Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[dogsgod]

In other words, did the eye-witnesses carefully pass on what they were taught and had experienced during the ministry of Jesus? I have given or referenced a great deal of evidence that suggests this is likely.

Never mind that there were no eye witnesses. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests great care was taken in providing this evidence.

 

[Oberon]

How could a UFO build anything?

I don't know, maybe the unidentified flying objects in those days came with Pyramid generating devices.


The point is, you can find anything on the web. Why don't you provide us with evidence to support your claim from an acknowledged expert?

Never mind that there were no eye witnesses.

Well, it finally happened. Dogsgod has run his course. He can't answer the critiques anymore, can't admit he really doesn't know anything about the topic, can't admit he hasn't read any scholarship, can't admit his websites are bogus, can't respond to demonstrations of error, etc. So now we are left with the: NO! NO! NO!like that of a child ("there were no eyewitnesses, there were no eyewitnesses, there were no eyewitnesses"). Perhaps if you click your heels three times while you say it you will come back to earth, where people who want to prove a point have to back it up with actual knowledge, references to scholarship, and research.

 

[herushura]

Jesus also appears 3 times in Greek Mythology

Jesus 1 = King of Arcadia / Son of Lycurgus + Father of Atalanta by Clymene

Jesus 2 = King of Argos / Son of Triopas + brother of Agenor and Pelasgus

Jesus 3 = Son of Zeus or Corytus by Electra/ Brother of Dardenus and the
father of Bootes, Plutus and Philomelus by Demeter.

 

[Oberon]

Jesus also appears 3 times in Greek Mythology

Jesus 1 = King of Arcadia / Son of Lycurgus + Father of Atalanta by Clymene

Jesus 2 = King of Argos / Son of Triopas + brother of Agenor and Pelasgus

Jesus 3 = Son of Zeus or Corytus by Electra/ Brother of Dardenus and the
father of Bootes, Plutus and Philomelus by Demeter.

What is your source for this?

 

[herushura]

What is your source for this?

The Dictionary of Mythology by J.A Coleman

They are also called IASIUS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iasius

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Basically, you are exercising a skepticism of the gospels which is excessive.

IMO, I don't think it is. Some of my processes, when dealing with the gospels is to separate fanciful claims, and claims that could be regarded as history. In doing so I have been able to come to a conclusion that "some" (a great deal) of the bible is historical. This does means geological, anthropological.....a lot of what the four gospels are describing can be matched with extrabiblical historical accounts...So I'm not one of the run of the mill skeptics that say....If this isn't true then it all needs to be thrown out.

With that said...I (personally) don't have a need to believe in a biblical Yeshua nor is it too important to me the existence of a historical Yeshua. I do find the topic interesting. Although there were most likely plenty of men back in the day name Yeshua, (Jesus)).... I suspect that there could have been an outspoken activist type by the name Yeshua who, over time, has been hyped up, deified and is now a god/man who comes off resembling the god/men of old.

If the same level were applied all of ancient history, we would have to write it all off (or most of it).

IMO, this gets thrown around (A LOT) and is really old. Why would we have to write it all off? In the case of Jesus we have no physical evidence of his existence. He wrote nothing. We have no contemporary writings to show any interaction with this supposed highly vocal public figure. That I can tell we have nothing in the Roman record that suggest that the authorities were looking for him, captured him and tried him for any crimes yet..on some level he is still historical.

I think that an aspect of this is because you may be unfamiliar with ancient literature and ancient history. All of it has to be sorted through to determine historicity, but just because a lot of myths and fables are reported by historians doesn't mean we should reject everything they say. I asked if you believe in Socrates, because like Jesus we have nothing written by him, and the accounts by those who "supposedly" knew him are all completely different (although of course Socrates is historical).

I have no problem with historians of old or todays historians coming to (their) conclusions that a man named Yeshua existed. What I do believe is that no amount of scholarship at this point can prove with any degree of certainty he existed. At best we guess he could have. You are right that we have so much written by other supposed historical figures but truly can't say if they existed or not. Krishna comes to mind. Such an extensive history (Hinduism) and so much written and the believers believe Krishna is a real person. I can't say, at this point, whether he was or wasn't but their writings make him out to be a real historical person. I haven't seen a scholar, at least not yet, claiming he was a real person....regardless what is written about him, the traditions passed down or what the believers believe....(I could be wrong). Again, my process in determining how historical Jesus is, is by trying to figure out who, if anybody, interacted with him and wrote anything about him. Maybe somebody did and the work was destroyed...but that is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How could a UFO build anything?

Yea, I think he meant to say "Aliens".....:cover:....

 

[Oberon]

The Dictionary of Mythology by J.A Coleman

They are also called IASIUS

Iasius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Different name. You are confusing the greek name Ιασιος with Ιησους/Jesus, the hellenized version of Yeshua.

 

[Oberon]

IMO, this gets thrown around (A LOT) and is really old. Why would we have to write it all off?

Because the vast majority of our knowledge of ancient history comes from texts like the gospels (i.e. texts that we would not call history today). Most of what we suspect happened is not supported by archaeology (because only fragments have survived). There are only a few people in ancient history who have as much data in support of their existance as Jesus (four biographies/lives written about him, not to mention even earlier references in a number of other earlier texts like the epistles).

In the case of Jesus we have no physical evidence of his existence. He wrote nothing.

That is true for the vast majority of ancient historical figures.

We have no contemporary writings to show any interaction with this supposed highly vocal public figure.

However, we have writings by a contemporary (Paul) who discusses him.

That I can tell we have nothing in the Roman record that suggest that the authorities were looking for him, captured him and tried him for any crimes yet

There almost never is.


This is why I think you need to study more not only about the historical Jesus, but ancient history in general. You seem to be under the assumption that the our sources for Jesus are "scarce" when compared to sources for most other ancient historical figures. They aren't. There are a large number of figures who we can't know if they ever existed (i.e. Homer). There are even more who are referenced in this or that work either by a contemporary or decades (or centuries) later, but virtuall nothing is said about them. Many of the accounts (like those of Apollonius or Pythagoras) are from at least a century later.

This is why I asked you about whether you believe Socrates was historical. We have three central accounts, supposedly written by contemporary, but all of them are wildly different. If I treated these sources the way the mythicists treat the sources on Jesus, we would have to conclude that Jesus didn't exist.

In short, not only are there numerous relatively early references to Jesus, not to mention 4 complete "lives," all written in under a century of his life, but in contrast to other texts which survive from ancient time we have an extraordinary number of copies (some very, very early) for these texts.

There are very few figures in ancient history who have as much evidence for their existance as Jesus.

What I do believe is that no amount of scholarship at this point can prove with any degree of certainty he existed.

Again, we can be more certain of his existence than we can of all but a handful of figures from ancient history.

At best we guess he could have. You are right that we have so much written by other supposed historical figures but truly can't say if they existed or not. Krishna comes to mind.

If Krishna or Buddha comes to mind, then you don't understand my point. We have no references to Krishna or Buddha until centuries after they were supposed to have lived. All of the stories are far later legends.

On the other hand, Paul was converted a few years after Jesus' crucifixion, and Q is probably only 20 years after.

The kind of historical figures I am comparing to Jesus (when I say that if you deny his existence you have to also deny theirs) are people like Socrates (I would give more names, but I am not sure how many figures beyond guys like Caesar or Plato you know).

Such an extensive history (Hinduism) and so much written and the believers believe Krishna is a real person.

But these stories are very different. They were not nailed down to a specific time, nor were the accounts close to the time of his alleged life.

I can't say, at this point, whether he was or wasn't but their writings make him out to be a real historical person. I haven't seen a scholar, at least not yet, claiming he was a real person

And yet every single expert in historical Jesus scholarship says Jesus was historical. Does it occur to you they might know what they are talking about?

Again, my process in determining how historical Jesus is, is by trying to figure out who, if anybody, interacted with him and wrote anything about him. Maybe somebody did and the work was destroyed...but that is peer speculation on my part.

But your process is flawed. You lack the methodology to determine historical vs. non-historical. Your basis for historicity is that it a historical account has to be written either by someone who knew him personally or Jesus himself. That would cut out most of ancient history. Ancient historians went around getting accounts from other people and recording them. The way to judge historicity in these accounts is to compare them with other accounts that survive (if they exist) and to determine whether it is likely such information would be transmitted accurately.

You haven't studied oral cultures, or oral tradition, so you are thinking too much like someone living in the 20th century. Your "process" seems to be "if it wasn't written down by a contemporary or the person themselves, it wasn't historical." But in oral cultures almost EVERYTHING wasn't written down. We are LUCKY that Paul's letters and the gospels survived, because they are a treasure trove of information not available when it comes to most historical figures.

 

[herushura]

Well Jesus charactaristics are very similer to Egytpian Pharoahs.

He was Called Christ - A Word from egytpian "Kerast" a Process of Anointing Mummys.
infact Jesus was anointed after his death with Oils and Spices.
(RA-ASSUR-ECT) stems from the god Osiris and egyptian rituals , he judges you of sins and weight the heart after death,

Pharoahic Titles
KING OF KINGS
Son of God
Anointed One
Savior (yshu)
Son of Isis (spiritual Virgin)

and Jesus was buried inside a Tomb - mainly its only Royalty or High Priest that have this type of burial. It Could be that Jesus was buried in the Valley of the Kings. His Life story a retold account of Dionysus/Tammuz/adonis/mithras/horus mixed with Caeserion/Cyrus and Tutankhamen

 

[dogsgod]

Paul didn't write a bio of Jesus. Visions of a resurrected son of God don't account for anything.

 

[dogsgod]

I haven't looked into the matter, but apparently Socrates' existence is debated as well.

 

[dogsgod]

I don't know, maybe the unidentified flying objects in those days came with Pyramid generating devices.


The point is, you can find anything on the web. Why don't you provide us with evidence to support your claim from an acknowledged expert?



Well, it finally happened. Dogsgod has run his course. He can't answer the critiques anymore, can't admit he really doesn't know anything about the topic, can't admit he hasn't read any scholarship, can't admit his websites are bogus, can't respond to demonstrations of error, etc. So now we are left with the: NO! NO! NO!like that of a child ("there were no eyewitnesses, there were no eyewitnesses, there were no eyewitnesses"). Perhaps if you click your heels three times while you say it you will come back to earth, where people who want to prove a point have to back it up with actual knowledge, references to scholarship, and research.

I think it's you that just ran its course which is why you are ignoring the elephant in the room. No eye witnesses means your little notion that the eye-witnesses carefully pass on what they were taught and had experienced during the ministry of Jesus...has no basis in fact. No eye witnesses means no way of knowing what you claim to know.

 

[dogsgod]

Assuming a Jesus or not, we have no way to know whether what some unknown people claimed Jesus said is what Jesus said.

 

[Oberon]

I haven't looked into the matter, but apparently Socrates' existence is debated as well.

You haven't looked into anything. That's the problem. The extent of your knowledge is a few webpages.

 

[dogsgod]

You haven't looked into anything. That's the problem. The extent of your knowledge is a few webpages.

At least I don't pretend to know what is otherwise impossible to know, such as what non existent eye witnesses declared of a Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

He was Called Christ - A Word from egytpian "Kerast" a Process of Anointing Mummys.

Not it isn't. Christ in greek is christos, and is the greek equivalent of the hebrew masiah/messiah

infact Jesus was anointed after his death with Oils and Spices.

A common burial practice among hebrews.

(RA-ASSUR-ECT) stems from the god Osiris and egyptian rituals

,

No it doesn't. The word "resurrect" comes from the latin resurrexi, the perfect of the latin resurgo, itself a translation of the greek
ἀνάστασις/anastasis.

and Jesus was buried inside a Tomb - mainly its only Royalty or High Priest that have this type of burial. It Could be that Jesus was buried in the Valley of the Kings. His Life story a retold account of Dionysus/Tammuz/adonis/mithras/horus mixed with Caeserion/Cyrus and Tutankhamen

All wrong. Where are you getting this junk?

 

[Oberon]

At least I don't pretend to know what is otherwise impossible to know, such as what non existent eye witnesses declared of a Jesus.

You pretend to know a great deal actually. I have already pointed out your numerous errors, misrepresentations, etc. As for eye-witnesses, Paul specifically tells us he went to Jerusalem to get receive the Jesus tradition from them. Luke also says that the early christians received the tradition from the eyewitnesses. Papias discusses receiving the tradition from the disciples of the eyewitnesses. You just disbelieve it.

You claim there were no eyewitnesses because you don't believe Jesus ever lived. The extent of your research has been a few websites and some sensationalist books. The only two scholars you have read (both on the extreme) disagreed with you. So what is the basis for taking anything you say as credible?

 

[dogsgod]

You pretend to know a great deal actually. I have already pointed out your numerous errors, misrepresentations, etc. As for eye-witnesses, Paul specifically tells us he went to Jerusalem to get receive the Jesus tradition from them. Luke also says that the early christians received the tradition from the eyewitnesses. Papias discusses receiving the tradition from the disciples of the eyewitnesses. You just disbelieve it.

You claim there were no eyewitnesses because you don't believe Jesus ever lived.

You have it backwards, I question Jesus' existence because there are no known eyewitnesses.

The extent of your research has been a few websites and some sensationalist books. The only two scholars you have read (both on the extreme) disagreed with you. So what is the basis for taking anything you say as credible?

You harping on what I have or haven't read is a means of distraction for you.

You have no eyewitnesses.

Deal with it.

 

[Oberon]

You harping on what I have or haven't read is a means of distraction for you.

Wrong. It is an essential point. I have pointed out numerous errors and problems with your arguments. Your basic ignorance of the subject makes your opinion worthless. You haven't done the research, and yet you (more than any person throughout this thread) have consistently made the most extreme claims for mythicism. Given your lack of knowledge, why should your opinion matter?

You have no eyewitnesses.

Of course I don't. What I have are accounts given to the earliest christians by eyewitnesses. That is recorded.