The Jesus Myth

[Jesus Smasher]

How do you know?

First and foremost, Plato plainly states that he is writer of his works. He is also documented by his student Aristotle, as well as historians of the same era i.e. Diogenes Laertius.

But I don't think you are really trying to argue with me over the historicity of Plato's existence, I think you are being facetious and dancing around the topic at hand to try and say no one of the era was documented well - and that may very well be so - but it would seem that an individual of such great significance (a supposed deity walking the earth amongst mortals) would have had an overwhelming amount of reputation in writings, art - like the drawings and carvings of plato - and historical documentation by the educators of the era.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

but it would seem that an individual of such great significance (a supposed deity walking the earth amongst mortals) would have had an overwhelming amount of reputation in writings, art - like the drawings and carvings of plato - and historical documentation by the educators of the era.

Or at the very least a passing mention from a contemporary historian or two.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

First and foremost, Plato plainly states that he is writer of his works. He is also documented by his student Aristotle, as well as historians of the same era i.e. Diogenes Laertius.

But I don't think you are really trying to argue with me over the historicity of Plato's existence, I think you are being facetious and dancing around the topic at hand to try and say no one of the era was documented well - and that may very well be so - but it would seem that an individual of such great significance (a supposed deity walking the earth amongst mortals) would have had an overwhelming amount of reputation in writings, art - like the drawings and carvings of plato - and historical documentation by the educators of the era.

So? Do you think that there aren't any pseudonymous works?

 

[Jesus Smasher]

So? Do you think that there aren't any pseudonymous works?

Are you going to quote them or just assume they are out there? Because I don't base facts on assumptions - it's kind of the whole point of this thread!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or at the very least a passing mention from a contemporary historian or two.

*sigh*

Ignorance is not bliss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum

Reference to Jesus as brother of James

The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."[61]

The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[2]

 

[Jesus Smasher]

*sigh*

Ignorance is not bliss.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two things on this citation, first and foremost.. Josephus lived after Jesus supposedly died.. I'll say again, a poor eye-witness. But to directly follow your CITATION there is a huge area on this page where it says "Arguments against authenticity" and the page systematically destroys the credibility of the quotation, if you want to bring a citation to the stage bring one from something that is credible.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

angellous_evangellous ,

In addition to what Smasher said, learn the definition of contemporary. Josephus did not live at the same time as 'jesus' would have. There were, however historians that did, who were all silent on the subject of 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This in and of itself is quite telling.

 

[Willamena]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

Isn't taking a position on Jesus' actual existence contrary to the meaning of myth?

 

[Copernicus]

In addition to what Smasher said, learn the definition of contemporary. Josephus did not live at the same time as 'jesus' would have. There were, however historians that did, who were all silent on the subject of 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This in and of itself is quite telling.

Paul, who was likely the first person to write about Jesus, mentioned that he had met with Jesus' brother (or "cousin") James. Whoever wrote the Josephus passage would likely have been recording hearsay. We have nothing more than some writings to attest to the existence of Jesus, and that is really not much to go on. At best, some historical person who may have been executed by the Romans gave rise to the legend, but it is not very likely that the Bible represented anything like an accurate record of that man's life. Moreover, the legend could very well have been pieced together from nothing more than stories that were circulating in the region at that time. It wouldn't be the first time in history that people made up religious myths.

 

[fallingblood]

angellous_evangellous ,

In addition to what Smasher said, learn the definition of contemporary. Josephus did not live at the same time as 'jesus' would have. There were, however historians that did, who were all silent on the subject of 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This in and of itself is quite telling.

Actually, it is not really telling at all if one looks at what a historical Jesus would have been like, and the place where he was from. First, forget about the virgin birth. Forget about the resurrection. See his death in the same way that any criminal would have experienced. Forget about Pilate trying to save him, and the trial itself. Ignore the outrageous miracles (bringing the dead back) and look at the other miracles and healings in a historical sense.

When all of that is completed, you come up with one more apocalyptic minister. Really nothing that stood out very much until after his death, when people such as James and Paul took over. During his time, Jesus never did anything serious. He made a mess out of the Temple, and was killed. However, it was a swift action that really didn't turn many heads as it was not uncommon for these "radicals" to be exterminated.

Looking at a historical Jesus, and then the silence, it makes clear sense. Jesus was not worth mentioning as he belonged to an area that didn't mean much, and had little influence. It was after his death that he really had an impact. Partly because of James, who had a larger movement, and had considerable influence, and Paul, who passed his word onto anyone who would listen.

 

[Jeremiah]

Like Jesus.. Socrates has little to no historical evidence for being an actual person. Plato wrote about him as a student.. However, Plato did not write that Socrates was going around healing the sick and resurrecting friends, AND Plato actually lived in the same time-line as the supposed Socrates. Some historians do debate whether or not he existed, guy - and I wouldn't argue that he for darn sure did exist.

" Plato wrote about him as a student.."

And of course by this you mean that Plato was the student and Socrates was the teacher.

" Some historians do debate whether or not he existed"

I won't listen to those idiots... if they even exist.

 

[Jeremiah]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

If you are writing a book then I would suggest a library to study, instead of a web debate forum.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Two things on this citation, first and foremost.. Josephus lived after Jesus supposedly died.. I'll say again, a poor eye-witness. But to directly follow your CITATION there is a huge area on this page where it says "Arguments against authenticity" and the page systematically destroys the credibility of the quotation, if you want to bring a citation to the stage bring one from something that is credible.

Not the Syriac version...

(what's the use in bringing forth 'credible' citations when the reader is unable to handle the most basic sources??)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

" Some historians do debate whether or not he existed"

I won't listen to those idiots... if they even exist.

Yes... not many historians claim that Jesus never existed.

The question is - how did Jesus exist. What kind of teacher was he.... who did he teach, what did he believe, and how did he die.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous_evangellous ,

In addition to what Smasher said, learn the definition of contemporary. Josephus did not live at the same time as 'jesus' would have. There were, however historians that did, who were all silent on the subject of 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This in and of itself is quite telling.

Not really.

Why would we expect the historical Jesus to be mentioned in a history of Palestine by one of his "contemporaries?" Typically, a history is written after the fact (hence the term "history"), and the historian is not an eye witness to the events he or she describes.

One would think that this would be common sense.

The historical Jesus - if we remove the obvious myths surrounding him, was a Jewish teacher executed by the Romans. Such a person would not be recognized as historically valuable until a few years later, when he becomes historically significant, like say for example during the time of Josephus when the Jesus movement was a bit more mature.

Willful ignorance is perplexing to me. It's one thing to be dishonest with someone else, and another to be dishonest with oneself. In any case, intellectual dishonesty is destructive.

 

[MSizer]

Given the popularity of Jesus, I don't think there's a lot of reason to argue that the man did not exist. I have never really looked into it myself, but I think that if there were really no credibility at all to the case for his existence more people would argue so.

However, what I don't understand is why so many people believe he performed miracles and floated up to the sky. It puzzles me that most moderate christians willingly admit that the old testament is full of stories that should be read allegorically, yet when we get to Jesus, all of a sudden the fantastic claims are supposed to be treated literally. I don't get it. "well it's not very realistic to think that Jonas lived in the whale, or that Noah literally collected two of every kind of animal, but Jesus did float up to heaven though forty days after being crucified to death". I don't understand that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Given the popularity of Jesus, I don't think there's a lot of reason to argue that the man did not exist. I have never really looked into it myself, but I think that if there were really no credibility at all to the case for his existence more people would argue so.

Historicity

However, what I don't understand is why so many people believe he performed miracles and floated up to the sky. It puzzles me that most moderate christians willingly admit that the old testament is full of stories that should be read allegorically, yet when we get to Jesus, all of a sudden the fantastic claims are supposed to be treated literally. I don't get it. "well it's not very realistic to think that Jonas lived in the whale, or that Noah literally collected two of every kind of animal, but Jesus did float up to heaven though forty days after being crucified to death". I don't understand that.

Myth

 

[Dunemeister]

However, what I don't understand is why so many people believe he performed miracles and floated up to the sky. It puzzles me that most moderate christians willingly admit that the old testament is full of stories that should be read allegorically, yet when we get to Jesus, all of a sudden the fantastic claims are supposed to be treated literally. I don't get it. "well it's not very realistic to think that Jonas lived in the whale, or that Noah literally collected two of every kind of animal, but Jesus did float up to heaven though forty days after being crucified to death". I don't understand that.

You're right that we're inconsistent about how we handle the texts. But then, nobody is strictly consistent in anything of importance. Most skeptics, for instance, are not very skeptical of science. They seem to take it for granted that science is this wonderful process of true belief formation, which we can blithely follow because it self-corrects. This despite the umpteen examples to the contrary. (I'm not saying you do this in particular MSizer, I say it only to support my general point.) Not all religious skeptics do this, of course, but many do, just as many Christians are inconsistent about what is myth and what is more or less historical. We can't use this inconsistency, though, as some kind of easy way to say "well, it's all hogwash, then." That's going a bit far. All the inconsistency means is that it is people, not computers, doing the work, and that the issues involved are deep and complex.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My approach is this -

By the application of faith, Christians can choose to participate existentially in the myth (or rather, the myth experiences us).

 

[LittleNipper]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

People are not going to stand up what they are not sure of, in the face of horrific executions ---- not when the choice is life and freedom if they only recant... There are simply far too many people, both then and now, trying very hard to stamp out what should otherwise simply be left alone to be forgotten...