Jesus was Myth

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not at all. You could decide not to be hypocritical and stop masquerading as some sort of unbiased judge who has weighed the evidence we have for Jesus against, well, anything from antiquity. Instead, you assume things are true of antiquity to say we don't have evidence about Jesus.

People who actually want to learn what experts think can do what almost everybody always does: they buy books written for the layperson and trust that whether it is about the history of logic, the life of Shakespeare, or Jesus. It's history.

Massive research is for PhDs. In depth research is for people who have the time, inclination, and resources. Casual acquaintance is for those who are genuinely interested but do not want to read a dozen massive volumes but merely a few books. Trolling the web for answers and selective use of sources combined with challenges about this bias the pervades research they've never read is for mythicists, as is all the other ad hoc responses to why they are the unbiased ones when they haven't done research yet refuse to consider actual evidence because that would require knowing what ancient historical evidence is (knowing how real historians approach the evidence we actually have from an informed position would be too much work).

You must be from western Mass...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You must be from western Mass...

I grew up outside of Boston, went to college in Boston, and went onto grad work/research in Cambridge (I had to move to DC to stay with family not a lot of money in research and tutoring/teaching while trying to obtain a doctorate too).

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I grew up outside of Boston, went to college in Boston, and went onto grad work/research in Cambridge (I had to move to DC to stay with family not a lot of money in research and tutoring/teaching while trying to obtain a doctorate too).

Lol and here I had you figured for the Berkshires type. Guess I was wrong, but it definitely explains the sarcasm:yes:. I'm Boston born and bred, but I've also lived in Worcester, Framingham, Natick, Sommerville, Lawrence, Methuen, and Chelsea. I've moved around a lot since high school ended lol.

 

[Breathe]

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Trippy...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lol and here I had you figured for the Berkshires type.

My house growing up was in Needham, but since I was 14 I've lived in Worcester, Dedham, Quincy, Arlington, and Newton.

but it definitely explains the sarcasm

Not exactly, although I know what you mean. The sarcasm comes from my father (born in Austria of American parents), which he got from his father. My grandfather was a German Jew (and his grandfather was the first reform Rabbi in NY). But he also went to school in Cambridge (a member of the first wave of Conant fellows, back when "diversity " meant anybody who wasn't a W.A.S.P.), wrote his dissertation on IE linguistics in Latin, received his doctorate in at the age of 25, and then was drafted. He did end up back in academia though as a professor of classics and linguistics at Cornell. And as most of my father's side of the family is around the DC area, and all of them (cousins, aunts, and uncle) are just as sarcastic as my siblings and I, I think it traces back to my grandfather more than Boston.

But I wouldn't mind having John Krasinski's sense of humor.

I'm Boston born and bred, but I've also lived in Worcester, Framingham, Natick, Sommerville, Lawrence, Methuen, and Chelsea. I've moved around a lot since high school ended lol.

I didn't hang out much in Sommerville or Lawrence, but Lowell, Fall River, Roxbury, Dorchester, JP, Quincy (Germantown), and a decent number of places where I could do stupid things with a group idiots (myself included) and miraculously survive.

 

[roger1440]

There isn’t any way to prove Jesus didn’t exist. A negative cannot be proven. It would be like trying to prove ghosts do not exist. What’s a guy to do, produce a non-ghost as evidence?

 

[roger1440]

I don’t think the Gospels were made up the way we would normally define the term. Some of Jesus’s followers believed he was the messiah. If the messiah must fulfill specific prophesies and his followers believe Jesus is the messiah, then logic would dictate in the minds of his followers Jesus must have fulfilled those prophesies, regardless if his followers seen them fulfilled or not. There is a likelihood the Gospels writers sifted through the Jewish Cannon searching for Messianic prophesies. Once found a story using these prophesies were incorporated around the story of Jesus’ life. Some of the imagery used allegory and symbolism. Are the stories true? Well it all depends on how one interprets them.

 

[Agnostic75]

Some of Jesus’s followers believed he was the messiah.

Possibly very few. In his best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity," author, and sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, estimates that in 100 A.D., there were only about 7,530 Christians in the entire world. Conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to start a riot in a small village."

Rodney Stark also uses evidence from experts in papyrology, and archaeology, to show that there were very few Christians in the world in the first century A.D.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, including many miracles "throughout all of Syria" as the New Testament claims, that might partly explain why there were so few Christians in the world in the first century A.D. since people who lived in Jerusalem, and Syria, could easily have checked out claims of miracles for themselves.

If Jesus actually did perform many miracles for three years, I assume that he would have easily become a media sensation, and would have attracted the attention of the governments of Jerusalem, and Syria.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Possibly very few. In his best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity," author, and sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, estimates that in 100 A.D., there were only about 7,530 Christians in the entire world. Conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to start a riot in a small village."

Rodney Stark also uses evidence from experts in papyrology, and archaeology, to show that there were very few Christians in the world in the first century A.D.

If Jesus did not perform any miracles, including many miracles "throughout all of Syria" as the New Testament claims, that might partly explain why there were so few Christians in the world in the first century A.D. since people who lived in Jerusalem, and Syria, could easily have checked out claims of miracles for themselves.

If Jesus actually did perform many miracles for three years, I assume that he would have easily become a media sensation, and would have attracted the attention of the governments of Jerusalem, and Syria.

If he had 7,000 followers then he would have easily brought about the same attention as well . Although I am not sure if you post-death though. But any significant amount of adherents would be enough for his assassination

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If he had 7,000 followers then he would have easily brought about the same attention as well . Although I am not sure if you post-death though. But any significant amount of adherents would be enough for his assassination

If he had 7,000 followers, he would have been mentioned by historians, I think. How could the Jews have missed (not noticed) a false messiah with 7,000 followers?

 

[Agnostic75]

But any significant amount of adherents would be enough for his assassination.

If Jesus died about 35 A.D., I doubt that he had more than a handful of followers. That is why I question claims about his trial, and the necessity of having guards at his tomb. Why would Pontius Pilate have had guards at the tomb of a relatively unknown preacher, with only a handful of followers?

 

[steeltoes]

Not at all. You could decide not to be hypocritical and stop masquerading as some sort of unbiased judge who has weighed the evidence we have for Jesus against, well, anything from antiquity. Instead, you assume things are true of antiquity to say we don't have evidence about Jesus.

People who actually want to learn what experts think can do what almost everybody always does: they buy books written for the layperson and trust that whether it is about the history of logic, the life of Shakespeare, or Jesus. It's history.

Massive research is for PhDs. In depth research is for people who have the time, inclination, and resources. Casual acquaintance is for those who are genuinely interested but do not want to read a dozen massive volumes but merely a few books. Trolling the web for answers and selective use of sources combined with challenges about this bias the pervades research they've never read is for mythicists, as is all the other ad hoc responses to why they are the unbiased ones when they haven't done research yet refuse to consider actual evidence because that would require knowing what ancient historical evidence is (knowing how real historians approach the evidence we actually have from an informed position would be too much work).

:sleep:

 

[Breathe]

If he had 7,000 followers then he would have easily brought about the same attention as well . Although I am not sure if you post-death though. But any significant amount of adherents would be enough for his assassination

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for the hell of it, but what about if "damnatio memoriae"/"yimakh shemo" was used on Jesus?

 

[Sha'irullah]

If he had 7,000 followers, he would have been mentioned by historians, I think. How could the Jews have missed (not noticed) a false messiah with 7,000 followers?

Further proof he was not an overly important individual then

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Trolling the web for answers and selective use of sources combined with challenges about this bias the pervades research they've never read is for mythicists, as is all the other ad hoc responses to why they are the unbiased ones when they haven't done research yet refuse to consider actual evidence because that would require knowing what ancient historical evidence is (knowing how real historians approach the evidence we actually have from an informed position would be too much work).

You have it backwards. Only Jesus historicists behave as you describe above. Jesus mythicists do their homework, are unbiased, and are clearly the best thinkers.

Really, don't you ever get tired of sliming your opponents? And do you really believe that everyone who disagrees with you is some kind of ignoramus?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for the hell of it, but what about if "damnatio memoriae"/"yimakh shemo" was used on Jesus?

This would explain a lot. Jesus could have had a significant amount of followers. Any evidence could have been erased so Jesus would not become a martyr in his death and folklore was spun about him a century later

 

[nash8]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for the hell of it, but what about if "damnatio memoriae"/"yimakh shemo" was used on Jesus?

Brilliant

 

[Agnostic75]

If he had 7,000 followers, he would have been mentioned by historians, I think. How could the Jews have missed (not noticed) a false messiah with 7,000 followers?

The 7,530 estimate that Rodney Stark used was for 100 A.D., which was decades after Jesus died.

As I said, conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright said that there were not enough Christians in the first century to "start a riot in a small village." Actually, I think that he said "mount" a riot.

Jesus simply had too few followers to have been much of a religious, or political problem.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The 7,530 estimate that Rodney Stark used was for 100 A.D., which was decades after Jesus died.

Ah. I know there's no such thing as the scholarly consensus -- despite being pounded on my head with it over and over again -- but I wonder what the scholarly consensus thinks about the number of Jesus followers in 30 CE?