The Jesus Myth

[MSizer]

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...

Muslims are sure that Jesus was not the son of god, and many of them have died for this belief in which they are sure. Hundreds of virgin girls died in central america willingly to make sure the sun would come up the next day. Do you think the sun wouldn't have risen if those girls had not allowed themselves to be sacrificed?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Muslims are sure that Jesus was not the son of god, and many of them have died for this belief in which they are sure. Hundreds of virgin girls died in central america willingly to make sure the sun would come up the next day. Do you think the sun wouldn't have risen if those girls had not allowed themselves to be sacrificed?

Yes... religious pluralism only goes so far...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

[youtube]cNKzXOZEOnc[/youtube]
YouTube - Eric Clapton - Crossroads Festival - If I Had Possession

 

[logician]

... which is, of course, the only criterion for determining historicity...

The supposed Jesus fails to pass any other historicity test credibly as well.

 

[logician]

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.

This is due more to peer and societal pressure, than any reliable hard evidence of such.

 

[logician]

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.

There really are NO nonbiblical accounts of a supposed Jesus that are not considered to be forgeries, and those accounts are very general and non-specific at best. Pretty flimsy evidence for his supposed historicity I would say.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The supposed Jesus fails to pass any other historicity test credibly as well.

Only your test.

And it's not reliable nor academic in any way.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is due more to peer and societal pressure, than any reliable hard evidence of such.

Wrong again.

The reason why most historians believe that an historical Jesus exists is because they have a better criteria for determining historicity than you do (with no academic training I see...).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There really are NO nonbiblical accounts of a supposed Jesus that are not considered to be forgeries, and those accounts are very general and non-specific at best. Pretty flimsy evidence for his supposed historicity I would say.

Excepting, of course, the Syraic Testimonium Flavianum, which almost all scholars consider to be authentic.

When you say that there are "NO nonbiblical accounts," you are incorrect.

Besides, it's rather biased and intellectually dishonest to reject everything in the New Testament as of no historical value.

 

[fallingblood]

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

As mentioned in my first post, I have already done the preliminary study. I have information from both sides of the debate. I've seen the arguments for and against, as well as studied the history of a Jesus character.

I'm simply seeing if there may have been some ideas that I gleamed over. I hadn't planned on this first, but after seeing an argument about the birth story of Jesus I had never encountered, I just wanted to see if anyone here had opinions or ideas that I may not have witnessed before.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As mentioned in my first post, I have already done the preliminary study. I have information from both sides of the debate. I've seen the arguments for and against, as well as studied the history of a Jesus character.

I'm simply seeing if there may have been some ideas that I gleamed over. I hadn't planned on this first, but after seeing an argument about the birth story of Jesus I had never encountered, I just wanted to see if anyone here had opinions or ideas that I may not have witnessed before.

You could look through this...

Books and Articles | NTGateway

 

[Zadok]

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?

To focus on the individual Christ is only useful when considering the example that Jesus gave us. But if one understands the message of Jesus – it is not really about individuals and individual salvation. It is not about someday living as G-d’s chosen pets without responsibility in a controlled heavenly environment for whatever you believe or being damned to some hell for whatever you do not believe.

If someone cannot tell you are a disciple of Christ unless you tell them you are a Christian then either the light of Christ is not in you or the onlooker is so blind to such light they cannot see it. In either case telling them you are Christian will be counterproductive.

If you are not an example of what a disciple is then there are only two possibilities: Either you do not have any clue what a disciple is and does or you have the idea but for whatever reason you have rejected it to the core.

It is not so much as to if someone considered to be the Christ ever lived and influenced anyone some many years ago but if the legacy can exist as part of who you are. If there is nothing of the Christ within you; then it does not matter to you if he existed or not.


Zadok

 

[fallingblood]

Zadok- First, I've never claimed to be a Christian because I'm not. And it still does matter to me if Jesus existed or not. If for no other reason than for the movement he created and the influence it has in our world.

 

[Adramelek]

As I said before; If Jesus Christ did exist, I think he was nothing more than a simple philosopher in a troubled time who offered what followers he might have had hope. If the crusifixion story is true, he died because he had no choice as an enemy of the state of Rome. He sacrificed nothing and died for nothing. All else concerning him, like rising from the dead, the son of some god, etc., is pure mythos created from the wild imaginations of the Christian Fathers.

Imagination, by the way, being a mechanism of the innert Powers of Darkness.

Furthermore, I think the Christian religion along with other RHP religions were created by men in order to control the masses through fear. Especially women. It is a well known fact that the apostle Paul hated women.

/Adramelek\

 

[Quagmire]

I think it's extremely probable that a 1st Cent. Jewish rabbi named Jesus (or his Aramaic equivalent)actually existed, had a significant following, was considered to be the Messiah by his followers, and most likely was crucified.

If for no other reason than the fact that by the time Paul began his ministry (which may have been as early as 49 BCE.) there was already a well established church based on the afore mentioned beliefs.

If you base calculations for the date of the crucifixion on Josephus' account of the ministry/execution of John the Baptist, then the most likely date is somewhere around 36-37 BCE.

That would mean there was only (at most) a 14 yr. lapse ot time between the end of Jesus' ministry and the beginning of Paul's. That isn't near enough time for a full-fledged religion to evolve out of local legends based on a completely mythical character, especially when you consider that, according to the accounts in Acts and in Paul's epistles, some form of Christianity was already extant and well established by the time Paul showed up.

Taking all that into account the only possible conclusions you can draw about the origins of the Christian church are either;

A. One day around the time the alleged crucifixion was supposed to have taken place, a few people got together and said, "Hey! I'm tired of fishing for a living. What say we start our own religion based on a completely imaginary character that we make up and somehow convince a few thousand local people that he actually existed right here under their noses but somehow escaped everybody's notice".

or..

B. There really was someone named Jesus in 1st. Cent. Judea who's life, ministry, and (probably) death served as a basis for the Jesus that we know.

 

[dogsgod]

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.

This approach couldn't be more fallacious. Stripping a story of it's supernatural aspects reveals a real person behind the myth. Nonsense. Applying such a criteria to stories would expose real persons behind Batman, Superman, Hercules, Thor, et al.

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.

Evidence should lead us to conclusions, not excuses.

 

[Quagmire]

This approach couldn't be more fallacious. Stripping a story of it's supernatural aspects reveals a real person behind the myth. Nonsense. Applying such a criteria to stories would expose real persons behind Batman, Superman, Hercules, Thor, et al.



Evidence should lead us to conclusions, not excuses.

You're right, dogsgod: and since it would be impossible for a man to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac or roll a silver platter up like a scroll I guess it's safe for us to assume that George Washington never existed.

 

[Adramelek]

All gods and all religions of all times and nations have been created by man. Either based upon other gods and other religions, be them historically fact or fiction or pure imagination. Either way they are all based upon ecclectic mythology and human imagination which is boundless.

/Adramelek\

 

[dogsgod]

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.

Paul stated that he met James, the brother of the Lord. Galatians 1-19.

Five sentences prior to that he stated that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul contradicts himself if brother is to be taken literally as a blood sibling or cousin. He most certainly would have received some of what he preached from James if James was related to a real Jesus of a recent past. The same would apply to Peter. Paul would have certainly received info from Peter if Peter had actually met a real Jesus Christ of Paul's recent past.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is absolutely no credible historial evidence that a Jesus remotely resembling the biblical Jesus ever existed. No historian current to the days that the supposed Jesus lived ever heard of such a man.

In discussing events that took place between the death of Festus and his successor about the year 62 Josephus wrote that James' brother was called the Christ.

In the year 64 Tacitus wrote about Nero and mentions Christus [Christ] executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

Eyewitnesses of Jesus life and death were still alive at that time, and alive at the writing of the gospels, and there are no writings of that time saying such things were not true or exposed inaccuracies in what was written.