Jesus was Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you have any idea what kind of things are said about Jesus in the specialist literature? Or in the popular literature by specialists? Why is ok to smash Christianity, call the NT a distortion of Jesus' message, say that Jesus wasn't resurrected but eaten by dogs, that the founders of Christianity were liars who distorted whatever Jesus' real message was, but you can't say he didn't exist?

That one is easy to answer. Everyone loves the Jesus Game. It doesn't matter how a person plays it, but there is one overriding rule: Never Kill Off Jesus.

Because then the game is over.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. I think it's why, as a group, Jesus historicists tend to argue with such intense emotion, while mythicists seem more laid back.

Just my personal view of it, of course.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That one is easy to answer. Everyone loves the Jesus Game. It doesn't matter how a person plays it, but there is one overriding rule: Never Kill Off Jesus.

That was done over 100 years ago and many times since. By the 1930s, however, every theory of Christian origins with a Christ myth had been answered. Sure, there have been more mythicists since, but they were answered already and answered again both by citing the previous answers and reframing them in the new.

So your "Jesus game" exists only in your imagination. You cannot know what has been argued long before you were ever born through observation, and thus your conclusions about this game are incredibly limited. When Schweitzer addressed basically every mythicist argument there was and is you were not a thought, much less born. Perhaps you were born when the non-biblical historian Grant went through the various arguments against using the gospels as evidence and showed how thoroughly biased and baseless these were (given the nature of ancient historiography and religion), perhaps you were not, but if you were born you weren't even an adult.

And that's the one of the major flaws of your "I observe the human heart" position. Like all humans, you and I are tiny little blips of insignificance. It is the recorded history, anthropology, and archaeology that allows anyone to say anything about humanity as it has existed for the 100,000+ years it has. Not observations of your Christian family.

So you observe modern Western biases like your family of Christians (and through them), and those of us interested in the past read what you can't even read because you can't understand the languages. You are limited to your subjective experiences tainted by your biased Christian upbringing which you apply to Christian origins; just like those antiquated biased scholars of old who projected their Western upbringing to religious movements of past centuries (those who, like you, called these "primitive times").

I don't project elitism into the past. I study it. Those whom you mock do so too, but as you have not read them you would not know. You are left with your biases. And if that makes you satisfied, then I envy you for being satisfied by ignorance. I would gladly trade all the access to sources, all the languages I know, all the effort and time I've put into studying, for assurance. But I cannot. I cannot bring myself to tolerate fallacies. You can (even if via denial).

Because then the game is over.

Were that true, it would have been over before you existed.

I think it's why, as a group, Jesus historicists tend to argue with such intense emotion, while mythicists seem more laid back.

I thought you claimed not to know who the mythicists were or what they were. Would you like me to quote how much they insult, marginalize, ridicule, mock, and otherwise use emotions and passions to address those whose knowledge far outstrips their own? I can. Richard Carrier has a degree in ancient history. His dissertation was on Greco-Roman science. He hasn't published a single accepted piece of scholarship in his field. Do you know the one field which accepted a paper of his as scholarship? Historical Jesus studies. Not his field, but the biblical scholars.

Just my personal view of it, of course.

What other view do any of us have?

 

[arcanum]

That one is easy to answer. Everyone loves the Jesus Game. It doesn't matter how a person plays it, but there is one overriding rule: Never Kill Off Jesus.

Because then the game is over.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. I think it's why, as a group, Jesus historicists tend to argue with such intense emotion, while mythicists seem more laid back.

Just my personal view of it, of course.

You seem to have a lot to say on the subject, but as far as constructive content your input it has amounted to almost nil.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You seem to have a lot to say on the subject, but as far as constructive content your input it has amounted to almost nil.

The mods have asked that members steer clear of personal insult in this thread. So I'm unwilling to engage you on this.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you observe modern Western biases like your family of Christians (and through them), and those of us interested in the past read what you can't even read because you can't understand the languages. You are limited to your subjective experiences tainted by your biased Christian upbringing which you apply to Christian origins; just like those antiquated biased scholars of old who projected their Western upbringing to religious movements of past centuries (those who, like you, called these "primitive times").

I cannot bring myself to tolerate fallacies. You can (even if via denial)

Not interested in trading insults with you, Legion. Let me know if you want to get back to the Jesus debate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not interested in trading insults with you, Legion. Let me know if you want to get back to the Jesus debate.

Ah. Your tactic again. When you run out of explanations, claim it is the other side at fault, is insulting, or whatever you can. You also project your cultural elitism in your designation of cultures of antiquity. To you they are "primitive". An observer of the human heart who dismisses entire peoples as "primitive" because...? You have never answered. I called myself a blip of insignificance. You have claimed:

God, I so love to do smug!

I'm in a much superior position than the average biblical scholar (or even the advanced biblical scholar) to make a judgment about why first-century folk found the Jesus story so exciting.

You reference your modern observations continuously yet you warn against this:

But be careful that you don't let your modern-era biases throw you off.

You use your Christian upbringing to understand Christianity, and then warn others to beware of biases. I asked what you knew to support your theory of oral tradition. You have nothing. I asked you to incorporate both the historical godmen before and after Jesus and the Jewish notion of messiah into your account, but you are unable.

You are just another victim of biased Christian upbringing. It's too bad, but it isn't your fault.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm late to the party, but I want to quote something I said in another thread recently.

Basic Christianity says that the Church is the body of Christ. It teaches that each member is to receive the anointing which is called 'Christ'. Jesus is also called 'The Christ'. Jesus is also called the Son of God but Israel was called that first, but now the Church is too. The apostle Paul says that Christians are now members of the household of faith now, so they are part of Israel -- which is called the Son of God. Do you get what I am saying? To help my point: The Virgin Birth prophecy mentioned by Matthew is so obviously not a prediction that it can be no accident that it is not applied to Jesus 'The Man' but to the Church. In fact none of the fulfillments in Matthew come from predictions, but they can all be applied to the Church.

There are many theological arguments that Jesus was a myth. I don't need historical arguments, and the fact that there is no way to proved he existed historically is sufficient. The above argument is sufficient, though it is a subset of a much more extensive argument. The fact is that Jesus is not an individual person.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There are many theological arguments that Jesus was a myth

Theological arguments are theological, not historical. If Jesus was a myth, then you require historical, not theological arguments. You can even use historical analysis of theological arguments or arguments that are theological but pretend to be historical. What is completely unfounded is using theological arguments that Jesus did or did not exist.

I don't need historical arguments, and the fact that there is no way to proved he existed historically is sufficient.

No scientist worth her or his salt would claim that any scientific theory is proven. The word "proof" is not used even in the sciences. You expect historians to prove what no scientist can?

The above argument is sufficient

That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Theological arguments are theological, not historical. If Jesus was a myth, then you require historical, not theological arguments. You can even use historical analysis of theological arguments or arguments that are theological but pretend to be historical. What is completely unfounded is using theological arguments that Jesus did or did not exist.

You aren't going to get historical conclusions that he didn't exist or that he did unless you adopt theological statements as evidence. It was too long ago. You can get theological arguments that he didn't exist, because those are available. These arguments, so long as they are in the Theological domain, can be considered theological proofs or as historical evidences. They just can't be considered historical or scientific proofs. When I say 'Proof' I don't mean Scientific proof. I mean its damned obvious theologically.

No scientist worth her or his salt would claim that any scientific theory is proven. The word "proof" is not used even in the sciences. You expect historians to prove what no scientist can?

No, I expect you to admit as I do that Historians hypothesize and theorize using non-scientific methods as do Theologians. Historical hypothesis are made every day. So are theological ones. Its just a different use of the term that excludes the Scientific Method. Why are you making me out to be an exception? Are you suggesting that this forum has become a place of scientific study?

That's not an argument. It's ignorance.

We are talking about History & Theology. I didn't say it was scientifically sufficient. One could venture that all of Theology is ignorance, since it is neither historical nor scientific. Historically its mondo sufficient that the existence of Jesus has not already been proven. The absence of proof is as loud as a shout, because there is a huge Jesus-shaped hole in the picture. Where is the man that Jesus was supposed to have been?

That Theology supports a mythical Jesus becomes significant. Consider that what the NT says is so far different from what the Quoran says about Jesus. That the NT can be read to imply Jesus was mythical ought to mean something to you. Why would those clever NT letters leave it up as an option? Jesus own name means 'The LORD preserves' roughly. He's called Prince of Peace. He fights without swords until the world is at peace, yet he is 'Coming quickly.' The Church is his body! Theologically he's as mythical as unicorns. The weight of the theological argument is huge, so huge that I'm surprised you won't count all the ancient documents about it as historically significant.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You aren't going to get historical proof that he didn't exist or that he did.

I'm not going to get proof that Obama or Bush exist. Proof is a matter for formal systems of mathematics, not the sciences or the humanities.

It was too long ago

Do you believe that humans were always around? Because if not, then you are talking about evidence that reaches back over 100,000 years before Jesus. Do you believe that Plato, Aristotle, Nero, Caesar, or anyone from antiquity existed? Because if so, we have more evidence for Jesus.

You can get theological arguments that he didn't exist, because those are available.

Just because some idiot claims that a theological argument is a historical one doesn't make that moron anything other than a moron. Theology isn't history.

These arguments, so long as they are in the Theological domain, can be considered proofs.

Of nothing. Until you can point me to a proof, then you are asserting nothing. Once you do, you are assuming an enormous amount. Proofs require closed discourse realms.

They just can't be considered historical or scientific proofs

That's because neither exist.

The word 'Proof' is theologically useful and is heavily used in the NT and by many Theologians.

1) I've read the NT in Greek, Latin, German, English, French, and parts of a few other languages (Sanskrit, Gothic, etc.). Your assertion that proof is heavily used is simply completely wrong.
2) Logical proofs from the scholastics onward are not history.

No, I expect you to admit as I do that Historians hypothesize and theorize using non-scientific methods as do Theologians. Historical hypothesis are made every day.

Then you fundamentally mistake science (my field), and what I have read and studied and have degrees in (history).

Why are you making me out to be an exception?

I don't mean to and I don't consider you to be one.

Are you suggesting that this forum has become a place of scientific study?

I've debated a number of highly technical scientific concepts with those who are graduate or post-graduate researchers in some scientific field. Scientific study is but one component of this forum.

We are talking about History & Theology.

I was not. I was talking history.

Historically its mondo sufficient that the existence of Jesus has not already been proven.

This is completely nonsensical.

The absence of proof is

...typical of every field outside mathematics.

Where is the man that Jesus was supposed to have been?

In the sources we have that are more extensive, more complete, and earlier than anybody before or long after that time.

That Theology supports a mythical Jesus becomes significant.

Study history.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for that patient and careful response.

I'm not going to get proof that Obama or Bush exist. Proof is a matter for formal systems of mathematics, not the sciences or the humanities.

This is unfair. Everywhere I go I hear of proofs. Now suddenly I'm a goose for saying it.

Do you believe that humans were always around? Because if not, then you are talking about evidence that reaches back over 100,000 years before Jesus. Do you believe that Plato, Aristotle, Nero, Caesar, or anyone from antiquity existed? Because if so, we have more evidence for Jesus.

The historical evidences of Plato, Aristotle, Nero and Caesar do not simultaneously argue that they were mythical. Socrates, however, is often thought to be a myth created by Plato. Shall I excuse the theological arguments that Jesus was a myth since they are part of the historical record?

Just because some idiot claims that a theological argument is a historical one doesn't make that moron anything other than a moron. Theology isn't history.

I am unfortunately an idiot, but that doesn't mean I'm always wrong. Besides theologians frequently make historical arguments, so what does that make them? The theological evidence is huge and ought to be taken into account. I think it fills the vacuum of Jesus personality, charisma and uniqueness. He does not have new ideas but old ones.

Of nothing. Until you can point me to a proof, then you are asserting nothing. Once you do, you are assuming an enormous amount. Proofs require closed discourse realms.

Ok! Theological arguments are proof of nothing. Nevertheless all memory of Jesus comes from theological works which you choose to call historical just as you choose to call the various books of the Bible historical or partially historical. Others call them patently false histories. If these histories suggest that Jesus was mythical, then how does that escape historical significance?

1) I've read the NT in Greek, Latin, German,. English, French, and parts of a few other languages (Sanskrit, Gothic, etc.). Your assertion that it is heavily used is simply completely wrong.
2) Logical proofs from the scholastics onward are not history.

Ok. I acknowledge that you are talented and have done your homework.

This is completely nonsensical.

You do not like the term 'Mondo sufficient'. How about 'More than sufficient'? We do not doubt the existence of Philo or Archimedes because their arguments were admired and passed on to us. Plato has his star. Jesus arguments are basic Jewish arguments. In what way are they unique? Where is the man who produced them?

In the sources we have that are more extensive, more complete, and earlier than anybody before or long after that time.

That is fair. Yes I cannot insist upon proof of Jesus existence.

Study history.

I know some of it. I've gotten to know the arguments Jesus makes in the gospels and the ones that Paul makes in his letters, and I've studied the basis for those arguments. I'm qualified to recommend to you that Jesus likely was mythical. Perhaps I can't recommend it as a historian but from the documents passed down for a basis of belief, this seems to be the case.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is unfair. Everywhere I go I hear of proofs. Now suddenly I'm a goose for saying it.

I hear a lot about Jesus making Peter the first pope. I just happen to have had the opportunity to study proofs, scientific epistemology, and the relevance of proofs to history. I believe that you have heard plenty of proofs about Jesus. But have you not heard plenty about proofs you don't accept?

The historical evidences of Plato, Aristotle, Nero and Caesar do not simultaneously argue that they were mythical

So you believe they were divine sons of gods? Because that's the historical evidence.

Socrates, however, is often thought to be a myth created by Plato.

I've yet to come upon a single source saying this, because before Plato wrote a word on Socrates, Aristophanes did. And while Plato did, Xenophon did.

Shall I excuse the theological arguments that Jesus was a myth since they are part of the historical record?

Do what you please. I do not find theology a basis for historicity.

I am unfortunately an idiot, but that doesn't mean I'm always wrong.

As a fellow idiot, I can relate. So I rely on a great deal of research by those far more intelligent than I.

Besides theologians frequently make historical arguments, so what does that make them?

That depends. Noam Chomsky is most known for his works on politics. Yet that isn't his field. I don't ignore either type of arguments he makes simply because he is an expert in languages, not political theory. His works are to be judged by their own merit.

The theological evidence is huge and ought to be taken into account.

I don't think so. Historiography is not theology.

Ok. I acknowledge that you are talented and have done your homework.

I've done my homework. Talented? Not really.

Jesus arguments are basic Jewish arguments. In what way are they unique? Where is the man who produced them?

Jesus' arguments are based in Judaism. But they are not equivalent with the other Jewish movements of his day.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I've gotten to know the arguments Jesus makes in the gospels and the ones that Paul makes in his letters, and I've studied the basis for those arguments. I'm qualified to recommend to you that Jesus likely was mythical.

I already suspected that, but thanks for the confirmation. We must follow the evidence wherever it leads, we idiots.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I hear a lot about Jesus making Peter the first pope. I just happen to have had the opportunity to study proofs, scientific epistemology, and the relevance of proofs to history. I believe that you have heard plenty of proofs about Jesus. But have you not heard plenty about proofs you don't accept?

So you believe they were divine sons of gods? Because that's the historical evidence.

I've yet to come upon a single source saying this, because before Plato wrote a word on Socrates, Aristophanes did. And while Plato did, Xenophon did.

Do what you please. I do not find theology a basis for historicity.

....Ok. It matters though, even if you are only interested in history.

Jesus' arguments are based in Judaism. But they are not equivalent with the other Jewish movements of his day.

I'm not so sure, and that is where I will concentrate my historical studies

 

[nash8]

His ideas and actions seem very similar to a "Jewish" group called the Essenes, except that he sought to teach that everyone had a right to their "secrets".

Out of curiousity as I haven't seen anyone bring it up, do we have any historical documents that assess the idea of Jesus being a myth?

 

[outhouse]

His ideas and actions seem very similar to a "Jewish" group called the Essenes

Not exactly

Not enough is known about historical Jesus or the Essenes to make that assumption

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Out of curiousity as I haven't seen anyone bring it up, do we have any historical documents that assess the idea of Jesus being a myth?

Some of my historical-Jesus discussions here on the forum are a couple of years old, I think. I could get you some message numbers if you want to study them.

If they aren't historical enough for you, can you define what you mean by 'historical documents that assess Jesus being myth'?

 

[arcanum]

I think those that speculate that he was a pure myth is missing the mark. Is it really unreasonable to think that there was a charismatic historical man named Yahshua who taught certain, perhaps, fringe ideas within a Jewish matrix and had a group of followers that continued to follow his teachings after his death? Why is that so implausible that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater? Something dropped in the water which started the huge ripple on the the surface of historic time. Now I think legend began to be woven around
him after his death and as time went on more mythical elements crept in, probably under Paul. Consider it was Paul who hijacked the the Jewish Jesus movement and made something else out of it entirely. While the the successor to the movement, Jesus brother James, was almost entirely whitewashed from the NT. What happened there? We have reports of James heading the movement based in Jerusalem yet he is given little importance in the NT, while Paul is given the high seat.

 

[steeltoes]

I think those that speculate that he was a pure myth is missing the mark. Is it really unreasonable to think that there was a charismatic historical man named Yahshua who taught certain, perhaps, fringe ideas within a Jewish matrix and had a group of followers that continued to follow his teachings after his death? Why is that so implausible that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater? Something dropped in the water which started the huge ripple on the the surface of historic time. Now I think legend began to be woven around
him after his death and as time went on more mythical elements crept in, probably under Paul. Consider it was Paul who hijacked the the Jewish Jesus movement and made something else out of it entirely. While the the successor to the movement, Jesus brother James, was almost entirely whitewashed from the NT. What happened there? We have reports of James heading the movement based in Jerusalem yet he is given little importance in the NT, while Paul is given the high seat.

"Whitewashed" sounds like a conspiracy theory required to explain away this brother of Jesus. Seems like a lot of trouble goes into convincing oneself that Jesus was historical. Personally, I don't think we can know and I am not sure that conspiracy theories are going to convince me.

 

[arcanum]

"Whitewashed" sounds like a conspiracy theory required to explain away this brother of Jesus. Seems like a lot of trouble goes into convincing oneself that Jesus was historical. Personally, I don't think we can know and I am not sure that conspiracy theories are going to convince me.

Read Paul and Jesus, and how Jesus became Christian.