The Historical Jesus

[Orion]

More than a few trees have been chopped down in order to provide for books dealing with the search for the historical Jesus. I have, over the years, read a considerable number of these books and I'm going to attempt to distill what I've gathered thus far. Jeers, mockery, and the throwing of rotten fruit is to be expected.

But first, allow me to explain the nature of the problem. Almost all of the information that we have concerning Jesus comes to us from the NT. But the authors of the manuscripts which make up the NT were written by Jesus' followers, and the historicity of their accounts leaves a lot to be desired. These authors were obviously attempting to sell Jesus, and in doing so, they wrapped Jesus in layer upon layer of folklore and legend. Some believe that it is possible to peel away these layers and to thus come to an understanding of the historical Jesus.

Herewith, then, my observations concerning the historical Jesus...

• Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
• He was probably born in Nazareth. Stories of a census bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem are almost certainly fictional.
• His conception and birth were unremarkable [Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;.]
• There exists doubt as to whether Joseph was Jesus' biological father, as suggested by the following verses: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
  Mrk 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?. The Mark verse is most telling. Lineage was traced through the father. To state that Jesus was the son of Mary was a polite way of saying that either Jesus' father was of ill repute or that the identity of Jesus' father was not known. Add to this the fact that, shortly after Jesus' birth, Joseph seems to disappear from the radar screen.
• The taking by Joseph of his new family to Egypt in order to avoid Jesus' being put to death is almost certainly fictional.
• Little, if anything, is known of Jesus' early years.
• Sometime after reaching adulthood, Jesus apparently hooked up with John the Baptist and may have, for a time, been one of John's followers. According to Mark, John baptized Jesus, which raises questions as to Jesus' alleged divinity as put forth by Matthew, Luke, and John.
• Sometime thereafter, Jesus embarked on his own ministry, gathering followers and speaking in public.
• His message was that of a reformer of Judaism.
• His activities eventually came to the attention of the Romans, especially his creating a disturbance within the temple grounds on the eve of Passover along with the fact that some of his followers began to refer to him as "King of the Jews". A king was expected to liberate his people from foreign occupation, a fact which was not entirely lost on the Romans.
• Thus, Pilate probably ordered one of his officers to get rid of Jesus. There would have been no trial, given that Jesus was considered a nobody.
• He was put to death by the Romans by way of crucifixion, a very common form of death penalty.
• His body was almost certainly not placed in a tomb. Instead, as was common practice, his body was most likely thrown into a garbage dump to be consumed by dogs and birds. This was part of the punishment that the Romans inflicted upon Jews, knowing full well that Jews placed great importance upon a proper burial of the dead.
• There is very little evidence to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth considered himself to be divine, or that he desired to be worshipped, or that his intent was to create a new religion: Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God..
• Claims that Jesus cast out demons is nothing more than a reflection of pre-scientific mentality.
• Claims of Jesus' imminent second coming proved to be a disappointment.

Sources:

The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, Harper Collins
Jesus of Nazareth, Paula Fredriksen, Vintage
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, Ballantine Books
The World's Religions, Huston Smith, Harper Collins
The Birth of Christianity, Joel Carmichael, Dorset Press
A History of Christian Thought, Paul Tillich, Simon&Schuster
Who Is Jesus?, John Dominic Crossan & Richard Watts, Westminster John Knox Press
The Message and the Kingdom, Richard Horsley and Neil Asher Silberman, Penguin Books
The Story of Christian Theology, Roger Olson, InterVarsity Press
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday

[GakuseiDon]

I agree with all but these two:

1. "probably born in Nazareth": Given that "Nazarenes" were an existing group of the time, Nazareth as hometown may have been a later addition, perhaps as a misunderstood pun. He was probably born in Galilee, though.

2. "His body was almost certainly not placed in a tomb": Paul has Jesus as buried, so I think the evidence is against "thrown into a garbage dump". A tomb is not unrealistic, AFAIK.

[KingDavid8]

These authors were obviously attempting to sell Jesus,

Why? If He wasn't what they claimed He was, and just ended up in some garbage dump, then of what value was He to them?

David

[Heathen Dawn]

Why? If He wasn't what they claimed He was, and just ended up in some garbage dump, then of what value was He to them?

<Sarcasm>

Wow. I mean, wow.

I have a bridge offer for you.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[wfaber]

More than a few trees have been chopped down in order to provide for Almost all of the information that we have concerning Jesus comes to us from the NT. But the authors of the manuscripts which make up the NT were written by Jesus' followers, and the historicity of their accounts leaves a lot to be desired. These authors were obviously attempting to sell Jesus, and in doing so, they wrapped Jesus in layer upon layer of folklore and legend. Some believe that it is possible to peel away these layers and to thus come to an understanding of the historical Jesus.

I won't argue with any of your logical conclusions. They all would make sense, and I would agree with nearly all of them, if I agreed with your original premise above.

My disagreement with you is not on the subject of Jesus, but on the authors. Were they legitimate eyewitnesses to Jesus and His miracles, or were they total frauds, scam artists, con men who gave up everything they had, even their very own lives, in order to propagate a lie?

[brahmabull]

While little can be gathered by sources other than the Bible, there is some evidence that is compelling and confusing, as follows:

SENECA 4BCE - 65CE, Rome’s most prominent writer on ethics, philosophy and morals; A natural scientist who tracked eclipses & quakes; Silent on Jesus; Alleged correspondence between Paul and Seneca was later exposed as fraudulent. (B)

CORNELIUS TACITUS was a Roman historian born in about 53 AD. Writing in his 'Annals' (c. 110 AD) about the reign of Nero, he describes how Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome. He states, "The name (Christians) is derived from Christ who the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius".

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS was a Jewish historian who became commander of the Jewish forces in Galilee in AD 66, just after the time of Jesus. He writes in his 'Antiquities'

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive ….

Josephus also refers in his 'Antiquities' to James " the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ" and how he was put to death in AD 62 after accusation by Annas the High priest.

PHILO-JUDAEUS 15 BCE - 50 CE, an Alexandrian, a Greek speaking Jewish theologian-philosopher who personally knew Jerusalem because of relatives living there; he wrote extensively on Jewish history and religion from a Greek perspective and taught the following concepts: God and His Word are one; the Word is the first-begotten Son of God; God created the world through His Word; God holds all things together through His Word; the Word is the fountain of eternal life; the Word dwells in and among us; all judgment is committed to God’s Word; and the Word never changes. Philo also taught on God as Spirit, the Trinity, the virgin birth, Jews who sin will go to hell, Gentiles who come to God will be saved and go to heaven, and of the God of love and forgiveness. Yet, Philo, a Jew in nearby Alexandria, who would have been a contemporary of Jesus never once mentions anybody named Jesus nor any miracle worker being crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem, let alone an eclipse, an earthquake, or Jews being resurrected from their graves. (B)

JUSTIN MARTYR (about AD 150) addressed his 'Defense of Christianity' to the Emperor Antonius Pius and in it describes Jesus' crucifixion, how he was nailed to the cross and how his clothes were divided among the soldiers by casting lots. He also refers the Emperor to "the ‘Acts’ that were recorded by Pontius Pilate", these being Pilate's own report of the crucifixion which Justin supposed the Emperor had access to.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (c. 120-180 AD) He was a Greek satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote several books: The Passing Peregrinus and Alexander the False Prophet. He spoke derisively of Jesus and Christians; criticizing Christians for being gullible people who approved of charlatans posing as teachers, he wrote that the Christians worshipped a man who was crucified for introducing new teachings into Palestine. In The Passing Peregrinus "The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account.. . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith . . . "

MARA BAR-SERAPION, around AD 73, wrote to his son a letter that is now in the British Museum. In it he refers to Jesus as the King of the Jews, stating that they (the Jews) had crucified him.

THALLUS was one of the first Gentile historians to mention Christ. His writings have disappeared but we know of them from the writing of others, such as Julius Africanus (about AD 221) who quotes from Thallus. One of his quotes includes reference to the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion and suggests that a total eclipse was the cause. Julius points out in his writing the impossibility of this since the festival of Passover, when Jesus was crucified, occurs at full moon (eclipses only occur at a new moon).

PHLEGON was a first century historian who’s 'Chronicles' have now been lost, but like Thallus (see below) is quoted by other early writers. Also like Thallus he mentions the darkness at the crucifixion of Jesus saying "an eclipse of the sun occurred during the full moon".

PLINY THE ELDER 23-79 CE, authoredNatural History 37 books on natural events such as earthquakes, eclipses and healing. No mention of Christ. (B)

PLINY THE YOUNGER (c. 61-113 AD) was governor of Bithinia in Asia Minor around AD 110 and wrote to the emperor Trajan (for whom he worked) concerning Christians. He had been putting Christians to death for their faith and making them bow down to Trajan's statue. He records how, in their defence, the Christians described their meetings for worship that included singing "a hymn to Christ as a god".

SUETONIUS (c. 69-122 AD) another Roman historian, the source of most of what we know of the Caesars from Julius Caesar to Domitian, refers to "Chrestus" (another spelling of Christus) in his 'Life of Claudius'. He reports how Claudius expelled the Christians from Rome in AD 49, which is mentioned in Acts 18 v 2. Suetonius also writes of the punishment of Christians by Nero. (A)

TERTULLIAN (c.160-c.230), a Christian theologian, converted to Christianity and became a vocal Christian apologist. He later left the church to join the Montanists. Around CE 197 he wrote the following passage in his Apology: "Tiberius accordingly, in those days the Christian name made it's entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."

Tertullian therefore records that Tiberius understood the claims that Jesus was God and made his own decision 'in favor of Christ', only to have his decision overruled.

THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.): "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"

Sanhedrin 107b (200-500 C.E.): "One day he (Rabbi Joshua) was reciting the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick and worshipped it... And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray.”

GOSPEL OF MARK Dated terminus a quo of 65 CE because Irenaeus said that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter's death which tradition places at 65 CE. Scholars do not know when Mark wrote his gospel so a date of 65-75 CE is an excellent guess considering that he likely didn't start writing the day Simon Peter died.

[Richbee]

More than a few trees have been chopped down in order to provide for books dealing with the search for the historical Jesus. I have, over the years, read a considerable number of these books and I'm going to attempt to distill what I've gathered thus far. Jeers, mockery, and the throwing of rotten fruit is to be expected.

But first, allow me to explain the nature of the problem. Almost all of the information that we have concerning Jesus comes to us from the NT. But the authors of the manuscripts which make up the NT were written by Jesus' followers, and the historicity of their accounts leaves a lot to be desired. These authors were obviously attempting to sell Jesus, and in doing so, they wrapped Jesus in layer upon layer of folklore and legend. Some believe that it is possible to peel away these layers and to thus come to an understanding of the historical Jesus.

Herewith, then, my observations concerning the historical Jesus...

• Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure.
• He was probably born in Nazareth. Stories of a census bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem are almost certainly fictional.
• His conception and birth were unremarkable [Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;.]
• There exists doubt as to whether Joseph was Jesus' biological father, as suggested by the following verses: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
  Mrk 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?. The Mark verse is most telling. Lineage was traced through the father. To state that Jesus was the son of Mary was a polite way of saying that either Jesus' father was of ill repute or that the identity of Jesus' father was not known. Add to this the fact that, shortly after Jesus' birth, Joseph seems to disappear from the radar screen.
• The taking by Joseph of his new family to Egypt in order to avoid Jesus' being put to death is almost certainly fictional.
• Little, if anything, is known of Jesus' early years.
• Sometime after reaching adulthood, Jesus apparently hooked up with John the Baptist and may have, for a time, been one of John's followers. According to Mark, John baptized Jesus, which raises questions as to Jesus' alleged divinity as put forth by Matthew, Luke, and John.
• Sometime thereafter, Jesus embarked on his own ministry, gathering followers and speaking in public.
• His message was that of a reformer of Judaism.
• His activities eventually came to the attention of the Romans, especially his creating a disturbance within the temple grounds on the eve of Passover along with the fact that some of his followers began to refer to him as "King of the Jews". A king was expected to liberate his people from foreign occupation, a fact which was not entirely lost on the Romans.
• Thus, Pilate probably ordered one of his officers to get rid of Jesus. There would have been no trial, given that Jesus was considered a nobody.
• He was put to death by the Romans by way of crucifixion, a very common form of death penalty.
• His body was almost certainly not placed in a tomb. Instead, as was common practice, his body was most likely thrown into a garbage dump to be consumed by dogs and birds. This was part of the punishment that the Romans inflicted upon Jews, knowing full well that Jews placed great importance upon a proper burial of the dead.
• There is very little evidence to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth considered himself to be divine, or that he desired to be worshipped, or that his intent was to create a new religion: Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God..
• Claims that Jesus cast out demons is nothing more than a reflection of pre-scientific mentality.
• Claims of Jesus' imminent second coming proved to be a disappointment.

Sources:

The Historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, Harper Collins
Jesus of Nazareth, Paula Fredriksen, Vintage
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, Ballantine Books
The World's Religions, Huston Smith, Harper Collins
The Birth of Christianity, Joel Carmichael, Dorset Press
A History of Christian Thought, Paul Tillich, Simon&Schuster
Who Is Jesus?, John Dominic Crossan & Richard Watts, Westminster John Knox Press
The Message and the Kingdom, Richard Horsley and Neil Asher Silberman, Penguin Books
The Story of Christian Theology, Roger Olson, InterVarsity Press
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Doubleday

Nice try Orion!

Is this another one of your "Jews for Hungarian Pasta" posts?

[Richbee]

Orion, along with a few dozen people have attacked the New Testament for the last 2,000 Years!

All have failed!

The Christian faith was not born in a vacuum, or appear out of thin air, but rather rests on a strong foundation, and tradition of truth - Judaism with it's tradition of scribes, prophets and prophesy. Not to mention truth telling.

Recall, that Saul/Paul, a Pharisee of all Pharisees, a Hebrew of Hebrews, must verify the basic facts, and confirm the revelation he received on the road to Damascus, and in the tradition, must cross examine first hand, eyewitness accounts.

Read Paul's testimony, in

Scripture Verse:

Galatians 1:11 - 18 "..the gospel I preach is not something man made up.." "..I persecuted the Church and tried to destroy it...I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews, and extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers...verse 18: "Then after three years I stayed with Peter, James, etc, in Jerusalem.
( ~ 33 or 35 A.D.)

Again Paul writes:

Scripture Verse:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 "Christ died for our sins, And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day, And that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also,.."

History is full of ......Attacks on the veracity of the Gospels

Over the last two hundred years, the historical veracity of the Bible has been under attack from both within and without the faith. The attacks range from questioning whether Jesus ever existed (He did), to postulating bizarre theories regarding Jesus that have far less empirical evidence to back them than do the Gospels themselves. The chart below lists some of the primary skeptics since the 18th century:

Follow along....

Curmudgeon - Date - False Premise

H.S. Reimarus: 1778 - Claimed disciples stole the body of Jesus, and made up the resurrection story

David Friedrich Strauss: 1835- - In Life of Jesus, doubted historical accuracy of gospels

Bruno Bauer: 1882 - Denied that Jesus actually lived

William Wrede: 1901 -- In Messianic Secret, claimed that the evangelists had put words in the mouth of Jesus to make theological points

Albert Schweitzer: 1906 - In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, denies that Jesus was the Messiah

Religions-geschichtliche Schule: c. 1900 -- Drew parallels between Christianity and other religious sects in the Mideast

K.L. Schmidt: 1919 - Claims details of time and place in the Gospels are fabricated

Elizabeth Clare Prophet: 1984 -- In Lost Years of Jesus, pictures Jesus as a mystic traveling in India for 17 years.



A Theosophist!

Michael Bagent, Henry Lincoln: 1982 - In Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus as the husband of Mary Magdalene

G.A. Wells: 1971, 1975, 1982 -- In three different books, questions whether Jesus ever existed

John Dominic Crossan (an Apostate from the Christian faith) - Jesus Seminar: 1993 - Panel members voted on which words of Jesus are "accurate"; The Five Gospels claim that only 18% of the words attributed to Jesus are verifiable

Gardner, Laurence: 1996 - - In Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Jesus as 1) husband of Mary Magdalene 2) an Essene teacher 3) brother of Joseph of Arimathea

Interestingly enough, though, modern archaeology, and ancient history do verify much of the historical panoply of the Gospels. The first section of this course will look at recent archaeological findings that have verified key Gospel accounts, and confounded the skeptics. The second part looks at contemporary historical evidence supporting the Gospels accounts of the life of Jesus.

Why study the historical Jesus? - A Lesson for Curmudgeons and the so called "skeptics". - Click HERE

[shunyadragon]

I won't argue with any of your logical conclusions. They all would make sense, and I would agree with nearly all of them, if I agreed with your original premise above.

My disagreement with you is not on the subject of Jesus, but on the authors. Were they legitimate eyewitnesses to Jesus and His miracles, or were they total frauds, scam artists, con men who gave up everything they had, even their very own lives, in order to propagate a lie?

This is actually possibly true. It is not unusual to embellish and change history for your own purposes. It is questionable that the writings we have to day were those of eyewitnesses. Evidence indicates they were compiled from parts of one or more other older documents and possibly heresay.

What I believe is somewhere inbetween. The writers were definitely human and faliable, and historically they need not be considered 'total frauds, scam artists, con men who gave up all they had, even their very own lives, i order to propagate a lie.'

Fabrication of history and embelishment are common place regardless of motive.

[Sacrificial Ram]

I won't argue with any of your logical conclusions. They all would make sense, and I would agree with nearly all of them, if I agreed with your original premise above.

My disagreement with you is not on the subject of Jesus, but on the authors. Were they legitimate eyewitnesses to Jesus and His miracles, or were they total frauds, scam artists, con men who gave up everything they had, even their very own lives, in order to propagate a lie?

You are presenting a false dicotomy there. There are other alternatives.

1) They might have acutally belived what they wrote, but were wrong.

2) They might have been presenting it as an allegory.

[Richbee]

Stories of a census bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem are almost certainly fictional.

Here is what the Gospel of Luke actually says:

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (NRSV).

The notion that a census would occur simultaneously throughout the entire Empire at one point is an anachronism. That’s the way we do it in the United States, in a highly centralized process administered by the federal (central) government during a discreet time period. Such a feat was not possible in ancient times. And note that Luke does not actually describe the census being carried out through the entire empire. He merely states that Augustus decided and made it official policy that the entire Roman world be registered

And it appears that Luke was on to something. As Ben Witherington notes:

If Luke is not simply indulging in rhetorical hyperbole, it is not absolutely necessary to take Luke 2:1 to mean that the whole empire was enrolled at once. What the Greek suggests is that Caesar decreed that "all of the Roman world be enrolled." The present tense of the verb apographo and the use of pos suggest that what Caesar was decreeing was the extension of the enrollment already going on in some parts of the empire to the rest of the empire. Historian A.N. Sherwin-White reminds us, "A census or taxation-assessment of the whole provincial empire . . . was certainly accomplished for the first time in history under Augustus."

New Testament History, page 65.

I would sooner trust the great British Theologian: F.F. Bruce:

Note, there are reasonable reconciliation to this supposed "contradiction".

The reference in Luke ii. 2 to Quirinius as governor of Syria at the time of the birth of Christ (before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC) has frequently been thought to be an error, because Quirinius is known to have become imperial legate of Syria in AD 6, and to have supervised m that year the enrolment mentioned in Acts v. 37, which provoked the insurrection led by Judas of Galilee. But it is now widely admitted that an earlier enrolment, as described in Luke ii. i ff., (a) may have taken place in the reign of Herod the Great, (b) may have involved the return of everyone to his family home, (c) may have formed part of an Empire wide census, and (d) may have been held during a previous governorship of Quirinius over Syria.

a) Josephus informs us that towards the end of Herod's reign, that the Emperor Augustus treated him more as a subject than as a friend,' and that all Judea took an oath of allegiance to Augustus as well as to Herod. The holding of an imperial census in a client kingdom (as Judaea was during Herod's reign) is not unparalleled; in the reign of Tiberius a census was imposed on the client kingdom of Antiochus in eastern Asia Minor.

(b) The obligation on all persons to be enrolled at their domiciles of origin, which made it necessary for Joseph to return to Bethlehem, has been illustrated from an edict of AD 104, in which C. Vibius Maximus, Roman prefect of Egypt, gives notice as follows: 'The enrollment by household being at hand, it is necessary to notify all who for any cause whatsoever are away from their administrative divisions to return home in order to comply with the customary ordinance of enrolment, and to remain in their own agricultural land.'

(c) There is scattered evidence of the holding of enrollments in various parts of the Empire between 1l and 8 BC, the papyrus evidence in the case of Egypt being practically conclusive.

(d) There is good inscriptional evidence that when Quirinius took up office in Syria in AD 6 this was the second occasion on which he served as imperial legate. The first occasion was when he commanded an expedition against the Homanadensians, a mountain tribe of Asia Minor, some time between 12 and 6 BC. But our evidence does not state expressly in which province he was imperial legate at this earlier date. Sir William Ramsay argued that the province was Syria. We have, however, a continuous record of governors of Syria for those years, which leaves no room for Quirinius; Ramsay suggested that he was appointed as additional and extraordinary legate for military purposes. On the other hand, a good case has been made out for believing that his first term of office as imperial legate was passed in Galatia, not in Syria.

The question is not yet finally decided, but it may be best to follow those commentators and grammarians who translate Luke ii. 2 as 'This census was before that which Quirinius, governor of Syria, held'.'

Source: Click HERE

[Richbee]

Lineage was traced through the father. To state that Jesus was the son of Mary was a polite way of saying that either Jesus' father was of ill repute or that the identity of Jesus' father was not known.

What a pile of Rubbish Orion, and not only false, but empty conjecture without any logic or extra Biblical evidence to prove any of your cheap attacks on the divinity of Jesus.

Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem. They are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph.

It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced.

Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.

Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc.

Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

CARN.org - Click Here for More!

Here is a classic Orion false assertion:

For example, he provides a genealogy of Jesus which differs considerably from the genealogy of Jesus given to us by Matthew.

Hilarious! Oh, I love it Orion, you just keep recycling these alleged "contradictions".

Once reconciled, you have been refuted, but after dozens of times, you have been repudiated and discredited as a crack pot!

I will post this for reasonable observers:

Look into the 1874 classic An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible - by John W. Haley, or the more recent Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - by Gleason L. Archer (Zondervan).

Some have asserted that a “contradiction” exists between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts:

"The two genealogies of Jesus do not contradict each other.

For something to be a contradiction, there cannot be any possible reconciliation! Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by Gleason L. Archer:

Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned....

Luke 3:23-28, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself.... This seems to be implied by the wording of v. 23:

“Jesus. . . being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph?

Christian tradition teaches and the NT reveals that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph,. . . Mary. . . must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16.... Therefore Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon."

[technomage]

• He was probably born in Nazareth. Stories of a census bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem are almost certainly fictional.

The census was certainly a historical event (it's attested in Josephus), yet I quite agree with you that the story of the census motivating a move to Bethlehem became part of the mythos.

• There exists doubt as to whether Joseph was Jesus' biological father, as suggested by the following verses: Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph,
  
  
  
  Mrk 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?. The Mark verse is most telling. Lineage was traced through the father. To state that Jesus was the son of Mary was a polite way of saying that either Jesus' father was of ill repute or that the identity of Jesus' father was not known. Add to this the fact that, shortly after Jesus' birth, Joseph seems to disappear from the radar screen.

Hmmm. I have to wonder if this was doubt as to Jesus' parentage, or if it was (in the case of Luke) an attempt to support the Virgin Birth, and (in the case of Mark) a simple case of referring to the living parent, rather than the deceased one. I really have qualms about acknowledging that the accounts are unreliable while simultaneously definitively stating that Jesus was considered a bastard based on the Gospel accounts.

All in all, however, a good (if somewhat brief) analysis.

Justin

[Richbee]

Paul Tillich, (according to his wife P.T. failed in his attempt to become a Buddhist convert) the noted existentialist theologian, traveled to Asia to hold conferences with various Buddhist thinkers.

He was studying the significance of religious leaders to the movements they had engendered. Tillich asked a simple question.

"What if by some fluke, the Buddha had never lived and turned out to be some sort of fabrication? What would be the implications for Buddhism?"

Mind you, Tillich was concerned with the indispensability of the Buddha—not his authenticity.

The scholars did not hesitate to answer. If the Buddha was a myth, they said, it did not matter at all. Why? Because Buddhism should be judged as an abstract philosophy – as a system of living. Whether its concepts originated with the Buddha is irrelevant. (As an aside, I think that the Buddha himself would have concurred. Knowing that his death was imminent, he beseeched his followers not to focus on him but to remember his teachings. Not his life but his way of life was to be attended to and propagated.)

So, what of other world religions?

Hinduism, as a conglomeration of thinkers and philosophies and gods, can certainly do without many of its deities. Some other major religions face the same predicament.

Is Christianity similar?

Could God the Father have sent another instead of Jesus? May I say to you, and please hear me, that the answer is most categorically No. Jesus did not merely claim to be a prophet in a continuum of prophets. He is the unique Son of God, part of the very godhead that we call the Trinity. The apostle Paul says it this way:

John 17:2-3

"[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the originator of all creation. . . God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him." Jesus Himself prayed, "[Father], You have granted [me] authority over all people that I might give eternal life to all those you have given [me]. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

As many have observed, Christianity is Christ. Indeed Englishman John R.W. Stott writes, "If Jesus was not God in human flesh, Christianity is exploded. We are left with just another religion with some beautiful ideas and noble ethics; its unique distinction would then be gone."

Jesus is the Word and the incarnation.

By Ravi Zacharias

[Richbee]

Hmmm. I have to wonder if this was doubt as to Jesus' parentage, or if it was (in the case of Luke) an attempt to support the Virgin Birth, and (in the case of Mark) a simple case of referring to the living parent, rather than the deceased one. I really have qualms about acknowledging that the accounts are unreliable while simultaneously definitively stating that Jesus was considered a bastard based on the Gospel accounts.

All in all, however, a good (if somewhat brief) analysis.

Justin

More bold bombastic brohahaha of false assertions and from a Wiccan Witch no less!?