in Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus (the first comprehensive, academica…

lagevondissen.wordpress.com

based on Dr Carrier's analysis

Here are the parallels between Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)



3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)
16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)

19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)

The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.

 

[joelr]

Yeah, it is dumb. I don't care who this guy is. Some people eating in both of the stories doesn't mean they're the same. I mean, really. Basically all of your examples were general things like that. Talk about reaching. I guess all stories are ripoffs of all other stories since they have humans in them.

also, your criticism is absurd. There is no example where it says "both have humans". General things? Let's see...


O - Odysseus and his crew sailed to the land of the Cyclopes.
M - Jesus and his disciples sailed to the region of the Gerasenes.

yes, both are ship adventures, not general at all?


O - On the mountains of the Cyclopes innumerable goats grazed

M - On the mountain a large herd of swine grazed

similar details in story setting


O - Odysseus and his crew disembarked.

M - Jesus and his disciples disembarked

ok, nothing big here

O - Polyphemus usually was depicted nude.

M - The Demoniac was nude.

coincidence

O - Circe recognized Odysseus and asked him not to harm her. The giant asked if Odysseus intended to harm him.
M - The demoniac recognized Jesus and asked him not to harm him

recognized AND asked not to harm, big coincidence

O - The giant asked Odysseus his name.
M - Jesus asked the demoniac his name.

small detail

O - Odysseus answered “nobody is my name”
M - The demoniac answered “Legion is my name”

the stories are similar

O - Odysseus subdued the giant with violence and trickery
M - Jesus subdued about 2000 demons with divine power and sent them into the swine and then drove the swine into the lake.

still similar, not general

O - Polyphemus the Shepard called out to his neighbors.
M - The swineherds called on their neighbors.



O - The Cyclopes came to the site asking about Polyphemus’s stolen sheep
M - The Gerasenes came to the site to find out about their swine.

O - Odysseus and crew embarked.
M - Jesus and his disciples embarked.

O - Odysseus told the giant to proclaim that he had blinded him.
M - Jesus told the healed demoniac to proclaim what God had done for him.


O - The giant asked Odysseus, now aboard ship, to come back.
M - The demoniac asked Jesus, now aboard ship, if he could be with him.

O - Odysseus refused the request.
M - Jesus refused the request


O - Odysseus and crew sailed away.
M - Jesus and disciples sailed away.

This all matches up fairly well,


Again, Mark is known for using older stories. The scholarship on Marks use of the Epistles is very conclusive, Mark creates earthly stories of Paul's visions.

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

One parallel comes in the middle of a chiasmus Mark has constructed within Mark 12 that demonstrates his dependence on Paul. This was first discovered by Michael Turton and is used to significant effect under peer review by David Oliver Smith.
These coincidences and parallels are so statistically improbable as to render any other explanation effectively impossible: Mark is adapting and playing off of specific content in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

 

[joelr]

I agree that (the author of) Mark and/or earlier oral tradition mythologized the story. However some historical events couldn't be left out (baptism, rage in the temple, execution).

Of course he used the OT. One of the points of gospel genre is to show Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies. I doubt Paul was a source because Paul himself didn't know much about life of Jesus. Greek stories might be an influence but exact matching with the Homer's story is exaggerated.

McDonalds book on the Gospels and the Homeric Epics may be more persuading.
The scholarship on Mark's use of Paul is strong. Carrier wrote a post - Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier. on it using:

• Michael Bird & Joel Willitts, Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts and Convergences (T&T Clark 2011)
• David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels (Resource 2011)
• Tom Dykstra, Mark: Canonizer of Paul (OCABS 2012)
• Oda Wischmeyer & David Sim, eds., Paul and Mark: Two Authors at the Beginnings of Christianity (de Gruyter 2014)
• Eve-Marie Becker et al., Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark (de Gruyter 2014)
• Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Pickwick 2015)

 

[joelr]

Is there a problem with the synoptic gospel interdependence?

Not for me, Christians seem to like to say they are separate accounts but the synoptic problem suggests otherwise. It's consensus in history that Matthew is a creative re-working of Mark. Most historians believe all the others are as well.

OK so Mark could be the first of the 3 synoptics, so?

Yes, and Mark is extremely mythic and using mystery religion (Hellenism) theology exclusively mixed with some Jewish elements.

Yes of course Mark uses the OT, that is where the Messianic prophecies are.
Where does Mark use the epistles? and is it the epistles of Paul who did not write about the life of Jesus much if at all?
If "other sources of fiction" is anything like the Odyssey story you mentioned, that is no source at all.
So anyway, what have people got against Mark being a companion and translator for Peter, as the early Church history tells us?

Peter is a forgery as I pointed out.

Mark's use of Paul is covered in several journal papers, evidence is summed up here:

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

Also Jesus Ben Ananias story is very similar:

Here are the parallels between Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)



3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)

19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)

The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.

 

[joelr]

Yes he could have been responding to that. Does that mean that what he said has to be lies?

No it means what he said is probably true. Other people were saying Jesus was a myth because he likely was. The church did a good job of eradicating any material that mentioned this. But this one snuck by.

At least he says that most scholars would disagree with him

What he means is most scholars would disagree that 1 Peter COULD be authentic.

Interesting speculation, and Peter said why it is not true, and you believe the speculation and that Peter lied.

Peter didn't lie, Peter isn't considered authentic, it's a story. Stop with the "so he lied" thing. I never understand why that is an argument, yes people tell false things about religions, we already know this.
Islam, all false, Hinduism, all false, 36 other gospels not in the canon, all false, the inauthentic Epistles, all false, Dead Sea Scrolls, all false,
yes this clearly happens. Mormonism, all false, JW, false. All other religions, false
You say it like it's improbable.

So Psalm 22 describing details of a Roman crucifixion before it existed is not a prophecy about a crucifixion, in this case the crucifixion of the Messiah, Jesus.

It's evidence of Mark copying Psalms. No evidence Mark had super powers.

I'm a Christian, I believe in Jesus not Muhammad.

If you don't believe in Muhammad then you have supernatural bias. The Quran clearly says he has revelations from angel Gabrielle. Billions believe. You have bias toward supernatural.

Yes Satan started off well but went down hill. Easy to see in the OT.

There is no Satan in the OT as a devil. Only as an Angel of Yahweh.
It's easy to see the Persian influence on Satan.

2:26 One big influence, Persians, conquer Judea 539-332 B.C.



2:50 Persian religion, Zoroastrianism had ideas Judaism did not have but picked up.


- War of good God vs Evil God/light vs dark/ God vs Satan


- Bad people burn in hell, good people wait in heaven


- A river of fire will flow over the universe burning everything up (even hell itself)


- A new better world created in it’s place


- All good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after

Plenty of people believe that the Pentateuch and much of the OT were written around the time of the Exile, but I don't.

Those people have evidence and decades of scholars studying all possible angles. You have confirmation bias and a strong bias to make your beliefs true.
I am interested in what is true. Not what people choose to believe without good evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Those are only a few examples from McDonalds book. I cannot judge the argument until I read his main book:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

www.amazon.com

Mark is definitely pulling sources and writing as a myth based on the OT narratives he uses, the Epistles and the literary style.
Carrier breaks it down in his book and some of it is in this blog post:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark: Dennis R. MacDonald: 9780300172614: Amazon.com: Books

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark [Dennis R. MacDonald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

www.amazon.com

Here Carrier sums up the latest scholarship on Mark's use of Paul:

Mark's Use of Paul's Epistles • Richard Carrier Blogs

Many studies have argued the Gospel that came to be labeled “according to Mark” based some of its content on the Epistles of Paul. Here I’ll discuss this scholarship and its evidence. “Mark” is of course the earliest Gospel we have any surviving text or even any real evidence of. It was then...

www.richardcarrier.info

He uses other stories as well such as Jesus Ben Annius

The whole thing seems to be based on the idea that the Christian history of Mark being a translator of Peter is wrong and that the prophecy of Jesus about the Temple destruction is something that could not happen until after the destruction of the Temple.
The actual evidence in my pov is that Mark was indeed the first of the gospels we have (even if there may have been earlier attempts as Luke tells us), and that since the Acts and gospel of Luke appear to be before the destruction of the Temple, that means that Mark was also before that.
So just use the anti supernatural bias to misplace the writing of Mark and therefore the other synoptic gospels and it becomes legitimate it seems to ask where Mark sourced his gospel account and to say that the gospel account was a fiction based on specious ideas about similarities between Mark and Greek epic stories, and twisting the OT prophecies around to be used in reverse, (the prophecies are not true so they were used as a source for the gospel account of Mark).
Then comparing Paul with Mark and not assuming any similarities to do with Jesus means Mark copied Paul also (even if there should be similarities about the life of Jesus in those who wrote about Him).
Then forgetting any supernatural bias and saying that a Jesus Ben Ananias was a source for Mark's Temple prophecy and not the other way around.
Basically the whole thing is pseudo scholarship imo but is gladly picked up as proven history by the already converted and set to throw doubt at believers who cannot see through it for what it is.

 

[joelr]

It is presumed that the witness reports of the supernatural are not true. Then the circular reasoning begins about the scriptures with those reports and they are presumed to have been written after prophesied events and the theology is presumed to have been copied from other religions etc

Because historians understand how to see trends. Only in the

Mediterranean region did savior demigods and mystery religion theology arise. Not in Persia, India, China, and it started BEFORE Christianity. All of the local religions were Hellenized, got savior demigods who were dying/rising Gods under a supreme God, they all had baptism, not the Jewish kind but specific to the mystery religions (including Christianity), all had communal meals and on and on......

Many were before Christianity which is definitely a Jewish version of this trend.

I read articles and other bits and pieces that you post. I don't need to be an expert on Carrier to have my opinion.

You are basing opinions on small bits of information and also using cognitive bias.

No, you combine the Epistles, the OT, Greek poetry and Greek savior theology and imagined use of mythic language with a presumption that Mark is not true and must have been copied from somewhere. After all, for you Jesus did not even exist.

There is evidence Mark used those sources.
There is clear evidence Mark uses ring structure, chiasmus, Markan sandwiches, and other fictive writing devices
There is no evidence one of the many savior demigods existed,
there is evidence none of them existed
Jesus may have been a Rabbi who was mythicized when the Gospels were written?
Gospel Jesus is a mythology, no evidence except for all of the surrounding religions also becoming Hellenized (many earlier) so it's extremely likely just another mystery religion but happened to catch on.

Why do you claim to know what you do not know. Why not just say that this is what you believe?
I don't know those things to be true. When you say "we know" who are you referring to, other skeptics who believe the same things?

Sorry, this is an excerp from Dr Carriers work. "We" means other scholars. It is in fact a solid fact that Luke is a bad historian.
Everything here is true, nothing here is opinion. A top historian is telling you Luke does not do proper history. That is a fact.

Luke is the first gospel to overtly represent itself as history. He adds superficial details as local color, attempts to date some events and includes a vague preface. He creates a resurrection narrative engineered to answer skeptics of Matthew's account, a tactic that "requires" his story to be true. This count is known to be a fabrication. No prior Gospel, or Paul, had ever heard of the peculiar and convenient details that suddenly make their first appearance in Luke, such as that Peter double-checked the womans claim that the tomb was empty and handled the burial shroud, or that Jesus showed disciples his wouonds and made sure the disciples touched him and fed him food to prove he wasn't a ghost, or that resurrected Jesus actually hung out and partied with dozens of his followers for over a month before flying into the clouds of heaven.
So we know Luke is making things up to sell a fake history, for purposes of winning an argument against doubters (both with and within Christianity, as his opponents included, for example, Christians with very different ideas about the nature of the resurrection).

Despite pretense at being a historian, preface and all, Luke's methods are demonstrably nonhistorical: he is not doing research, weighing facts, checking them against independent sources, and writing down what he thinks most likely happened. He is simply producing an expanded and redacted literary hybird of a couple of previous religious novels, each itself even more obviously constructed according to literary conventions rather than historiographical. Unlike other historians from Luke's era, he never names sources, explains why we are to trust them, or how he chose what he chose to include or exclude. In fact Luke does not even declare any critical method at all, but rather insists he slavishly followed what was handed to him - yet another claim we know to be a lie (since we have 2 of his sources and can confirm he freely altered them to suit his own agenda).

The 4 gospels we have come through the early Church which was associated with the apostles.

There is no "early church":? The first canon was the Marcionite canon and now unknown. Paul had a different OT. 1/2 of Christianity is the 2nd century was Gnostic.
Gospel names didn't arise until late 2nd century. There is no "early church". There were groups, some thought Jesus was a man only, some thought he was only a spirit, some thought Yahweh was a different God than the NT God.


Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Many groups were dualistic, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, usually seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Proto-orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, held that both the material and spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good, and that this was represented in the unified divine and human natures of Christ.[63] Trinitarianism held that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all strictly one being with three hypostases.

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[joelr]

What? First you say that the anti-supernatural bias is fiction and then you show anti supernatural bias.
It is the new aggressive atheism wanting to say that any God and any scriptures have been shown by modern scholarship to be lies.
You know because it is in a peer reviewed book, by someone who is a real scholar and not biased.

Yes it is fiction. First, stop pretending to know anything about scholarship. You don't read, watch or engage in any of it.
You constantly make incorrect statements about it.
Peer-reviewed books are working with what is known to be facts. They have no supernatural bias. It is not their fault there is no evidence for anything supernatural.

Once again, you cannot get this simple logic into your mind.

You don't expect historical scholars to suddenly start writing books about how Islam is the true religion and all true. Or Mormonism has been found to be the new and correct updated Christainity. And when you look at their work they say " Well, we didn't believe it until we looked at the Quran or Joseph Smith's writings.......and we saw.......THEY SAID IT HAPPENED!!!!!! They say, very clearly, IT IS TRUE. Also they say they are the only truth and others will bring a painful doom. We now know because it says so."

You ideas on this matter are absurd. Your book has no more compelling evidence beyond they say so. Yet you would not expect this to work for Islam, but for some reason you expect scholars to read one bunch of claims and say, wow it must be true.
It's so hypocritical.
There is no evidence.
Also, there is MASSIVE evidence that every single little thing in Christianity is either Greek or Persian myth, added to Judaism. All of the other religions also encountered and were defeated by the Greeks. They ALL got savior demigods, who rose, underwent a passion, provided followers with a good afterlife, members became a brotherhood,

all use baptism and communion(communal meals).

That is called evidence. Evidence it is just another myth.

 

[joelr]

There is no "known mythology" with the Bible or the gospels, all that is presumption. You (or your scholars) think that the naturalistic methodology of science should be used with scriptures about the supernatural and presume them to be untrue until, for a start, the supernatural is shown to exist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, scientifically, and even then that says nothing about the truth of those scriptures anyway. The presumption from the start is that any supernatural scriptures are untrue, and then as I have said before, there is circular reasoning which is supposed to prove the scriptures to be untrue.
It is all a big lie but that does not stop people being sucked in and thinking they are getting the latest is historical scholarship and end up saying the speculations about the Bible etc are facts.

There is no "known mythology" with the Bible or the gospels, all that is presumption. You (or your scholars) think that the naturalistic methodology of science should be used with scriptures about the supernatural and presume them to be untrue until, for a start, the supernatural is shown to exist,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, scientifically, and even then that says nothing about the truth of those scriptures anyway. The presumption from the start is that any supernatural scriptures are untrue, and then as I have said before, there is circular reasoning which is supposed to prove the scriptures to be untrue.
It is all a big lie but that does not stop people being sucked in and thinking they are getting the latest is historical scholarship and end up saying the speculations about the Bible etc are facts.

No, there is. The OT is proven beyond doubt to be a reworking of Mesopotamian myth.

The NT is far easier.

Richard Carrier | Mystery Cults & Christianity

:20 a subject normally people are NOT lecturing to the general public

:45 how to spot trends in religions, at that time China, India, Iran did not have these religious concepts, the Mediterranean region did have saviors and similar mythology.

1:40 Apologists say Judaism would not allow outside influence, Judaism actually adapts and borrows material from surrounding cultures. Judaism is similar to other nearby Near Eastern religions.

2:26 One big influence, Persians, conquer Judea 539-332 B.C.

2:50 Persian religion, Zoroastrianism had ideas Judaism did not have but picked up.


- War of good God vs Evil God/light vs dark/ God vs Satan


- Bad people burn in hell, good people wait in heaven


- A river of fire will flow over the universe burning everything up (even hell itself)


- A new better world created in it’s place


- All good people will be resurrected by God to live in that new world happily ever after

4:37 Greeks conquer Judea 332 - 110 B.C.Greek idea (Hellenism) flow into Judaism

5:05 Romans conquered Judea 63 B.C. - 636 A.D. split off from East

5:26 Mystery cults, come from Greek religions. Every culture that was conquered by Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Thracians, all took the Mystery cult theology and added it to their local religion and came up with the Mystery religions.

6:06 Basic Mystery cult, common features:


- Individuals “initiated” into the mysteries, ritually and by teaching sworn secrets about the universe. Something about the cosmos one needed to be saved, secrets. Many secrets are now lost.


- purpose was to gain salvation in the afterlife


- all use baptism and communion(communal meals)


- fictive kinship “brotherhood”


9:00 - Trends in Hellenistic religion


- Petra Pakkanen, Interpreting Early Hellenistic Religion (1996)


- Four big trends in religion in the centuries leading up to Christianity


- Christianity conforms to all four


9:16 Four Trends


- Syncretism: combining a foreign cult deity with Hellenistic elements. Christianity is a Jewish mystery religion.


- Henotheism: transforming / reinterpreting polytheism into monotheism. Judaism introduced monolatric concepts.


- Individualism: agricultural salvation cults retooled as personal salvation cults. Salvation of community changed into personal individual salvation in afterlife. All original agricultural salvation cults were retooled by the time Christianity arose.


- Cosmopolitianism: all races, cultures, classes admitted as equals, with fictive kinship (members are all brothers) you now “join” a religion rather than being born into it

12:34 Savior deities, dying/rising, pre-Christian, Osiris, Adonis, Romulus, Zalmoxis, Inanna (oldest 1700 B.C., female deity resurrected in 3 days)

13:32 Worship of Inanna was continued in Tyre during the origin of Christianity (Tyre is mentioned in Bible). Highly unlikely it’s a coincidence that a Jewish sect decided to build their own version of a dying/rising deity using the Jewish concepts of angels instead of Gods.


15:37 bad scholarship on internet, Horus not a dying/rising God. Mithras is also not. Mithras does undergo a passion, no death.


18:30 All Mystery religions have personal savior deities


- All saviors


- all son/daughter, never the supreme God (including Mithriasm)


- all undergo a passion (struggle) patheon


- all obtain victory over death which they share with followers


- all have stories set on earth


- none actually existed


- Is Jesus the exception and based on a real Jewish teacher or is it all made up?

21:00


Pagan /Jewish element, Judea-Pagan Syncretism


Pagan - Savior son of God


Jewish - Messianic resurrection cult


Pagan - Undergoes ordeal by which he obtains victory over death


Jewish - based on blood atonement theology (substitutionary sacrifice)


Pagan - which he shares with those initiated into his cult for individual salvation


Jewish - adapting Passover and Yom Kippur


Pagan - in a universal brotherhood


Jewish - first by circumsision, then without


Pagan - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal


Jewish - through a baptismal invitation and communal meal

23:36 was difficult to convert to Judaism, Paul made innovations to make it easier. Original Torah observant sect of Christianity became smaller and smaller and disappears around 5th century. Islam may be re-emergence of a lost version of this original Christian sect. Halal is basically Kosher.

25:54 “But Christianity is different”, that is how syncretism works.


27:00 mysteries


Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic
28:00 Christian Pesher (combining disparate passages in scripture that reveals “hidden messages”)


29:15 examples of Pesher logic taken from Old Testament and used for Jesus


32:00 Baptism, Christian version is different from Jewish/John the Baptist version of baptism. Differences are the same in all mystery religions.


- symbolic sharing of saviors ordeal


- to be born again (Osiris cult)


- united into brotherhood


- to be saved in afterlife


- cleaned of sin (Bacchus, Osiris, Mithras)


- baptism for dead (Paul mentions this 1 Cor, 15: 29)

37:05 Eucharist in Mystery religions


- become one with savior


- to be united in brotherhood


- saved in afterlife


- Lords Supper


- Rememberence, flesh/blood/death, 1 Cor 11:24-26
Christian Lords Supper is distinct in Jewish ways

38:50 Mysteries in scripture


1C. 4:1 We are entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed


R. 11:25 (Do not) be ignorant of this mystery


R. 16:25 (the) message I proclaim about Jesus Christ is in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed


1C. 2:6, 7 (We) speak a message of wisdom among the mature….(and) declare God’s wisdom, a. Mystery that has been hidden


1C. 15:51 Listen I will tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed


1C. 3:1-2 I could not address you as people who live by the spirit but as people who are still worldly - mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (Milk and solid food is mystery cult terminology)


H. 5:13-14 Anyone living on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for that mature. (Clearly conceiving the religion in mystery terms)


Mark 4:11-12 (Jesus) told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables, so (they won’t understand)”


Dead giveaway Mark is conceiving the teachings in mystery cult terms


42:00 Jesus becomes the Temple. Kamran sect was also anti-temple. Jews were looking for ways to replace temple cults because of corruption etc….


Jesus gives permanent atonement and so on.


42:52


Christianity is a Jewish Mystery religion, syncretic, henotheistic, individualist, universal brotherhood, savior son of God with passion and myth, baptism, Lords supper as communion for salvation, mysteries reserved for initiated.