Piece 1:
“The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.”
Piece 2:
The first clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human man in recent history is made by the Roman historian Tacitus around 115 CE, but he may simply be repeating newly-developed Christian belief in an historical Jesus in the Rome of his day. Several earlier Jewish and pagan writers are notably silent. The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, published in the 90s, contains two famous references to Jesus, but these are inconclusive. The first passage, as it stands, is universally acknowledged to be a later Christian insertion, and attempts have failed to prove some form of authentic original; the second also shows signs of later Christian tampering. References to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud are garbled and come from traditions which were only recorded in the third century and later.
In pieces 1 & 2, they say that Jesus wasn’t mentioned very much in other sources other than the epistles. Basically, they were looking for confirmation of Jesus’ existence and activity in sources outside of the gospels and the writings of Christ’s followers. Their claim is that the lack of extra support of these writings is evidence that Jesus never existed. However, it would seem to me that the opposite is also true. What about the lack of writings denouncing Jesus’ existence? The writings of the New Testament were being circulated back and forth across the Roman Empire within the first generation after Jesus lived. In other words, there were many, many people still alive who had known Him, known His family and had heard first-hand accounts of His life. At the time right after His ministry and His death—if it was all a giant hoax—wouldn’t you expect to see writings to that effect? –Proclaiming that such a story was untrue because Joseph’s cousin knew he’d never had a son named Jesus or something like that? These people weren’t like we are today—focused on our own petty lives. They were in everybody’s business all of the time. Oral history was huge and so news traveled very quickly by word of mouth. It would be impossible for anyone at that time and in that region to start spreading a hoax that huge without someone taking notice. It’s particularly interesting that there was no denouncement of His existence from His enemies, such as the Roman government—people who would have quite a bit to gain if they could have persuaded people not to believe in Christ. So, in my opinion, pieces 1 & 2, reason against themselves.
Piece 3:
Paul and other early writers speak of the divine Son of their faith entirely in terms of a spiritual, heavenly figure; they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history. Instead, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, God has revealed the existence of his Son and the role he has played in the divine plan for salvation. These early writers talk of long-hidden secrets being disclosed for the first time to apostles like Paul, with no mention of an historical Jesus who played any part in revealing himself, thus leaving no room for a human man at the beginning of the Christian movement. Paul makes it clear that his knowledge and message about the Christ is derived from scripture under God’s inspiration.I simply can’t fathom how the author can claim that the early writers of the NT didn’t speak of Jesus as if he had been a real, living person. That simply makes no sense at all to me, and here’s why: Paul did make references to Christ’s physical existence. Some of these can be found in I Corinthians 1:13, 1:23, 2:2, & 2:8, 1 Th. 4:14, and in several other places. All you have to do is look.
Here are a couple of good ones:
I Corinthians 11:23
“…The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’”
So, based on the above, is there night in this spiritual realm he speaks of? Do people betray each other? Do they eat and drink? Do they partake in ritual, religious observances so as not to forget God’s blessings? Obviously, he’s speaking of something that happened here on earth—the time Jesus ate the Passover meal with His disciples.
Here’s another one:
I Corinthians 15:3-7
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
Again, here he speaking of Christ’s physical death—even that He was buried. Also, it speaks of all those to whom He appeared—notice how very many people there were who saw Jesus after He had been crucified. Perhaps the most interesting phrase here, though, is the one I highlighted—“…most of whom are still living…”. If you look at the time frame when this letter was written, there’s no way Paul could have gotten away with this kind of letter and this kind of claim if anyone had evidence to the contrary. It certainly would have come out long ago if there had been any doubt—even among Jesus’ enemies—that Jesus had, indeed, existed and done what the writers of the NT claim.
Piece 4:
Paul does not locate the death and resurrection of Christ on earth or in history. According to him, the crucifixion took place in the spiritual world, in a supernatural dimension above the earth, at the hands of the demon spirits (which many scholars agree is the meaning of "rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8). The Epistle to the Hebrews locates Christ’s sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary (ch. 8, 9). The Ascension of Isaiah, a composite Jewish-Christian work of the late first century, describes (9:13-15) Christ’s crucifixion by Satan and his demons in the firmament (the heavenly sphere between earth and moon). Knowledge of these events was derived from visionary experiences and from scripture, which was seen as a ‘window’ onto the higher spiritual world of God and his workings.
Again, it is very clear that Paul believed Christ to have existed in physical form—hence all the references to His death on the cross. They seem to be going against their argument in Piece 3 where they said, “they never identify this entity called "Christ Jesus" (literally, "Anointed Savior" or "Savior Messiah") as a man who had lived and died in recent history.” Obviously, if Paul did indeed discuss Christ’s crucifixion, as they now admit here, he did believe Jesus was physically crucified, and thus, physically existed. In I Cor. 2:8, the “rulers of this age” is in reference to the chief priests, Pilate and Herod Antipas, not to demonic forces as this person suggests. The passage must only be looked at in context. The Hebrews passage is talking about Jesus’ role as our High Priest and about the role of the New Covenant. It has nothing to do with the location of Christ’s sacrifice. The other passage he mentioned isn’t part of the Bible, nor has it gone through the vigorous verifications which the Bible has so long endured. Every single source he mentioned here has either been taken out of context, maligned, or is a very poor source, indeed.
Piece 5:
The activities of gods in the spiritual realm were part of ancient views (Greek and Jewish) of a multi-layered universe, which extended from the base world of matter where humans lived, through several spheres of heaven populated by various divine beings, angels and demons, to the highest level of pure spirit where the ultimate God dwelled. In Platonic philosophy (which influenced Jewish thought), the upper spiritual world was timeless and perfect, serving as a model for the imperfect and transient material world below; the former was the "genuine" reality, accessible to the intellect. Spiritual processes took place there, with their effects, including salvation, on humanity below. Certain "human characteristics" given to Christ (e.g., Romans 1:3) were aspects of his spirit world nature, higher counterparts to material world equivalents, and were often dependent on readings of scripture.
This argument is full of error. They need to reexamine true Jewish belief on this matter, because it is not adequately represented here. Neither is the understanding of the “spirit world nature” he describes (though poorly). Obviously, Jesus had human characteristics because He was human. These philosophic back-flips make no sense and would not be necessary if they would simply accept proven fact. Furthermore, this argument is based on acceptance of the earlier ones--all of which are obviously flawed.
Piece 6:
Christ’s features and myths are in many ways similar to those of the Greco-Roman salvation cults of the time known as "mystery religions", each having its own savior god or goddess. Most of these (e.g., Dionysos, Mithras, Attis, Isis, Osiris) were part of myths in which the deity had overcome death in some way, or performed some act which conferred benefits and salvation on their devotees. Such activities were viewed as taking place in the upper spirit realm, not on earth or in history. Most of these cults had sacred meals (like Paul’s Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23f) and envisioned mystical relationships between the believer and the god similar to what Paul speaks of with Christ. Early Christianity was a Jewish sectarian version of this widespread type of belief system, though with its own strong Jewish features and background.
So, he’s saying that because there are similar events in mythical stories that the story of Jesus must also be a myth? This is not logical. Let’s say you write a true auto-biography in which you got hit by a car, you recover and then ended up getting divorced. I write a fictional story about someone who gets hit by a car, recovers and then ends up getting divorced. By this logic, because my story was fictional and had some of the same elements of your story, yours must also be fictional.
Furthermore, it is a well acknowledged fact that Jesus used the culture and the politics of His age when telling parables. Would it make more sense if He used stories that were completely foreign to his contemporaries? Of course, not. He was in a specific time, place, and culture and He spoke within it, to a large degree. What's important to note, though, is how he took ideas that were common and accepted (like hating the Samaritans and honoring the Jewish religious leaders) and flipped them on their heads (in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the religious leaders were evil and the Samaritan was the good guy) to make a point that hit them right between the eyes.
Piece 7:
The Christian "Son" is also an expression of the overriding religious concept of the Hellenistic age, that the ultimate God is transcendent and can have no direct contact with the world of matter. He must reveal himself and deal with humanity through an intermediary force, such as the "Logos" of Platonic (Greek) philosophy or the figure of "personified Wisdom" of Jewish thinking; the latter is found in documents like Proverbs, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon. This force was viewed as an emanation of God, his outward image, an agency which had helped create and sustain the universe and now served as a channel of knowledge and communion between God and the world. All these features are part of the language used by early Christian writers about their spiritual "Christ Jesus", a heavenly figure who was a Jewish sectarian version of these prevailing myths and thought patterns.
If God really exists, has existed forever, created us and has been in communication with us, wouldn’t it follow that we would have some kind of understanding of His nature—even if we don’t come from the same place, culture or time? The interesting thing about Plato is that, in his discussions of “wisdom,” he was describing God’s character very closely. It’s as though in his searching, God had been revealing Himself to Plato, but Plato could never quite make that last jump to recognizing God for Who He was. Again, the vast similarities in thought and belief about God and His characteristics across the ages would seem more to serve the belief that God exists rather than refute it.
Piece 8:
All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from a single source: whoever produced the first version of Mark. That Matthew and Luke are reworkings of Mark with extra, mostly teaching, material added is now an almost universal scholarly conclusion, while many also consider that John has drawn his framework for Jesus’ ministry and death from a Synoptic source as well. We thus have a Christian movement spanning half the empire and a full century which nevertheless has managed to produce only one version of the events that are supposed to lie at its inception. Acts, as an historical witness to Jesus and the beginnings of the Christian movement, cannot be relied upon, since it is a tendentious creation of the second century, dependent on the Gospels and designed to create a picture of Christian origins traceable to a unified body of apostles in Jerusalem who were followers of an historical Jesus. Many scholars now admit that much of Acts is sheer fabrication.
The author is basing this argument on the idea that Mark was written first. However, here are the most commonly accepted dates for the gospel manuscripts:
Matthew: early part of A.D. 50.
Mark: 50s or early 60s (some suggest as late as A.D. 70)
Luke: A.D. 59-63 or 70s or 80s
John: A.D. 85 or slightly later
So, who decided that Mark was written first? Based on the actually dating for these manuscripts, it’s very likely that it was written after Matthew and Luke. So, this argument falls apart right from the very beginning with his false assumptions. Still, let’s examine this idea a bit further.
I just love how this author claims backing for his ideas by citing "almost universal scholarly conclusion" without bothering to reference a single source. But who would know what happened back then better than the people who actually experienced it? Obviously, several people agreed on the events as they occurred and were told by Matthew, Mark and Luke—first-hand observers. The agreement between the gospels is further evidence that the events actually occurred, not evidence against it. All four of these people were there, witnessed the same events and wrote about them. Naturally, they’re telling basically the same story. A word about collaboration: Though there’s no conclusive proof that the writers of the gospel collaborated, let’s examine that for a moment just for argument’s sake. Let’s say you and I see someone riding by on a bicycle. We both sit down and write out a description of what we saw. I say, “A tall, African-American man with a thick mustache rode by on a ten-speed and nearly hit a dog.” You say, “A black man with a mustache, wearing a red shirt, rode by on a bike and nearly hit a dog.” If we put it together and wrote, “A tall, African-American man with a thick mustache and wearing a red shirt, rode by on a ten-speed bike and nearly hit a dog,” could either of us be accused of misrepresenting the event or of making anything up? No. We both saw it. By collaborating and reminding each other of particular details, the story had been made more detailed and accurate, not less so. Furthermore, the above statements about Acts are purely the opinion of the writer and cannot be validated nor proven.
Piece 9:
Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts.
Can the author prove that this is how the Bible came together? No. There is no evidence to support such a wild theory. Actually, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence against it. The reason they have to attack the Bible in this way is because it’s true that there is no way Jesus could have fulfilled all of those prophesies if He were just a man. He would have to be God, and they simply can’t admit that. God’s divinity is so plain in the Bible and in how it was put together that they find it threatening, so they have to attack it—even with wild fabrications like this one. The reason there are parallels throughout Scripture is not because men re-worked it, but because God was using these repeated stories throughout history and in many different ways so that we would learn about Him and hear of His love for us and His plan for us. It’s the very evidence of God’s hand in it.
Piece 10:
In Galilean circles distinct from those of the evangelists (who were probably all located in Syria), a Jewish movement of the mid-first century preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God put together over time a collection of sayings, ethical and prophetic, now known as Q. The Q community eventually invented for itself a human founder figure who was regarded as the originator of the sayings. In ways not yet fully understood, this figure fed into the creation of the Gospel Jesus, and the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel. Some modern scholars believe they have located the "genuine" Jesus at the roots of Q, but Q’s details and pattern of evolution suggest that no Jesus was present in its earlier phases, and those roots point to a Greek style of teaching known as Cynicism, one unlikely to belong to any individual, let alone a Jewish preacher of the Kingdom.
Even the author admits that this “Q” phenomenon is not fully understood. Furthermore, if the parallels made between the “Q” documents and the Bible are as frail and faulty as those evidenced in his earlier points, they could hardly be considered reliable. Just because someone expresses doubt, doesn’t mean his doubt is based on fact or in logical reason. He also uses the word “suggest”—certainly not a term one should put much faith in. He makes other statements as if they are fact (i.e. “the sayings document was used by Matthew and Luke to flesh out their reworking of Mark’s Gospel.”), when this has not been proven in the slightest. It is merely the opinion of a small number of liberals—a severe minority of them, actually. It would take more faith to believe these fabrications than to believe the truth of God and Jesus’ existence.
Piece 11:
The documentary record reveals an early Christian landscape dotted with a bewildering variety of communities and sects, rituals and beliefs about a Christ/Jesus entity, most of which show little common ground and no central authority. Also missing is any idea of apostolic tradition tracing back to a human man and his circle of disciples. Scholars like to style this situation as a multiplicity of different responses to the historical Jesus, but such a phenomenon is not only incredible, it is nowhere attested to in the evidence itself. Instead, all this diversity reflects independent expressions of the wider religious trends of the day, based on expectation of God’s Kingdom, and on belief in an intermediary divine force which provided knowledge of God and a path to salvation. Only with the Gospels, which began to appear probably toward the end of the first century, were many of these elements brought together to produce the composite figure of Jesus of Nazareth, set in a midrashic story about a life, ministry and death located in the time of Herod and Pontius Pilate.
Again, as in pieces 1 & 2, he’s using a “lack of evidence” as evidence. Naturally, before Jesus came and throughout the beginning of the Christian movement after His death and resurrection, there would have continued to be a multiplicity of Jewish beliefs within the area. These had been combined with Greek mythology, Canaanite mythology and a variety of others, no doubt. However, that multiplicity of belief within the area has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jesus existed. There is a vast amount of multiplicity within our own culture, but we all know that just because we disagree, that doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as truth. Some of us are simply mistaken. Just because God provides the knowledge and the Way to salvation doesn’t mean everyone is going to accept it. In fact, one of the prophesies about Jesus and His ministry was that the Jews would reject Him—a prophesy that obviously came true.
Piece 12:
As the midrashic nature of the Gospels was lost sight of by later generations of gentile Christians, the second century saw the gradual adoption of the Gospel Jesus as an historical figure, motivated by political considerations in the struggle to establish orthodoxy and a central power amid the profusion of early Christian sects and beliefs. Only with Ignatius of Antioch, just after the start of the second century, do we see the first expression in Christian (non-Gospel) writings of a belief that Jesus had lived and died under Pilate, and only toward the middle of that century do we find any familiarity in the wider Christian world with written Gospels and their acceptance as historical accounts. Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith. By the year 200, a canon of authoritative documents had been formed, reinterpreted to apply to the Jesus of the Gospels, now regarded as a real historical man. Christianity entered a new future founded on a monumental misunderstanding of its own past.
This argument is based on the previous, flawed arguments. It is also basing much of its argument on a “lack of evidence” as “evidence” rational. Furthermore, can the following statement be validated? “Many Christian apologists, however, even in the latter part of the century, ignore the existence of a human founder in their picture and defense of the faith.” Or, did the author read their writings with the same disregard and lack of attention with which he read Paul’s writings?
He keeps saying "many scholars claim..." and "the experts say...." and, above, "many Christian apologists...." WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? He clearly is unable or unwilling to provide a list of his sources. Instead, he throws in some nebulous, unfounded reference to "the powers that be" in order to validate his claims. Not exactly ground-shaking evidence.
In conclusion, I'd say that overall these arguments are poor, indeed. They are based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations, flimsy evidence, far-fetched ideas and out-right fabrications. The true scholars (such as my atheistic graduate school professors, the authors of world history and archaeology books, and religious studies professors, etc.), both Christian and non-Christian, accept the fact that not only did Jesus exist, but He begs a much closer look than what this author is willing to give Him.
