The Jesus Myth

[Composer]

The bottom line remains, the literal existence of a man claiming to be the literal son of God is hearsay and an inferred argument by at best 2nd hand hearsay testimony.

Judge Judy would rightly throw it out! LOL!

 

[logician]

The bottom line remains, the literal existence of a man claiming to be the literal son of God is hearsay and an inferred argument by at best 2nd hand hearsay testimony.

Judge Judy would rightly throw it out! LOL!

The odd thing about this is that those who claim a literal Jesus existed will him and haw when it comes to just how much of the biblical story about him is true. When you think about it, if you take out the miracles and ancillary events, there's really not much left to crow about.

 

[fallingblood]

The bottom line remains, the literal existence of a man claiming to be the literal son of God is hearsay and an inferred argument by at best 2nd hand hearsay testimony.

Judge Judy would rightly throw it out! LOL!

That is exactly why those in academia do not claim a literal, Biblical Jesus. It is also highly doubtful that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, at least in the literal sense.

Looking at figures in antiquity, many of them claimed to be divine, or at least had others claim that they were divine. Many of them had others write about their miraculous births. Most of the mythology of Jesus is not unique. The birth story certainly is not. The fact is, his birth never would have been recorded as he was a disposable peasant. Simply he was of no importance until he started his ministry.

That is not uncommon though. Even the story of Augustus does not properly start until he is older. Yet, we have this fanciful birth story about him that is now considered mythology.



Logician- Not necessarily. The miracles he performed were nothing special per se. We can rule out many of them as being later added to his life (which was common during that time period). The raising of Lazareth from the dead simply did not happen. Turning water into wine did not literally happen (unless some form of illusion was used, which could be possible, but very highly doubtful as the primitive version of the illusion of changing water into wine usually consisted of using chemicals which made the liquid toxic). Walking on the water did not literally happen.

It was not the miracles that were important. What was important was the message he was preaching. It was a message of resistance. It was a message of the covenantal kingdom. It was a apocalyptic message (not in the sense that the word would be destroyed, but more as in it would be renewed and that God's kingdom would exist on Earth). Even if we ignore the miracles, there is the message that was important. The miracles were just addition, basically one could refer to them as decorations. They look pretty, but mean really nothing.

 

[Oberon]

The odd thing about this is that those who claim a literal Jesus existed will him and haw when it comes to just how much of the biblical story about him is true. When you think about it, if you take out the miracles and ancillary events, there's really not much left to crow about.

Oh my goodness! Historians disagreeing as to who exactly a person was or what he did? Its not like that's the case for EVERY historical reconstruction, particularly those of ancient people where our sources are fragmentary and must be critically examined.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The odd thing about this is that those who claim a literal Jesus existed will him and haw when it comes to just how much of the biblical story about him is true. When you think about it, if you take out the miracles and ancillary events, there's really not much left to crow about.

Setting aside, of course, the substantial following that produced a healthy amount of literature, art, music, and architecture from the first century onwards.

I suspect that you know nothing about early Christian literature and art.

The historical Jesus is historically significant because of the impact of Christianity on world histories. Jesus is captivating to the historical imagination because it represents the origins of a world religion.

 

[Composer]

That is exactly why those in academia do not claim a literal, Biblical Jesus. It is also highly doubtful that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, at least in the literal sense.

Looking at figures in antiquity, many of them claimed to be divine, or at least had others claim that they were divine. Many of them had others write about their miraculous births. Most of the mythology of Jesus is not unique. The birth story certainly is not.

The fact is, his birth never would have been recorded as he was a disposable peasant. Simply he was of no importance until he started his ministry.

Except if we believe the story book account of the Census. (Luke 2:1) KJV story book.
Just in passing I always wondered what jospeh put on the Census forms or had recorded as to who was the literal father of Mary's first child?

They escaped being arrested so they must have lied to the Roman authorities by not stating a) It was the trinitarian holy spirit person (cf. Luke 1:35) b) Or for non-trinitarians it was God the Father? c) IF they had said either of them they would have been placed in a mental home or killed. d) Obviously IF the story tale is true they must have lied by deceiving the Roman authorities and shamed their God (cf. 2 John 1:7 KJV story book) by them claiming Joseph was the literal biological father.

That is not uncommon though. Even the story of Augustus does not properly start until he is older. Yet, we have this fanciful birth story about him that is now considered mythology. [/quote}

Yes the story book is just that, i.e. fanciful mythology!

It was not the miracles that were important. What was important was the message he was preaching. It was a message of resistance. It was a message of the covenantal kingdom. It was a apocalyptic message (not in the sense that the word would be destroyed, but more as in it would be renewed and that God's kingdom would exist on Earth). Even if we ignore the miracles, there is the message that was important. The miracles were just addition, basically one could refer to them as decorations. They look pretty, but mean really nothing.

The message itself was fraudulent for a number of reasons e.g. -

The Christian understanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.

But we are taught in this proven self contradicting bible that no one can die for the sins of another. -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)

cf.

Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET

This was later confirmed by -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html) ​

More so -
Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)

As it turned out therefore, the biblical story book text unambiguously proves that the Pharisees and Sadducees were correct and this biblical Jesus rightly recognised as a fraud.

 

[Quagmire]

Except if we believe the story book account of the Census. (Luke 2:1) KJV story book.
Just in passing I always wondered what jospeh put on the Census forms or had recorded as to who was the literal father of Mary's first child?

They escaped being arrested so they must have lied to the Roman authorities by not stating a) It was the trinitarian holy spirit person (cf. Luke 1:35) b) Or for non-trinitarians it was God the Father? c) IF they had said either of them they would have been placed in a mental home or killed. d) Obviously IF the story tale is true they must have lied by deceiving the Roman authorities and shamed their God (cf. 2 John 1:7 KJV story book) by them claiming Joseph was the literal biological father.........

I do have to say, that since you're the only one in this thread who is arguing either for or against the legitimacy of Christian theology, this debate you're having with yourself is fascinating and I can't wait to see who wins.

But this is the most interesting part:

As it turned out therefore, the biblical story book text unambiguously proves that the Pharisees and Sadducees were correct and this biblical Jesus rightly recognised as a fraud.

So, just to make sure I'm following you here: you're using a text that you believe is completely fictional, to prove that the religious leaders of 1st. cent Judea, who you do believe existed, openly denounced a character who you say never existed.

So basically, they were standing on the steps of the temple pointing at an empty space on the lawn and saying "You! Shame on you"!

 

[Composer]

I do have to say, that since you're the only one in this thread who is arguing either for or against the legitimacy of Christian theology, this debate you're having with yourself is fascinating and I can't wait to see who wins.

So you don't literally exist either, ok!

But this is the most interesting part:

Well perhaps to you but to me the most interesting part is you ' claim ' I am debating with myself ' but here you appear to be taking part also?

You obviously don't consider yourself as literally existing?

So, just to make sure I'm following you here: you're using a text that you believe is completely fictional, to prove that the religious leaders of 1st. cent Judea, who you do believe existed, openly denounced a character who you say never existed.

It did exist as a story book character making all kinds of claims that proved to be spurious.

So basically, they were standing on the steps of the temple pointing at an empty space on the lawn and saying "You! Shame on you"!

Having examined the story book text and its alleged promises etc they then rightly condemned the story book Jesus character ideology yes!

The story book Jesus was a fraud and they and many others recognised it and hence the story book is just that, a story book depicting the claims of a proven fraud!

 

[Quagmire]

So you don't literally exist either, ok!

So in your world, you and I are debating theology. Fascinating. Who's winning?

SWell perhaps to you but to me the most interesting part is you ' claim ' I am debating with myself ' but here you appear to be taking part also?

Was Jane Goodall a chimpanzee?

You obviously don't consider yourself as literally existing?

Just curious: what's your primary language Composer?

It did exist as a story book character making all kinds of claims that proved to be spurious.


Having examined the story book text and its alleged promises etc they then rightly condemned the story book Jesus character ideology yes!

So you're saying the gospels were already in existence around the time of Jesus' ministry.

Fascinating.

The story book Jesus was a fraud and they and many others recognised it and hence the story book is just that, a story book depicting the claims of a proven fraud!

Yes, and clever of them to be able to critique a book that hadn't even been written yet.

 

[McBell]

Setting aside, of course, the substantial following that produced a healthy amount of literature, art, music, and architecture from the first century onwards.

I suspect that you know nothing about early Christian literature and art.

The historical Jesus is historically significant because of the impact of Christianity on world histories. Jesus is captivating to the historical imagination because it represents the origins of a world religion.

really?

seems to me that Mohammad performed fewer miracles than Jesus, yet look at all the literature, art, music...

Just saying.

 

[Composer]

So in your world, you and I are debating theology. Fascinating. Who's winning?

Well as we both agree it is all a story book we at least are both winners for recognising that!

Was Jane Goodall a chimpanzee?

Jane Goodall is whom?

Just curious: what's your primary language Composer?

Why?

So you're saying the gospels were already in existence around the time of Jesus' ministry.

The story book Jesus didn't have a ministry apart from in the story book

Fascinating.

Thanks!

Yes, and clever of them to be able to critique a book that hadn't even been written yet.

Didn't they have their Torah?


The Genesis - Eden text informed them that death was brought upon all men because of Original Sin, is fraudulent.


Being dependent on the Tree of Life to give Immortality, man was already subject to death, and the claim that ' sin brought death ' was false. Hence any one claiming that sins brought death is spurious. Therefore IF such a story book Jesus or any one else came along claiming that, they would be legitimately refuted. So when Gospel documents did eventually come along, they already had the legitimate evidence to refute the pertinent Jesus' claims it contained.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

really?

seems to me that Mohammad performed fewer miracles than Jesus, yet look at all the literature, art, music...

Just saying.

... which would be why the Prophet is historically significant....

 

[Sunstone]

Jesus Christ seems remarkably like an urban legend.

 

[logician]

Jesus Christ seems remarkably like an urban legend.

I think a carefully orchestrated fraud is more correct.

 

[fallingblood]

I think a carefully orchestrated fraud is more correct.

On what basis? You keep adding one or two line comments that are not supported by anything.

 

[logician]

On what basis? You keep adding one or two line comments that are not supported by anything.

You think Xianity occurred in a vacuum, no, it's progression towards literalism and away from Gnoticism (and other versions of Xianity) was orchestrated by the literalists, who insisted Jesus was a real man-god that existed in physical reality, not just a spiritual Christ.

The First Council of Nicaea established the Nicene Creed which in essence says in part that:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

thus establishing formally the man-god Jesus, and most Christian churches recite this (also called the apostles creed) in their church services today.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think a carefully orchestrated fraud is more correct.

What do you find fraudulent about Jesus Sermon on the Mount?

 

[Composer]

. . . .
The First Council of Nicaea established the Nicene Creed which in essence says in part that:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

thus establishing formally the man-god Jesus, and most Christian churches recite this (also called the apostles creed) in their church services today.

And woe betide you if you don't / won't believe it -

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=56264

Showing examples of the trinitarian Laws imposed to force the ' loving trinitarian God ' (loving in the manner of it loving to watch disbelievers being tortured, atrocities committed against them including also, burning alive, boiling in oil, false imprisonment, etc. etc.) all a demonstration of the alleged ' love ' the trinitarian god has for all its creation, without it intervening to prevent them, like it hypocrytically allegedly intervened before in the story book to save Isaac from being killed by his father Abraham and then again intervene to save its alleged trinitarian self from Herod's slaughter when in the form of a godbaby whilst it wasn't to be found to save the other innocent babes!

The Intelligent Designer/God (for want of a better word) is a monster and the story book trinitarian god particularly so, and all are unworthy of my worship!

 

[Quagmire]

Well as we both agree it is all a story book we at least are both winners for recognising that!

Again, and for the umpteeth time, in this thread the only one debating the legitimacy or lack thereof of the Gospel accounts is you.

Jane Goodall is whom?

Never mind, I'm sure you would just tell me she never existed either.

Why?

Because you don't seem to be comprehending much of what's being said to you. In fact, you're not doing a very good job of keeping track of the points in your own posts.

The story book Jesus didn't have a ministry apart from in the story book

Odd then that you would claim that the religious leaders living at the time of Jesus supposed ministry---sometime during the 4th decade of the 1st cent.---would have had knowledge of him anyway.

you said:

It did exist as a story book character making all kinds of claims that proved to be spurious.
Having examined the story book text and its alleged promises etc they then rightly condemned the story book Jesus character ideology yes!

You're saying they condemned a character in a book---the Gospels--- that hadn't been written yet and wouldn't be for another 40 years or so. Are you saying they were psychic?

Thanks!

You're welcome.

Didn't they have their Torah?

Yes they did. Problem with your point is that, unless you're taking the Christian position on prophecy, there's nothing about Jesus in the Torah.

The Genesis - Eden text informed them that death was brought upon all men because of Original Sin, is fraudulent.


Being dependent on the Tree of Life to give Immortality, man was already subject to death, and the claim that ' sin brought death ' was false. Hence any one claiming that sins brought death is spurious. Therefore IF such a story book Jesus or any one else came along claiming that, they would be legitimately refuted.

Yes, but you seem to claiming they were refuting it some 40 years before it came along.

So when Gospel documents did eventually come along, they already had the legitimate evidence to refute the pertinent Jesus' claims it contained.

Of course they did. According to you they had 40 years to prepare in advance.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Intelligent Designer/God (for want of a better word) is a monster and the story book trinitarian god particularly so, and all are unworthy of my worship!

Why did Jesus worship his God?______________
Revelation 3:12