Here’s the kicker: Ricky’s point about the Bible sounds really great but is in fact categorical false. While some holy books are full of “general spiritual truths” - the claims of Christianity are remarkably and verifiably rooted in history. As ancient manuscripts go, the Gospel according to Luke is the most historically reliable document we have (sacred or secular). There is more manuscript evidence for the death, burial, and (if you’re willing to explore) the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth than there is of the existence of Socrates.
Ricky’s atheism is rather eloquent and I enjoy him very much as a comedian (in fact his roast of Hollywood a couple of years ago with Jeffery Epstein was one of the most important uses of comedy in the last twenty years - George Carlin being the only other person that comes to mind). I respect the guy a lot - but his reasons for rejecting the Bible are rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible (and specifically the New Testament) really are and claim to be.
Wanna read more: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
I’m familiar with some of Ehrman’s books, but not that one! I will have to check it out.
However, while I respect his scholarship, I found he grossly overstated his case in Misquoting Jesus, as most of the textual changes he pointed to in that book amounted to very little given the availability of the earliest texts and the nature of the alterations.
I also subscribe to the view that some of Jesus’s sayings were possibly written down even before His death, given the occupation of some of the apostles. But I respect the opinion that the Gospels were written later; many Christians believe it. Even if that were the case, though, I think the Gospel-writers would have had access to eyewitnesses, even if John himself was pseudopigraphic.
Counter-book suggestion:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
I’ll definitely see if my library has yours, though. Ehrman is wonderful at what he does and I think he approaches the Bible in a wonderfully thorough way.
There's no 'proof' as such, since we're dealing with history, not science. However, there is evidence which we can examine and weigh critically.
For one example of this evidence, the ascription of the authorship of the Gospels comes from an early tradition of the Church, for which our earliest evidence comes from Papias, writing a generation later, around 100AD. We do not have his work extant, but we have quotes of him from later writers.
Papias appears to have been aware of a tradition that Mark's Gospel was derived from Peter, who handed him a collection of his own sermons in Rome, just before he was martyred, and which Mark then put into order. Papias also relates a separate tradition that Matthew also used a similar source and put it together in Hebrew. What this actually means is debatable. Scholars believe it variously to mean that Matthew wrote his gospel originally in the Hebrew language, or translated it into Hebrew, presumably from Greek, or that this Hebrew way was not the Hebrew language, but just a different way of organising the material so as to appeal to a Jewish audience. (Or perhaps Papias is talking about a completely different Gospel, the mysterious "Gospel of the Hebrews".)
Whether this tradition was true, or merely a legend that had been associated with the scrolls after the fact is another question, which I can't provide an adequate analysis of here. For this, and for other evidence regarding the authorship and sources for the Gospels, I would recommend that you get hold of a copy of the superb Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, by Richard Bauckham which goes through all of the evidence in rich detail, and provides an unparalleled examination and overview of the argument.
Yes. Richard Bauckham certainly can. He does a fantastic job of using a new kind of NT analysis (statistical evidence of given names in 1st-Century Palestine) to argue against significant distortion or later additions to eyewitness tradition. He also rehabilitates Papias as a useful source on NT authorship. And does a bunch of other stuff too, but it's been a year since I've read it and I don't recall off the top of my head.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
I can send you a copy, if you want.
There's a book by Richard Bauckham (a conservative Bible scholar) called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which discusses that boy in detail. Bauckham also arrives at the conclusion that /u/riffraff98 did, that it must be Mark since it doesn't appear in any other gospel and doesn't seem important to anyone else but him.
Bauckham's work is really fascinating. He gets a bad rap from the more liberal side of biblical scholarship mainly because he puts a lot of stock into a very unpopular source, a 2nd century church father named Papias. However, Bauckham is usually very well respected (if not always viewed as correct-- but no one is) and it was a really incredibly fun read (for someone who is grad school for New Testament studies) and definitely worth a look if you're interested in Historical Jesus research!
“Source q” as you said is a hypothetical document. Until it’s found there’s no reason to think the gospel writers copied each other and that this document exists. Of course there going to have the same words, because Greek is one language, it was also the common language of the time, the gospels writers and even Jesus spoke Greek. There are actually a lot of scholars who argue that the gospels were written by there assigned authors
Jesus and the eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham
With the exodus watch this playlist, InspiringPhilosophy and Egyptologist Dr David Faulk give evidence for the exodus. And no, the census among scholars isn’t that it didn’t happen. That’s the census of secular scholars, but on the other side the census is that It did happen. Scholars like these argue that it happened
Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchens
Israelite religions by Richard Hess
Christobiography: Reliability of the gospels by Craig Keener
Well that’s not what the current historians believe.
Richard Bauckham has written a 600 page book giving evidence that all 4 gospels are eyewitness.
Or if you prefer to watch short YouTube videos that use his book
Christianity is a completion of Judaism. Modern day Judaism also makes no sense since the temple was destroyed in 70AD and there blood sacrifices ended, that’s when rabbinic Judaism developed as a response to Christianity, so basically Judaism today is nothing like the original.
There is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, here is a some good YouTube videos:
The resurrection of Jesus (playlist)
Reliability of the New Testament
Or if you prefer to read
Sure. 3 facts that all historians agree on is that Jesus died by crucifixion, there was an empty tomb and his post resurrection appearances. All naturalistic explains fail.
Here is a good book to read:
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by historian Richard Bauckam
Here are some good videos:
Hmm, so you scraped my profile it seems. Anyway, four days before I posted that question in r/OrthodoxChristianity, I had written on my newsletter regarding John 17:3. I already knew what was the right and traditional interpretation, but just to know what other Orthodox Christians thought about it, I posted that question. Nevertheless, u/aletheia, who commented under the post gave me a summary of my interpretation - the Father as God Most High, as the cause of the Godhead, is called the 'only true God'.
Augustine didn't corrupt manuscripts to change the word-order, nor did he stop using the word-order. He just suggested that this is the right way to understand John 17:3, considering the context. Interpretation of a verse is not equal to changing it.
Yes, there are pieces of evidence for the Johannine authorship. You may want to read Jesus and Eyewitnesses. Or there is the free PDF here.
In my understanding, the Catholic Church in the West forbade it, fearing heresies. Yeah, seems fishy.
I hope you might understand this by now - Augustine didn't change anything. He just offered an understanding of the verse. Arians had used this verse against the deity of Jesus in the 3rd century, so this was pretty controversial.
I don't understand what you mean by saying 'you have the logical problem of the Trinity included in it'. What exactly is this 'logical problem of the Trinity'?
Yes, Augustine seems to have taught something related to the Original Sin, but not exactly Original Sin though. I have read his writings around this topic, so know a bit.
Thanks, and have a nice day.
If you are into more academically mined books recently I have enjoyed Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which is a compelling defense that the gospels were rooted in reliable eyewitness testimony. The Resurrection of the Son of God is a pretty compelling account underscoring the reliability of the resurrection. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is basically a compendium of every argument for God's existence put in it's strongest terms by the relevant world expert.
Again, these are not popular books but academic ones so they are harder to read than say Mere Christianity. But they defiantly highlight how intellectually secure the Christian message is.
>I would be interested to hear what this jewish writer had to say. Does he claim to have looked Jesus in the eye? Does he claim to have spoken with him at any point or be a first hand witness to any event? Not saying its a must that he was first hand. Just curious.
A couple things here.
First, I think it's important to establish a reasonable standard for how we discern historicity. Unfortunately, the people who end up writing historical treatises often do not have the luxury of shaking their subjects' hands and looking them in the eyes. We can only look at the historian, and his methods, and try to judge the plausibility of his claims. In the case of great, gifted historians like Tacitus and Josephus, it's far more probable than not that they speak of Jesus because they had good reason to know confidently that Jesus existed.
However, your question is a good one and your impulse is completely valid. Christianity is making some really big, world-bending claims about Jesus. What about the testimony of people who knew Jesus? Can we really apprehend these matters when separated by ~2,000 years of time?
It's difficult—and we are now leaving the realm of scholarly consensus from before, when just speaking of the question whether Jesus existed—but I would assert yes, we can.
How? (Again, these are all great questions you asked.) Well, we have writings which clearly purport to be from eyewitnesses—people who say they walked with Jesus, ate with Jesus, and looked Jesus in the eye. A couple important examples are:
the two letters purporting to be by the apostle Peter, also known as Cephas (1 Peter & 2 Peter);
the three letters purporting to be by the apostle John, also known as "John the Son of Zebedee" or "John the Beloved Disciple" (1 John, 2 John, & 3 John); and
perhaps most interesting, the account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection purporting to be by John, the same guy from above (Gospel of John).
For full transparency, you should know that scholars are divided over the authenticity of authorship with these documents. There are arguments made on both sides. But a strong case can be made that diligent students of the text can use these documents—in combination with other accounts like Paul's writings and Matthew/Mark/Luke—to get a clear and intimate picture of who Jesus truly was.
A great source on this, if you're interested in a technical and scholarly perspective, is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Here is a link to the PDF and a link to the Amazon listing. A second option to learn more would be to simply read the Gospel of John and judge it for yourself, understanding that it clearly (and, according to scholars like Bauckham, convincingly) purports to be an eyewitness account:
"This [i.e. John, called in the text 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'] is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things . . ." (John 21:24a)
Lastly, understand that these writings, of course, have a theological motive in addition to a historical motive. The Gospel of John clearly and openly states that it's written so "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31b). I would contend, as would many historians, that a theological and historical motive are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If Jesus really performed the claimed miracles and really was raised from the dead, what would be the reasonable reply from an intelligent witness? Would it not be partially theological? Could we even trust a witness to such events who would not convey the philosophical/theological import of the events to us?
Of course, if one assumes a priori that Naturalistic Materialism is true, none of this stuff about Jesus can even possibly be real, and it's all just a highly elaborate conjob, then one might as well not waste his time with such an exercise. If you already know the truth of a matter, then why investigate it? But that's a rather boring and close-minded approach, IMHO.
Thanks for the discussion, my friend, and God bless you.
I would highly recommend you consult Richard Baukam' s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
this book will answer your questions quite clearly: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
The truth of Christianity depends on the historicity of the permanent resurrection Jesus. Did you already investigate the arguments in favor of his resurrection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M
http://www.bethinking.org/did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead
http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906/
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310339308/
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauchman
> Huh? Whole chunks of NT are questionable. Even entire chapters of Paul are questionable. The gospels are a complete mess.
Okay, and there's people much smarter than you or I who, after years of research, disagree with you. This shouldn't surprise you. Saying "Gospels are a complete mess" tells me you don't really know the other side very well. Probably still asking questions like "Well then who was at the tomb? One woman or three", yeah?
A great recent addition to this discussion is Bauckman's "Jesus and the Eye Witnesses" - https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
> They don't call it apologetics because there's a good solid foundation for Christian beliefs.
Lol, they call it apologetics because it's based on the Greek word "apologia". Nice try though.
> Which moral law? Where does that law come from? The higher being that I don't believe in?
The set of all objective moral values that apply to every single person regardless of their culture or beliefs. "Killing children for fun is wrong" and "Murder for personal gain is wrong" and "Helping people is good" might be a good place to start.
And yes, that moral law comes from God. I'm happy to hear how you think it can exist without God.
> Are you thick or just intellectually dishonest? This is not at all what they were saying.
Lol, straight to the personal insults? Okay.
The Redditor specifically said "the same logic" that guides religious belief leads to terrorism. Maybe they could have expanded their point better? I don't know, it's not my point. But as it stands, it was a disgusting assertion. I wouldn't defend it.
> Why do you believe in Jesus and the christian God and not in another god or the flying spaghetti monster? (Honest question, not a joke)
I believe in Jesus because I'm convinced that the New Testament accounts of Jesus found in the gospels report actual history, ie, Jesus really did live, die and rise again.
If you'd like to look into a robust defense of this, a good intro book to read is Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses".
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802863906
> So because of a Book that was in part dictated by god (allegedly) that says Jesus exists you believe Jesus exists and because you believe what Jesus said you believe god exists? ... don't you see the circular logic?
It's hard to respond to this because it assumes so much falsehood that I can only call it a strawman.
A case can be made that oral histories at the time were strict about accuracy.
Read Jesus and The Eye Witnesses By Richard Bauckham. The man has made a very serious case for first hand eye witness testimony. N.T. Wright has done similar research. Their books are VERY long though.
Scholars are divided on whether the Gospels are eyewitnesses or not. But personally I'm convinced by the scholarly argument in favour. I would recommend Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for an excellent scholarly work on the pro-argument.