Do you think it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss the Bible when considering whether or not Jesus existed

Question

It seems to me that this record was written in ancient times, by people who were associates of Jesus. Shouldn't this be included in the weight of historical evidence? How can one justify it NOT being included?

"Whoa", many scholars CAN agree who wrote most of the New Testament.

Answer 1

The problem is that historians and archeologists have been (and continue) to try to corroborate stories from not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well. They are finding that things that seem to be historical in the OT and NT texts cannot be corroborated by other sources but that the stories may be legendary and "may" relate to certain historically documented things but they appear in a convoluted or, as I said "legendary" way.

That the Gospels were written 70 years after the supposed birth of Christ, however, is NOTa good argument to dismiss the material, though. Many traditions existed as oral traditions long before they were written down and then standardized.

That element of the NT may be legendary is not a reason to dismiss the Gospels or Christianity either, though. The books are full of relevant spiritual material and guidance for living for those who would "have ears to hear" it.

Answer 2

To be fair, much of the NT was supposedly written by Paul--who by all accounts was absolutely not a contemporary of Yeshua's. That's a fact even if you choose to ignore the debate over when the Gospels were written and who wrote them.

Its reliability as a historical document must be tempered with the fact that it is full of mythological components like the miracles, supernatural creatures, etc. Clearly, there are some elements which might lend themselves to being considered as evidence for the historicity of Yeshua; however, because of the inclusion of those mythological things I feel strongly that it cannot be considered purely factual. Other good evidence would have to be presented, preferably from more objective sources who were contemporaries of the time.

Answer 3

No. Here's the thing, anything written at the time can and should be considered. A book that's compiled, edited, translated, and edited again....and again... is not a valid source.

You don't even know if a single word has survived unaltered to these days. You do know how the bible came to be? the books that were thrown out... nicea... and so on?

I'd place more trust in the nag hammadi texts than a bible.... if that's ok with you.

Btw, I'm sure there were lots of people called jebus... so I doubt anyone diputes existence...as to the particular jebus described in the bible, most reputable sources just don't agree with the bible.

Answer 4

None of the accounts of Jesus life were written less than 30 years after it happened. They were not written by Matthew, mark, Luke and John as most believers think. When it says "the gospel according to" in the beginning it means somewhere down the line that person told the story. The actual writing could be done by someone getting the account 10th hand. The story could have been told hundreds of times before it got written down.

Now think of that party game where one person whispers something in someones ear and he tells that to someone next to him and on down the line. By the end the story is completely different. This could have happened with the Jesus accounts.

Believers dismiss that idea because they say the book is inspired. That concept is not valid evidence

Answer 5

No. A thing cannot be used to prove itself. The evidence shows that the christian bible "borrowed" many of its characters, including Jesus, and stories from older religions, philosophies, etc.

* * *
Did a historical Jesus exist?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
[Excerpt]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

* * *
The Myth of the Historical Jesus
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

Pagan origins of Jesus:
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html
http://geocities.com/christprise/
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/pcc09.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
http://www.harrington-sites.com/motif.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm
http://www.apollonius.net/bernard1e.html
.

Answer 6

If it is an offhand dismissal without looking at the evidence, then YES it is intellectually dishonest.

I also think that it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss some of the gospels (Thomas, Mary, Philip, Judas, etc.) just because they were not included in the Bible.
.

Answer 7

The earliest tracts in the New Testament were written well after 30 years beyond the time when Jesus (if he existed at all) would have been crucified, and are all written by people who may have known Jesus's followers, but not one single one was written by a direct follower of Jesus.

The Bible contributes only the weight of heresay, just like all the rest of the 'evidence'. In a court of law or reason, heresay bears very little weight (thought it does bear some, even if only a trivial amount).

Answer 8

Dismissing it is justified by believing that Paul, who didn't know or see Jesus in person and was a persecutor of followers of Jesus Christ, is the one that began the Christian church.

That is believed because even though by Paul's own testimony, the Lord appeared to him while he was still persecuting the church, and his fruits prove that his testimony is true, accepting the Epistles as the truth would mean that one would have to make changes in one's life.

The whole bible is the word of truth, and what Jesus said about the light shining in the darkness and revealing our deeds is applicable no matter what book of the bible you are reading.

edit:

Therefore, by it's power to convict the honsest reader of the sin in their life, and lead them to salvation, the bible is a true document and the historical evidence of the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus that it contains is true.

edit:

to Mr Stiggo,

A very small amount of study will reveal, again to the honest student, how the foundational beliefs of Christianity have been undermined by unscrupulous men seeking power over this people who know and love their God.

Answer 9

1) the earliest book of the NT was written 90 years after Jesus' death, so no it wasn't written by people who were associates of Jesus.

2) It is an established fact that the NT has been edited, altered, censored and translated so often to render it useless as a historical document.

Answer 10

Not if they are looking for ways to dismiss the power of the Lord that saved them. The New Testament is just that, a "testament". It is a witness. You can either believe the testimony, or disregard it. The rest is just excuse-making.

whoa is a good example of "excuse making". Jesus and the gospel writers often quoted the Torah. All quotes were accurate. So how were they changed? How about the 300+ prophecies of Jesus' first coming? Fulfilled to the letter. Were they distorted as well? There is more description of Christ and His mission in Isaiah than any of the gospels. And we have preserved text dating back 2,000 years with the Dead Sea Scrolls. So stop making excuses and just believe it or walk away.

Chippy -
The Roman historian, Tacitus who wrote 'Annals' in 115 CE detailed the following...
* Christ was executed while Tiberius was Emperor (14-37 CE).
* He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 CE).
* His movement had its origins in Judea.
* There were Christian believers at Rome by CE 64 to be made scapegoats by the Emperor Nero.

Bula'ia Aratyme - That is why they are considered "miracles". If you do not believe in God, case closed. But if you believe there is a God, miracles are a simple thing. Right?