05-10-2007, 04:27 AM
Are the Gospels True?
a look at the nativity/infancy teachings
article authored and submitted by Bruce White
Bruce's article is also available HERE
This short article will focus upon the nativity and infancy stories of Jesus, using exclusively, the Bible. All quotes are taken from the New International Version for clarity of modern readers. The problem with the Bible is that it claims to be internally validated and modern inerrantists insist that it the absolute, error-free, inspired words of the living God. Even non literalist Christians must presuppose that certain aspects in the Bible are factual, or the basis of Christianity has no basis.
The following are what are considered fundamental events that this applies to:
* The physical birth of Jesus
* The physical existence of Jesus as a teacher/prophet
* The physical death of Jesus upon the cross
* The physical resurrection of Jesus
As this article is short, I am only addressing the nativity/infancy narratives. The only evidence attesting to the actual life and work of Jesus is contained entirely in the Gospels of the New Testament. No information that was contemporary of Jesus exists in any form, biblical or secular. What we do have are the four gospels, which were written years afterwards. The issue then is can a reasonable person accept with reasonable certainty of the historical existence of Jesus, based upon the accounts of the gospel?
My conclusion is that we cannot accept the gospel narratives as a reasonable basis for believing in the historical Jesus. To digress a bit, if Jesus actually lived and had the impact that Christianity claims he had on the secular and religious life of Judea there would have been contemporary records. Several contemporary authors in Judea wrote extensive works concerning the movements in Judea, geography, politics and other items. In none of these is the existence of Jesus even mentioned once, and he was supposed to had such an impact that the Jewish leaders and Romans jointly conspired to crucify him.
Now to get to the information attesting to his birth and the events following; If Jesus actually was born, the narratives surrounding him in the different gospel accounts should be substantially the same. I say substantially the same, because I am giving the human authors the benefit of the doubt on minor details. For instance, I could describe a trip that my family took to another city and talk about a stop at a gas station. My wife could also describe the trip and not mention the gas station. Both stories are true, one has minor differences that neither take away or add anything substantial to the story of the trip. Is this what we find in the nativity/infancy narratives in the gospels? No, it is not. what we do find are two mutually exclusive accounts. This leaves us with a few choices.
1. One of the stories is fictional and the other is substantially accurate
2. Both of the stories are incorrect about an actual event
3. Both stories are fictional and were manufactured about a non-existent event
What is this event/ It is simply the alleged birth narratives about non other than Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God on Earth. Since the Bible claims that it is the actual words of an omniscient (all knowing) God, then this should be impossible. However, if the existence of Jesus and hence his birth are fictional accounts, written to justify a pre-held belief system by different people, then mutually exclusive accounts are explainable. but again, as this is the inerrant words of the living God, they must both be correct or none of it has any credibility.
of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke deal at all with the nativity and infancy events. Mark and John are silent on the subject.
It should also be noted that the town of Nazareth DID NOT even exist until the 2nd century A.D. Before that, the site where Nazareth has been since the 2nd century was a Jewish graveyard. It is a violation of Jewish law to have a graveyard inside a city. As an aside, modern archeology demonstrates the 2nd century foundation of Nazareth and the tourist places, supposedly Joseph and Son's Carpentry Shop and the house of Jesus are in caves, which were Jewish burial chambers. Jewish people have never lived in caves, in a town or a grave yard.
Conclusion:
1. The word of God is not inerrant, which is obvious from this one example.
2. Jesus and family could not be in Egypt and Jerusalem/Nazareth at the same time.
3. The Herodian Murder of the Innocents is likewise a fictional flourish, especially if Jesus didn't have to go to Egypt. But also because no contemporary Jewish or Roman historian even noted it.
4. The prophecy fulfillment claimed by the Nazareth home is false, because no prophecy of that sort exists of the messiah or anyone being called a Nazarene.
5. Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality.
a look at the nativity/infancy teachings
article authored and submitted by Bruce White
Bruce's article is also available HERE
This short article will focus upon the nativity and infancy stories of Jesus, using exclusively, the Bible. All quotes are taken from the New International Version for clarity of modern readers. The problem with the Bible is that it claims to be internally validated and modern inerrantists insist that it the absolute, error-free, inspired words of the living God. Even non literalist Christians must presuppose that certain aspects in the Bible are factual, or the basis of Christianity has no basis.
The following are what are considered fundamental events that this applies to:
* The physical birth of Jesus
* The physical existence of Jesus as a teacher/prophet
* The physical death of Jesus upon the cross
* The physical resurrection of Jesus
As this article is short, I am only addressing the nativity/infancy narratives. The only evidence attesting to the actual life and work of Jesus is contained entirely in the Gospels of the New Testament. No information that was contemporary of Jesus exists in any form, biblical or secular. What we do have are the four gospels, which were written years afterwards. The issue then is can a reasonable person accept with reasonable certainty of the historical existence of Jesus, based upon the accounts of the gospel?
My conclusion is that we cannot accept the gospel narratives as a reasonable basis for believing in the historical Jesus. To digress a bit, if Jesus actually lived and had the impact that Christianity claims he had on the secular and religious life of Judea there would have been contemporary records. Several contemporary authors in Judea wrote extensive works concerning the movements in Judea, geography, politics and other items. In none of these is the existence of Jesus even mentioned once, and he was supposed to had such an impact that the Jewish leaders and Romans jointly conspired to crucify him.
Now to get to the information attesting to his birth and the events following; If Jesus actually was born, the narratives surrounding him in the different gospel accounts should be substantially the same. I say substantially the same, because I am giving the human authors the benefit of the doubt on minor details. For instance, I could describe a trip that my family took to another city and talk about a stop at a gas station. My wife could also describe the trip and not mention the gas station. Both stories are true, one has minor differences that neither take away or add anything substantial to the story of the trip. Is this what we find in the nativity/infancy narratives in the gospels? No, it is not. what we do find are two mutually exclusive accounts. This leaves us with a few choices.
1. One of the stories is fictional and the other is substantially accurate
2. Both of the stories are incorrect about an actual event
3. Both stories are fictional and were manufactured about a non-existent event
What is this event/ It is simply the alleged birth narratives about non other than Jesus Christ, the embodiment of God on Earth. Since the Bible claims that it is the actual words of an omniscient (all knowing) God, then this should be impossible. However, if the existence of Jesus and hence his birth are fictional accounts, written to justify a pre-held belief system by different people, then mutually exclusive accounts are explainable. but again, as this is the inerrant words of the living God, they must both be correct or none of it has any credibility.
of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke deal at all with the nativity and infancy events. Mark and John are silent on the subject.
It should also be noted that the town of Nazareth DID NOT even exist until the 2nd century A.D. Before that, the site where Nazareth has been since the 2nd century was a Jewish graveyard. It is a violation of Jewish law to have a graveyard inside a city. As an aside, modern archeology demonstrates the 2nd century foundation of Nazareth and the tourist places, supposedly Joseph and Son's Carpentry Shop and the house of Jesus are in caves, which were Jewish burial chambers. Jewish people have never lived in caves, in a town or a grave yard.
Conclusion:
1. The word of God is not inerrant, which is obvious from this one example.
2. Jesus and family could not be in Egypt and Jerusalem/Nazareth at the same time.
3. The Herodian Murder of the Innocents is likewise a fictional flourish, especially if Jesus didn't have to go to Egypt. But also because no contemporary Jewish or Roman historian even noted it.
4. The prophecy fulfillment claimed by the Nazareth home is false, because no prophecy of that sort exists of the messiah or anyone being called a Nazarene.
5. Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality.