Jesus the Christ is Probaby the Result of Creative Writing.

My opponent is unfortunately still under the misconception that I'm trying to discredit the entire New Testament. I have stated numerous times that accounts of Jesus the Christ and Jesus the Nazorean are different claims, and the validity of one account does absolutely NOTHING for the validity of the other. The authorship and accounts of Jesus the Nazorean are immaterial to the debate itself. We are concerned with the fact that everything the writers of the gospel would need to create Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament, and easy to invent in their heads, and there is considerable evidence to support this notion. ********************************* 1) On NT-OT Identicality, Historical Inconsistency, and Corroboration. Identicality with the OT in the story of Jesus shows that it would have been trivially easy to apply the ALREADY EXISTING story of the Messiah to a man who did similar things. Consider this passage: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." At first look, it is impossible to distinguish whether or not that specific passage is from Zechariah 9 or from Mark 11. The passages are virtually identical, and Mark, the first gospel written, makes no effort to attribute this passage to the OT scripture. Another good example: "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him." Psalm 22 or Mark 27? "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight." Mark 27 or Amos 8? Secondly, the NT makes reference to historical events that are not corroborated by any extrabiblical sources, but are conveniently self-corroborated by other parts of the Bible. For example, the Star of Bethlehem - it is not recorded in any historical account... but it is in Numbers 24. The NT states that the earth shook, the land darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two at the time of the resurrection. This is not recorded in any historical account... but is perfectly described in Amos 8 and Ezekiel 37. My opponent must explain how a story that is supposedly true can incorporate these sorts of clearly metaphorical and/or simply false events and be not considered a product of creative writing. And self-corroboration is NOT a valid explanation. 2) On Jesus' Literacy. My opponent admits Jesus could read and write, yet despite the fact I have reminded him in every round that this is a fact about Jesus the Nazorean, refuses to give an explanation for why Jesus did not write anything. Surely the Son of God would have written SOMETHING. 3) On Traditional Authorship As I mentioned above, this point is mostly moot. However, I would like to point out that my opponent stated: "I think that men are more likely to enhance their involvement in parts of their stories," which clearly indicates at least SOME literary license and creative writing in the gospels. Furthermore, the Gospels are authored in Greek and contain mistranslations of Hebrew... traditional authorship would have suggested that the gospels be penned in HEBREW and that the authors could actually READ it. 4) On Middle Eastern Mythology My opponent readily admits to the similarities to other mythologies that predate Christianity. He needs to provide some explanation for the multitude of similarities other than "so what?" 5) On Mistranslations. Wouldn't you think if you were translating the WORD OF GOD that you would make pretty darn sure you got the translation right? >> "Also, there is little in the OT directly pertaining to Jesus that can be mistranslated." I'm sorry, but this is simply false - if Jesus is understood to be the Messiah, which the gospel authors clearly thought he was, then there are entire BOOKS of the OT that directly pertain to Jesus. 6) On the Crucifixion & Resurrection My opponent asserts that Pilate engineered the crucifixion, even though the gospels are very clear that he had no hand in it. Furthermore, the works of Philo in Flaccus IV make it clear that the persons mocking Jesus were doing so in such a manner consistent with King Herod - a figure to the Jews. What use would the Romans have for arresting Jesus for something that is not a Roman crime and then mocking him as a Syrian King? My opponent's explanation makes no sense historically OR logically. >> "this is rather long but it tells of 500+ witnesses" No... this account is Paul telling people who have no idea what really happened that 500 people (some of whom are apparently sleeping) saw a man who looked like Jesus. Here's something interesting... "Thomas" is derived from the Aramaic T'oma. The same character is also called Didymus. T'oma and Didymus mean "twin" in Aramaic and Greek. Coincidence, or did was Thomas called "The Twin" because he looked like Jesus? Did 500 people see Jesus, or did they mistake Thomas for Jesus?? >> "I was under the impression that the Gospels WERE narratives, not written by avid historians. It's supposed to be in detail about Jesus' life." That's interesting, considering that if the purpose was to make a narrative, it would have been much better to write about Jesus' life as he was living it, not 30 years after he died. Furthermore, the gospels must necessarily contain some historical elements, as they reference events that occurred before Jesus summoned the Twelve (if you even accept traditional authorship). And the gospels are surprisingly lacking in detail about Jesus' life... but seem to math pretty darn well with details in the OT that were written a thousand years before... How strange... 7) The Empty Tomb Of course the Tomb is mentioned in the gospels - they had to make up the story of the Resurrection somehow... And the Discovery Channel Documentary?? "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated" and "all of the names [contained in the tomb] are common." - William Dever, Archaeologist, Washington Post 2/28/07 "A hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest." - Amos Kloner, tomb excavator "Conclusions were already drawn in the beginning [and the] argument goes far beyond any reasonable interpretation." - William Dever It would seem that based on professional consideration and the opinions of those who actually went INTO the tomb that the Discovery Channel's interpretation is faulty at best and an outright lie at worst. And Yeshua? It's a VERY common Jewish name from the time period - means Jesus or Joshua. ****************************** As the reader can clearly see, my opponent has significant obstacles to overcome in order to show that the writers of the New Testament did NOT exaggerate the life of Jesus the Nazarene, add components of mythology, and use pieces of the Old Testament to piece together a picture of Jesus that was in line with their personal preferences. I have repeatedly pointed out the shortcomings in my opponent's argument, yet he has not addressed them in any sort of substantial way. The story of Jesus Christ is the result of creative writing. AFFIRMED.