Are the Gospel Stories Fictional? (page 2)

JosephAlward

I've presented evidence many times in this forum that the gospel writers' stories about Jesus are fiction, and that the writers made up these stories to make it seem as if events in the life of Jesus were foreshadowed by parallel events a thousand years before. Apologists assert that these stories were not made up, and that the more parallelisms there are, the greater is the proof that Jesus really is the son of God.

But, what about false parallels? In the case at hand, we see that Matthew thought that Zechariah was speaking about two animals, a donkey and a colt, when he was actually talking about just one animal. And this is not the worst thing: Matthew then took his false understanding of Zechariah and made up a story about Jesus sending his disciples to fetch a donkey and a colt! Mark, Luke, and John had the good sense to make up stories that were based on the correct reading of Zechariah, and Matthew did not. Even if we had only this one example of Matthew’s misunderstanding of Scripture and his basing of a fictional story on it, is it not enough to suspect that some or all of the other gospel stories are fictional, too?

Unless the Bible-believers can somehow magically change Matthew’s words so that we can’t see that he had Jesus send for the same two animals he thought Zechariah spoke of, shouldn’t any sensible person agree that Matthew made up this story? If not, why not?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

seedy3

Actually there is much question by historians as to there even being a Jesus as he was told in the gospels. No credible historical account is mentioned of him in any way, outside of a breif comment by josephes about the brother of this Jesus. That comment was more in a way to address the cult like movement then it was as admission to jesus.

Now as for the gospels themselves, each one of them has a very strong influence of pagan mythology in them. None really agree as to instances. Even the book of Mark is almost identical to the Greek story of, Homer’s Melanthius in the Odyssey. The story line of betrayal is also very simular to that of Davids betrayal as well. The story of being born of a virgin, dieing for our sins, being raised up after 3 days, and the second coming, are all from earlier pagan myths, i.e. Osris, Dyonysis, Damuuzi, ect. There is even much infuence in the stories that are Zoroastrian in origan. This Jesus was not the first to be called the saviour of mankind from an evil force, and himself.

The idea of a messiah was not really looked to until the time following the babylonian exile, when much of the Hebrew writings were lost and then re-written with strong Babylonian and Zoroastrain influences. The story of David (whom jesus was suppose to resemble, being called the greater David) and all that he had done is in fact a story from the Canaanites, that the Hebrews adopted as their own. The Eathquakes and unexpected eclipse, at his death, as well as the census at his birth, are not recorded in any historical writtings, anywhere. The Romans were pretty good about recording these things.

There is much more that can be evaluated in the gospels that are not Kosher (so to speak) with recorded history. As well as parallel to pagan myths.

So to me it is a BIG yes, they are myths, and not historical in much of any way.

Seedy

ElijahTheThird

As for history and the Roman Courts.
What about the Archaio Volumn (sp?)
The Roman questioning into the death of Jesus.
Norval

rem

Elijah,

Please post a cite. I'm interested in learning about this.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

seedy3

I actually have done a lot of research on this subject, and have never came across that reference. I know Taticus was suspected to have gotten his info from court doctuments, but it is highly suspect that there would have been any court or government documents in Rome in dealing with the death of a lowly antagonistic carpenter from one of the provinces. Do you know when the records you are refering to happened, or when they were written? Do you have a reference to them at all? I would be glad to do research into them, as I am open for most anything, when it comes to researching the historocity of Jesus.

Seedy

RWC

There is ample evidence of Jesus outside of the Gospels. These include references by Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Roman Pliny the Younger, and the Jewish Talmud.

As for the thought that the Gospels copied Zoroastrian scripture it must be noted that these scriptures were not put into writing until after the third century A.D., well after the Gospels were written. Also, when compared with other ancient religions, there is more cooberation for Jesus than other leaders such as Buddha. For example, although Buddha allegedly lived in the sixth century B.C., his biography was not written until after the first century A.D. As for Muhammad, his biography was not written until more than a full century after his death. So for Jesus to have non biblical corroboration and biographies that were written less than fifty years after his death is quite unique.

RWC

One more point, the darkness and the earthquake was recorded elsewhere. The Roman historian Thallus wrote about it in A.D 52 and dated it A.D 33, the year of Jesus' death.

ElijahTheThird

The Archko Volume
Archeological Writings of the Sanhedrim
and Talmuds of the Jews

These are the official documents made in the courts in the days of Jesus Christ

Translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian Lodge, Genoa Italy from manuscripts in Constantinople and the Records of the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican at Rome.

Essentialy it is a document that was at the end of a very old scroll in the old Constantinople library. The scroll hadn't been fully unrolled for centuries and was discovered by accident.

Thats about what I know, and that it was first published in the book I mention and redgistered with the US library of congress in 1887.

I have no idea of where on the web it may be. Sorry.
Norval

rem

Elijah,

Oh, yeah, that's why I've never heard of the Archko Volume. Because it's just a hoax! No scholars take this fabrication seriously. Here is a link debunking this obvious hoax:

http://answers.org/Bible/archko.html

Here are some excerpts from this ridiculous volume:

http://www.losttribes.org/white.htm

There's plenty of informationo available through google.com if you care to search. This is what I mean about supposed 'evidence' for the existence of Jesus. Whenever you look into it in greater detail, it's initial persuasiveness is destroyed. I have not yet seen any contemporary first-hand accounts of Jesus, nor any compelling non-contemporaneous evidence. The most interesting evidence almost always turn out to be clear interpolations or downright hoaxes. You would think there would be clear, unambiguous evidence (or at least some evidence at all) of God's son existing on this earth 2,000 years ago.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

rem

RWC,

There is ample evidence of Jesus outside of the Gospels. These include references by Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Roman Pliny the Younger, and the Jewish Talmud.

No, actually there is quite little. And if you care to look into these lines of 'evidence' in greater detail you will see that they are sorely lacking in authenticity, or are many times forcibly interpreted to imply existence of the Christ. None of these sources are contemporary with the life of Jesus, either. There is no contemporary evidence to verify later interpolations. That is the whole problem with trying to prove Jesus' existence.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

Are the Gospel Stories Fictional?

Share this