The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[gnostic]

Yes.
You will find exactly what you are looking if you are merely ratifying your beliefs.

Of course, this works both ways.
Did a man named Jesus live during the appropriate time period?
I would be highly surprised if there wasn't at least one man named Jesus back then.
But the thing is...
So what?
So it isn't hard to believe that someone named Jesus lived then.

If you read Josephus, there was at least 2 person who was named Jesus, who was not the son of Mary.

From memory, there was John who killed his brother Jesus, though I don't remember when this Jesus lived. One of them was a high priest, but I don't remember who.

And another Jesus who was son of See or Sie...something like that.

It has been a long time, since I have read any of Josephus' works. All I know that he is not my favorite historian of this period. Josephus have the tendency to muddle history with myths, and the worse example of this is his connection the Israelites with the Hyksos. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Maybe you should do some research.

Even after all you have presented I remain a skeptic. I just haven't seen enough information and opinion that leads me to believe Yeshua existed. If it does for you then fine...but appealing to scholarship because "virtually all of them agree" he existed is not my fortieth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The main thing I've stressed is come to the table with rational argurments based on research and fact, not the "This is ludicrous or rubbish defense".

When you make claims about how your god authorized a book....then I find it to be rubbish.

When you believe gods of other religions are false or mythic because you believe yours is real then find your reasoning to be rubbish .

If you tout your bible as a history book deserving of some sort of respect from others then I find your comments to be rubbish.

None of it is coming from any sort of sound rational position of "research based on facts".....

 

[blueman]

When you make claims about how your god authorized a book....then I find it to be rubbish.

When you believe gods of other religions are false or mythic then find your reasoning to be rubbish.

If you tout your bible as a history book deserving of some sort of respect from others then I find your comments to be rubbish.

None of it is coming from any sort of sound rational position of "research based on facts".....

I've made more of a compelling argument than you'll ever come close too. Your opposition has been purely emotionally driven by you're disbelief, but you come up with no compelling rebuttal.

 

[cesara]

Mithras, Dionysus, Isis, etc, all these myths have no such historical attestation.

As far as I understand, Egyptian Pharaohs were all considered Gods in the flesh. The idea of God as man is was nothing new.

I also wanted to point out that Jesus also called himself the Son of Man. -- just to throw something new into the conversation here....

 

[blueman]

As far as I understand, Egyptian Pharaohs were all considered Gods in the flesh. The idea of God as man is was nothing new.

I also wanted to point out that Jesus also called himself the Son of Man. -- just to throw something new into the conversation here....

Are you aware of what the Son of Man signifies? Read Daniel Chapter 7 and it will give you some insight.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I've made more of a compelling argument than you'll ever come close too.

No you haven't....Your whole argument hinges on what you believe and is so far removed from what everyone else here are discussing. No one's arguing about the supposed divinity of the biblical Yeshua...but you are, No one's arguing about who authorized the bible.....but you are. None of those things are important to this discussion. I honestly can't tell where you've made any contribution to this debate unless we count your entertainment contributions here...

Your opposition has been purely emotionally driven by you're disbelief

No it hasn't.....I just don't like comments that are beyond the scope of this thread. They have no place here and aren't important...whatsoever...to this debate.

 

[Dunemeister]

Even after all you have presented I remain a skeptic. I just haven't seen enough information and opinion that leads me to believe Yeshua existed. If it does for you then fine...but appealing to scholarship because "virtually all of them agree" he existed is not my fortieth.

No, but it shows that nearly everyone who has studied the matter in any depth disagrees with you. (This is the same sort of line that scientists take with young earth creationists.) That should, at least if you care about the truth of this matter and are willing to follow the evidence where it leads, erode somewhat your sanguine confidence in the nonexistence of Jesus, and perhaps spark an interest in digging into some of that scholarship to find out why there is such universal agreement on this one point when there is so much else contested in biblical studies. That way, even if you "haven't seen enough information," now, you will have done. Your insistence on remaining content with your skepticism (partly by refusing to access any of the hundreds of scholarly works on the subject) suggests that facts won't get in the way of your theory. Or perhaps more charitably, you've made up your mind quite apart from the evidence, and now you just don't have the time or the energy to access the involved scholarship.

 

[blueman]

No you haven't....Your whole argument hinges on what you believe and is so far removed from what everyone else here are discussing. No one's arguing about the supposed divinity of the biblical Yeshua...but you are, No one's arguing about who authorized the bible.....but you are. None of those things are important to this discussion. I honestly can't tell where you've made any contribution to this debate unless we count your entertainment contributions here...



No it hasn't.....I just don't like comments that are beyond the scope of this thread. They have no place here and aren't important...whatsoever...to this debate.

I think I have contributed effectively and specific to the opinions being referenced in this thread. You have been the one who has not contributed that much, so I beg to differ.

 

[Oberon]

Even after all you have presented I remain a skeptic.

We are on a forum. I'm not writing a book here. I am summarizing some main points. There is a great deal of excellent scholarship presenting a wide variety of opinions, all starting from the very obvious place that the founder of the sect was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. To get into the kind of evidence provided for the vast majority of ancient figures would be beyond this thread, or any thread.

The point of this thread wasn't even to suggest a historical Jesus per se. I have done that here in more depth. The point of this was simply to look honestly at the claim that Jesus was like so many other pagan gods. He simply isn't anything like them.

 

[Mr Cheese]

My belief is what it is. I believe it to be true and have never said it was superior to anyone. The main thing I've stressed is come to the table with rational argurments based on research and fact, not the "This is ludicrous or rubbish defense".

In the end its still conjecture

This thread is about paganism and Jesus

Oberon claims there are no parallels...

:sarcastic

What can you do when conversation ceases because someone takes the stance of

"No, nope, never, wrong, simply untrue"

....

yet I can find parallels...

here is one:

Jesus is a savior
Jesus is a Son

...

Krishna was known as a Son
Krishna is known as a savior



its amazing, I can draw parralells....

Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.[/FONT]
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

 

[Oberon]

Oberon claims there are no parallels...

:sarcastic

No I didn't. My claim addresses the falsehood that Jesus was based on the dying and resurrecting gods of the ancient near east rather than being based on a historical figure. This simply isn't true. The parallels drawn are superficial at best when they aren't actually false.

Of course you can draw parallels. Had you read my opening posts, you would know that isn't what I am refuting. The question is whether the simplistic parallel you draw above ignores the vast differences in two systems. Krishna was not based on a man living shortly before the sources written about him, nor are the stories about them similar.

I can draw equally valid parallels between Jesus and MLK. the question is so what?

 

[blueman]

In the end its still conjecture

This thread is about paganism and Jesus

Oberon claims there are no parallels...

:sarcastic

What can you do when conversation ceases because someone takes the stance of

"No, nope, never, wrong, simply untrue"

....

yet I can find parallels...

here is one:

Jesus is a savior
Jesus is a Son

...

Krishna was known as a Son
Krishna is known as a savior



its amazing, I can draw parralells....

Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.[/FONT]
Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

As much as you try to draw parallels, they ultimately fall short at the end of the day. (1) Krishna never claimed to be God in the flesh (2) Krishna was not born of a virgin-I believe his mother had 8 children before him. (3) Krishna never claimed to be the redeemer of man and given authourity to forgive sins through his sacrifice. (4) No record or witnesses exist of said events applicable to Krishna's life, unlike the New Testament Gospels, whether you believe them or not, in many historians eyes, are credible, authentic historical accounts of the life of Jesus. (4) Krishna never claimed to be the only way to God, not a god, but the one and only Almighty God. (5) There is no credible record or witness to a Krishna ressurection that has been tested or even passes the smell test compared with the New Testament Gospels, acknowledged in the Babylonian Talmud and other sources that was written well within a generation of said events.

 

[linwood]

There is no credible record or witness to a Krishna ressurection that has been tested or even passes the smell test compared with the New Testament Gospels,

You`ve got to be kidding.
You find the testimony of resurrection in the NT "credible"?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You`ve got to be kidding.
You find the testimony of resurrection in the NT "credible"?

Sure he does. This is but one of the reason for our line of discussion. He sounds like bible literalist. He may not be but sure sounds like one.

 

[Oberon]

You`ve got to be kidding.
You find the testimony of resurrection in the NT "credible"?

I don't think the following is what blueman was saying, but I would like to comment on your statement above.

Finding the accounts of the resurrection in the NT unbelievable is one thing. However, the difference in the myths of Krishna and Mithras and all the other godmen myths I have been trying to point out are important here.

Jesus' resurrection is clearly outside of historical inquiry. However, what we do know from our sources is that people contemporary with Jesus believed that he did. We can discount this belief as ahistorical, but it is still not comparable to the so-called "resurrection" of other deities. Among other things, there were no witnesses or contemporaries of Krishna attesting to such resurrections.

The point of this thread is that we the various parallels drawn between Jesus and other mythic deities (mainly either patently false or very weak) do not do justice to the genre of our sources or the early dates. Krishna, Mithras, Osiris, etc, did not have followers who were alive and spreading the teachings of their founder while Paul was was alive and almost certainly while Luke and Mark were alive.

In other words the point of this thread is to refute the claim that Jesus is no different from the other mythic gods. He was clearly a teacher/prophet/charismatic leader living in the first century who inspired a sect.

 

[linwood]

In other words the point of this thread is to refute the claim that Jesus is no different from the other mythic gods. He was clearly a teacher/prophet/charismatic leader living in the first century who inspired a sect.

Understood, which is why I`ve been quite silent in this thread as I`ve done enough studying to satisfy my curiosity about the OP.

My post above was actually quite off topic for which I apologize.

 

[Oberon]

My post above was actually quite off topic for which I apologize.

Don't apologize, please. Half the posts, including my own (and I started the OP) have been off topic. Such is the nature of threads.

 

[McBell]

It isn't a matter of "someone" named Jesus, but rather a specific jesus of nazareth who formed the basis for the sect which produced the NT.

Like I already said, given the likes of David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Etc...
Given the fact that people back then were much more given to superstition...
Why is it so hard to believe that someone named Jesus could not have started a cult of his own and gained followers?

 

[Oberon]

Why is it so hard to believe that someone named Jesus could not have started a cult of his own and gained followers?

I don't know. It seems blatently obvious that he did. The problem I have is with your "someone named Jesus." As I'm sure you know, surnames weren't used as identifiers. The Jesus of the gospels is based on a specific Jesus. Whether you take the extreme skepticism of Bultmann with respect to our sources or apply models of oral control of transmission from oral cultures similar to those of Jesus (and supported by internal evidence), it isn't just "some Jesus." It is a specific Jesus, identified by Josephus as "the one called christ" and by his family and hometown (who rejected him) by reference to his family, and by his sect as the christ.