There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[lukethethird]

The above post is an example of plagiarism, the gospels of Matthew and Luke and to some extent John, are all reliant on Mark.
One theory has it that Matthew copied Mark and Luke copied Matthew. See synoptic problem.

 

[Colt]

The above post is an example of plagiarism, the gospels of Matthew and Luke and to some extent John, are all reliant on Mark.
One theory has it that Matthew copied Mark and Luke copied Matthew. See synoptic problem.

Jesus himself left no writings that could have become a fetish. He also forbid his apostles (while he was still on earth) to make written records.

According to the Urantia Book revelation:

“The authority of truth is the very spirit that indwells its living manifestations, and not the dead words of the less illuminated and supposedly inspired men of another generation. And even if these holy men of old lived inspired and spirit-filled lives, that does not mean that their words were similarly spiritually inspired. Today we make no record of the teachings of this gospel of the kingdom lest, when I have gone, you speedily become divided up into sundry groups of truth contenders as a result of the diversity of your interpretation of my teachings. For this generation it is best that we live these truths while we shun the making of records.
159:4.8 (1768.4)

“Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.


159:4.9 (1768.5) “But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.


159:4.10 (1769.1) “But the saddest feature of all is the fact that some of the teachers of the sanctity of this traditionalism know this very truth. They more or less fully understand these limitations of Scripture, but they are moral cowards, intellectually dishonest. They know the truth regarding the sacred writings, but they prefer to withhold such disturbing facts from the people. And thus do they pervert and distort the Scriptures, making them the guide to slavish details of the daily life and an authority in things nonspiritual instead of appealing to the sacred writings as the repository of the moral wisdom, religious inspiration, and the spiritual teaching of the God-knowing men of other generations.”

 

[dybmh]

There are parallel gospel sites online wherein the gospel verses are laid out in columns so that you can see how the gospels match up with each other. You can also read up about the synoptic problem.

Table of Gospel Parallels

Thank you

 

[Thrillobyte]

mmmm.... Now you need to provide evidence of that.

dybmh, for shame for shame. This is common knowledge all over the Internet. Every scholar knows that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template and then embellished the stories. I mean it's right there in the gospels. Now if you're asking me to provide a source like a professor would to one of his students for a term paper then I suppose I could oblige you:

"Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark."

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

dybmh, for shame for shame. This is common knowledge all over the Internet. Every scholar knows that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a template and then embellished the stories.

Yes, and that's why I said:

I thought it was Mark. They both copied from Mark

So, there is no shame. I cited the consensus view which you are saying is common knowledge. Are you actually paying attention to what I'm writing?

I said: "I thought they [Matthew and Luke] both copied from Mark".
You say: "Every scholar knows that Matthew and Luke used Mark"

Are you seeing the pattern? My claim about the dates of composition matched what your sources said. But you objected. My understanding of the connection back to Mark matches what your sources are saying. But you objected.

I mean it's right there in the gospels. Now if you're asking me to provide a source like a professor would to one of his students for a term paper then I suppose I could oblige you:

No, I'm asking for sources that support what you said, which was Luke copied VERBATIM from Matthew.

Luke was written after Matthew and Luke copied verbatim in many cases extensive parts of Matthew

Verbatim and Extensive are your claims. This should be where to start. Gratefully @lukethethird , brought something to work from. Pick some verses from the table as examples where Luke and Matthew are in the table, but Mark isn't. This should be simple. Then let;s look to see if they are verbatim. If they are extensive, then you should be able to pick almost any of those from the table to confirm your claim has merit.

I think 5 would be good. But let's start with one. If I pick it, then it's too easy to argue that I intentionally picked one that doesn't match.

"Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark."

Great! That matches what I said!

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 78913

Great, that's a theory. The 2 source theory. Here's the 4 source theory. Luke and Matthew are distinct.

"It was proposed by B. H. Streeter in 1925, who refined the two-source hypothesis into a four-source hypothesis"

So it sounds like the 4 source is more modern, and the 2 source is old. I just started researching this. I literally have no idea which theory has more merit. I'm happy to be better informed on this. But "extensive" and "verbatim" are words that can easily be exaggerating what's actually happening between Matthew and Luke. And exaggerating is the topic of the thread, at least that's what it started out as. So, I think it would be good, to look a these crossovers in detail to see if "verbatim" and "extensive" are actually true.

Four-document hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

Luke was written after Matthew and Luke copied verbatim in many cases extensive parts of Matthew

This comes from your wiki source: There is 25% crossover between Matthew and Luke. Is that extensive? I don't know.... I think you exaggerated...

 

[lukethethird]

Thank you

Your welcome, but there is more plagiarism, almost all of Mark comes from the Septuagint, line for line rewritten to form a new story to reflect the times in which it was written. The entire crucifixion scene comes from Amos 8 and Psalm 22, that is just one example.

 

[Colt]

This comes from your wiki source: There is 25% crossover between Matthew and Luke. Is that extensive? I don't know.... I think you exaggerated...

View attachment 78918

"Christianity contains enough of Jesus’ teachings to immortalize it." UB 1955​

 

[lukethethird]

This comes from your wiki source: There is 25% crossover between Matthew and Luke. Is that extensive? I don't know.... I think you exaggerated...

View attachment 78918

Luke's gospel consists of 41% Mark of which he copied from Matthew as well as the 23% from Matthew that is unique to Matthew and Luke, leaving only 35% unique to Luke, so that is significant amount of copying. In other words, 76% of Mark's gospel found its way into Luke's copy as well as Matthews.

Correction, even more than 76% of Mark ended up in Matthew, an additional 18%. Only 3% of Mark's gospel was not copied.

 

[dybmh]

Luke's gospel consists of 41% Mark of which he copied from Matthew as well as the 23% from Matthew that is unique to Matthew and Luke, leaving only 35% unique to Luke, so that is significant amount of copying. In other words, 76% of Mark's gospel found its way into Luke's copy as well as Matthews.

Correction, even more than 76% of Mark ended up in Matthew, an additional 18%. Only 3% of Mark's gospel was not copied.

Agreed! 100% I agree, and that was my understanding already. Luke was in majority copied from Mark. The claim from @Thrillobyte is different. And it doesn't match this. The claim is extensive, verbatim copying from Matthew by Luke. Not from Mark. From Matthew. Extensive. Verbatim. From Matthew.

When I said 25% crossover between Matthew and Luke I was rounding up, and being generous. Even if it is rounded up, 25% crossover is not really extensive copying from Matthew by Luke.




25%, is a "large area"? I don't know about that. Maybe if all 25% is word-for-word verbatim copying. But, that doesn't seem likely.

I was aware of the majority copying from Mark. I acknowledged that. I said it. I think I've said it multiple times now. The copying from Mark is not an issue.

 

[lukethethird]

Agreed! 100% I agree, and that was my understanding already. Luke was in majority copied from Mark. The claim from @Thrillobyte is different. And it doesn't match this. The claim is extensive, verbatim copying from Matthew by Luke. Not from Mark. From Matthew. Extensive. Verbatim. From Matthew.

When I said 25% crossover between Matthew and Luke I was rounding up, and being generous. Even if it is rounded up, 25% crossover is not really extensive copying from Matthew by Luke.


View attachment 78920

25%, is a "large area"? I don't know about that. Maybe if all 25% is word-for-word verbatim copying. But, that doesn't seem likely.

I was aware of the majority copying from Mark. I acknowledged that. I said it. I think I've said it multiple times now. The copying from Mark is not an issue.

Theories vary, some suggest Matthew and Luke copied Mark and others suggest Luke copied Matthew and Matthew copied Mark.
Whatever the case all historical Jesus theories are reliant and funnel down through Mark, and Mark is a dead end.

 

[lukethethird]

Jesus himself left no writings that could have become a fetish. He also forbid his apostles (while he was still on earth) to make written records.

According to the Urantia Book revelation:

“The authority of truth is the very spirit that indwells its living manifestations, and not the dead words of the less illuminated and supposedly inspired men of another generation. And even if these holy men of old lived inspired and spirit-filled lives, that does not mean that their words were similarly spiritually inspired. Today we make no record of the teachings of this gospel of the kingdom lest, when I have gone, you speedily become divided up into sundry groups of truth contenders as a result of the diversity of your interpretation of my teachings. For this generation it is best that we live these truths while we shun the making of records.
159:4.8 (1768.4)

“Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.


159:4.9 (1768.5) “But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.


159:4.10 (1769.1) “But the saddest feature of all is the fact that some of the teachers of the sanctity of this traditionalism know this very truth. They more or less fully understand these limitations of Scripture, but they are moral cowards, intellectually dishonest. They know the truth regarding the sacred writings, but they prefer to withhold such disturbing facts from the people. And thus do they pervert and distort the Scriptures, making them the guide to slavish details of the daily life and an authority in things nonspiritual instead of appealing to the sacred writings as the repository of the moral wisdom, religious inspiration, and the spiritual teaching of the God-knowing men of other generations.”

i suppose you practice the one and only true religion, just as everyone claims to.

 

[lukethethird]

25%, is a "large area"? I don't know about that. Maybe if all 25% is word-for-word verbatim copying. But, that doesn't seem likely.

I was aware of the majority copying from Mark. I acknowledged that. I said it. I think I've said it multiple times now. The copying from Mark is not an issue.

If you are referring to the 25% that is exclusively common to both Matthew and Luke, one theory has it that Matthew and Luke copied from a common source referred to as Q, another theory gaining traction has it that Luke merely copied Matthew.

 

[dybmh]

If you are referring to the 25% that is exclusively common to both Matthew and Luke, one theory has it that Matthew and Luke copied from a common source referred to as Q, another theory gaining traction has it that Luke merely copied Matthew.

But is that theory about Luke copying from Matthew actually "extensive" and is it "verbatim", or is @Thrillobyte exaggerating? That's what I want to know. And I think the only way to tell is to look at some of the verses and stories and compare them.

But I can't do the choosing, because I could just pick ones that are intentionally bad examples. Although, the claim of exensive, is a bit of a stretch already. So, like, all of those crossovers are verbatim? I doubt it.

At this point, it needs to be shown that ANY are verbatim. Just 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But is that theory about Luke copying from Matthew actually "extensive" and is it "verbatim", or is @Thrillobyte exaggerating? That's what I want to know. And I think the only way to tell is to look at some of the verses and stories and compare them.

But I can't do the choosing, because I could just pick ones that are intentionally bad examples. Although, the claim of exensive, is a bit of a stretch already. So, like, all of those crossovers are verbatim? I doubt it.

At this point, it needs to be shown that ANY are verbatim. Just 1.

From what I have seen most modern scholars seem to think that Luke did copy from Matthew. But even a verbatim quote does not necessarily mean that the author of Luke copied from the author of Matthew. A verbatim quote would still be the same if Matthew copied from Luke. The reason that it appears that at least one copied from the other is that there are shared story lines, if not quotes, that are found only in Matthew and Luke. And since it is generally judged that Matthew was the earlier work than Luke, the author of Luke would have been copying from Matthew.

But I do not think that there is a slam dunk either way.

 

[leroy]

What "accuracy"? The Gospels are fairly accurate when it comes to place names and some famous people. That is just equating it to Spiderman.

ok the point is that the authors of the gospels (and Spiderman) are well informed individuals who were in a position to know. ……… weather if they are telling the truth or just making thing up is a different issue that has to be supported

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the terrible errors in it.

You mentioned the alleged error in the date of the census and I responded……… you might argue that my response was bad, but accusing for ignoring it is dishonest.

If anything you where the one who ignored my replies, on that topic

If you do not understand why the claim that Luke had to go to Bethlehem to be counted then that alone disqualifies you from being a rational judge.

elaborate your argument,

Of course I am familiar with the objection that you have in mind, but I don’t what to speculate and reply to an argument that you haven’t made,

Keep in mind that I will ask you to support your assertions.

And keep in mind that there is a hidden tramp that will expose your logical inconsistencies……. (if you make the argument that I think you are going to make)

Here is a clue, what was the stated (and actual) purpose of the census?

well taxes I suppose, but you can correct me if you think I am wrong



BTW, did you win the lottery?

 

[dybmh]

@lukethethird ,

OK, I just did a quick search. It appears that people talk about the lord's prayer being a good example of a strong match between Luke and Matthew. But, I'm pretty sure they aren't verbatim.

Wow... this is a real rabbit hole. Look at this:

Do you see those brackets?



And also this:

The Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2-4) is shorter than the Matthean version and differs in some Greek wordings: for example, “forgive us our sins” instead of “our debts”; and “as we ourselves forgive” instead of “have forgiven.” Already at an early stage, however, some scribes added words and phrases in Luke in order to bring the text in harmony with Matthew. For example, the original scribe as well as a later corrector of Codex Sinaiticus have added phrases from Matthew’s version in the text and margin of Luke. These additions from Matthew are present in the majority of extant Greek manuscripts of Luke, representing the Byzantine text. On the other hand, Papyrus 75 (175-225 C.E.) and Codex Vaticanus, primary witnesses to the Alexandrian text, preserve the shorter, more authentic version of the prayer in Luke.

Manuscripts of the Lord's Prayer - Bible Odyssey

The Lord’s Prayer is the most widely known Christian prayer in the world. But is the version we know in our contemporary languages really the prayer

www.bibleodyssey.org

The whole linked article is interesting. But it sounds like there is an old version of Luke and the old version was shorter not a verbatim copy.

 

[dybmh]

From what I have seen most modern scholars seem to think that Luke did copy from Matthew. But even a verbatim quote does not necessarily mean that the author of Luke copied from the author of Matthew. A verbatim quote would still be the same if Matthew copied from Luke. The reason that it appears that at least one copied from the other is that there are shared story lines, if not quotes, that are found only in Matthew and Luke. And since it is generally judged that Matthew was the earlier work than Luke, the author of Luke would have been copying from Matthew.

But I do not think that there is a slam dunk either way.

Agreed. It's a rabbit hole. I'm not sure I care enough to follow it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok the point is that the authors of the gospels (and Spiderman) are well informed individuals who were in a position to know. ……… weather if they are telling the truth or just making thing up is a different issue that has to be supported

We pretty much know that the writers of Spiderman had no such intentions. But that does not matter. So how do you propose that you will support your claim that the writers of the Gospels were "telling the truth"? How would they even know? None of the Gospel accounts are thought to be written by eyewitnesses or even were eyewitnesses ever interviewed. They were just giving their take on an oral tradition. Why believe that any of the magical parts of it, or even supposed historical parts are accurate? You have a very heavy burden of proof there.

You mentioned the alleged error in the date of the census and I responded……… you might argue that my response was bad, but accusing for ignoring it is dishonest.

It was not "alleged". And yes, you did ignore the parts of the responses that I mentioned. And please, do not ever tell someone else that they are dishonest until you fix your own debating style.

If anything you where the one who ignored my replies, on that topic

No, you were corrected multiples times. You had no valid responses.

elaborate your argument,

Of course I am familiar with the objection that you have in mind, but I don’t what to speculate and reply to an argument that you haven’t made,

Keep in mind that I will ask you to support your assertions.

And keep in mind that there is a hidden tramp that will expose your logical inconsistencies……. (if you make the argument that I think you are going to make)

Once again you support my claims. The author of Luke said that the census of Quirinius was for tax purposes. Of course it was not an empire wide census. There is no record of such a census, and there definitely would have been one. One does not have a record of just a small local census of one newly acquired territory to Rome and somehow miss a census of all of Rome. That sort of inconsistency beggars belief. That is the first screw up in Luke. Second, requiring someone to leave the country that he lives in and go to another one that is not directly under Roman rule makes no sense at all. At that time Nazareth was not part of Judea. Joseph and family would not have had to have done to that supposed ancient homeland. He was still in a client state and would not have had to leave his country and go to another one. And it is even worse. The idea of going to one's ancient homeland is pure nonsense. The census was supposed to be for tax purposes. That means that one would count who lives in the countries involved and tax the countries based upon that. It would be insane to have people have to hunt down their supposed ancient homelands. It would serve no purpose. There is no valid excuse for that lame lame error.

well taxes I suppose, but you can correct me if you think I am wrong



BTW, did you win the lottery?

Hey! You got that right. And no, since I did not actually buy a ticket I did not win. But send me some money and I will buy two separate tickets at two separate times. At least one has to win, right?

 

[leroy]

We pretty much know that the writers of Spiderman had no such intentions. But that does not matter. So how do you propose that you will support your claim that the writers of the Gospels were "telling the truth"? How would they even know?

Weather if they were telling the actual truth or not is a different issue, my point is that they were not lying, they were not making things up, but rather they reported what they thought was true.

Do you grant this specific point?

None of the Gospel accounts are thought to be written by eyewitnesses or even were eyewitnesses ever interviewed. They were just giving their take on an oral tradition. Why believe that any of the magical parts of it, or even supposed historical parts are accurate? You have a very heavy burden of proof there.

We´ve been over this before

The reason for I I trust them is because most of the verifiable claims are true…….(you trust josephus for the same reason)

It was not "alleged". And yes, you did ignore the parts of the responses that I mentioned.

Can you quote a specific response that I ingored?

Once again you support my claims. The author of Luke said that the census of Quirinius was for tax purposes. Of course it was not an empire wide census. There is no record of such a census, and there definitely would have been one. One does not have a record of just a small local census

Yes local census where made in the roman empire

o Second, requiring someone to leave the country that he lives in and go to another one that is not directly under Roman rule makes no sense at all. At that time Nazareth was not part of Judea. Joseph and family would not have had to have done to that supposed ancient homeland. He was still in a client state and would not have had to leave his country and go to another one.

Maybe Joseph had properties in Bethlehem, maybe he had “paper work to do”……. Maybe he had a good reason to go to bethlehem.

In the last presidential election in Mexico I had to “travel” to a different town to vote, because my ID had my former address. ……. My point is that joseph could have been a special case.


But the relevant point is “so what” the claim is that Luke was correct in most of the verifiable claims that he made, so even if you find 1 or 2 errors the main claim would still be true

And it is even worse. The idea of going to one's ancient homeland is pure nonsense. The census was supposed to be for tax purposes.

Then if Joseph had properties in bethlehem it makes sense for him to travel………….

Hey! You got that right. And no, since I did not actually buy a ticket I did not win. But send me some money and I will buy two separate tickets at two separate times. At least one has to win, right?

You mean that you made up the lottery story to serve a literary purpose?........