To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[CynthiaCypher]

What eyewitness or contemporary can you present? The only "contemporary" that seemed to write about him was Saul (Paul) but we know he never met him.

Paul did have access to eyewitnesses like Peter and James and in his letters alludes to what Jesus said and did.

Not that there aren't any...rather what is there appears well after the fact. It doesn't mean these sources don't have value or should be discounted.

Again so what? He wasn't important enough to be mentioned by secular scholars of his time. He was a nobody.

No but it does raise questions as to how important he really was. Martyrdom does wonders for ones reputation.

He wasn't important at all, he was just an obscure apocalyptic preacher who got in trouble with the law. It was only after his death and some clever marketing that he did become Elvis

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Paul did have access to eyewitnesses like Peter and James and in his letters alludes to what Jesus said and did.

This is true...at least according to the writings of Paul himself.

Again so what? He wasn't important enough to be mentioned by secular scholars of his time. He was a nobody.

What do you mean ("so what")? Your charge was that Mythicist claim there were no secular sources. I was just correcting you. They acknowledge the secular sources. While they may say these sources appear years after the fact it does not mean they don't have value. They do.

He wasn't important at all, he was just an obscure apocalyptic preacher who got in trouble with the law. It was only after his death and some clever marketing that he did become Elvis

Then why are you investing so much time debating the supposed historicity a nobody? I personally have no problem with his existence but I do recognize he appeared to be no more than a charismatic outspoken spiritual teacher who, like most radical activist, are usually silenced by their opposition.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Then why are you investing so much time debating the supposed historicity a nobody?

I am trying to get to the true story. i want to know who this guy was. i believe he was a cult leader like David Koresh

 

[Super Universe]

Prove to me that you exist.

I want to see the scholarship.

 

[waitasec]

The denial of the evidence of the historicity of Jesus is just that...an ungrounded conspiracy theory

i see what you mean...
but maybe the criteria for their belief that jesus didn't exist stands on something other than outright denial...

sure there are some who are too lazy to do their research, but i am also willing to bet that there are those who have done the research and are still not convinced...whatever causes someone to be convinced varies from person to person...imo.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I will agree that its not that strong but there are scholarships on it.

I'm not sure what you mean by scholarships (was the plural deliberate or a typo? More than once I've looked back at a post and realized that a typo or a missing word completely changed what I meant).

But what scholarship or scholarships are you referring to? Popular books and lots of websites?

as biblical jesus is not historical jesus.

And the historical Jesus is not Jesus. Neither is the historical Einstein (for whom we have massively more evidence than anyone in ancient history) the real Einstein.

It's certainly true that the historical Jesus is obscured by a great deal. But to go from that to "jesus didn't exist" given our evidence is ridiculous. And while I know that you don't conclude this, to suggest that it is a valid viewpoint in scholarship is, I think, seriously misleading.

Supporters of the various Jesus myth theories

...rely on the lack of expertise in ancient history of others.

 

[Iti oj]

i think Jesus was a mix up of several teachers around at the time.... i have never seen an ounce of proof he existed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

2. No secular sources of Jesus.

This is, to a certain extent, true. However, what the mythicists arguments exploit almost always involve an inaccurate dichotomy in ancient historical sources. It wasn't until von Ranke that this became more legitimate. Ancient historians did not seperate secular and non-secular (nor other modern divisions) that modern historians do. Some were still clearly superior than others, and the gospels are not among the superior.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

i think Jesus was a mix up of several teachers around at the time.... i have never seen an ounce of proof he existed.

Then you aren't looking. Because it's there.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How is questioning the historicity of Jesus in general any different from questioning the historicity of Confucius or Lao Tzu. Those are two people who are referenced in historical literature. Most scholars agree that both of these individuals likely existed. However, that does not mean that all the works attributed to these individuals were actually written by those individuals. The body of works that comprise Confucianism and Taoism are referred to as the works of Confucius and Lao Tzu but that is for the sake of simplicity. That some of these works of later origin were attributed to those individuals to give them greater weight.

Same with Homer. Same with Socrates.

That depends on what you mean by "questoining." If you mean "to what extent is this or that depiction/attribution of or to Jesus historical" then there is no difference. If you mean, however, questioning whether he existed at all, then there is a very large difference (not in the question itself, but in asking it now). Even the ancient Greeks wondered whether Homer existed. The difference is the amount of evidence, its quality, its genre, its date compared to the historical person in question, etc. For Socrates, we have a good deal of accounts by people who knew him. However, most made no attempt to be historical (even in the ancient sense of the term). Exceptions may be Plato's apology, or some of Xenophon's work, and the much later Diogenes Laertius. Also, these sources diverge. So reconstructing the historical Socrates invovles similar issues to reconstructing the historical Socrates. This is not true of Homer. Nor is it true of the historical Buddha, or the historical Pythagoras.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I am trying to get to the true story. i want to know who this guy was. i believe he was a cult leader like David Koresh

So you want to trade one conspiracy for another. :sarcastic

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So you want to trade one conspiracy for another. :sarcastic

Difference is...I have contextual, historical and cultural evidence that he was. The Mythers much like the Birthers have nothing.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Difference is...I have contextual, historical and cultural evidence that he was.

But that evidence is rather thin don't you think? You're basing a conclusion about a person's personality on what people wrote about him many years after his death. I wouldn't want people to necessarily base their opinion on me by what the people in this forum would write about me. :sarcastic Nor my family for that matter.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is true...at least according to the writings of Paul himself.

Once again, this is where genre and intent comes into play. There's all sorts of bias and reason to doubt parts of Paul's letters that refer to historical events. However, these support, rather than cast doubt, on the reality of the historical Jesus. Paul was a contemporary, but he wasn't a follower of Jesus. His letters indicate his attempts to legitimize his status as a disciple, comparable to Peter and other leaders of the early church. The fact that he is concerned with establishing his authority as comparable to those who were followers of Jesus before biases his account in particular ways. If Jesus was a myth, and Peter or James didn't know him as a historical individual anymore than anyone else, then Paul's "revelational" knowledge of Jesus would be no less legitimate than Peter's or James.

His letters are written to believers. He's not trying to convince anybody that the historical Jesus existed. In fact, he tends to ignore the historical Jesus (whom he almost certainly didn't know), entirely. This could be because the historical Jesus didn't exist, but even using only Paul, this explanation is very poor and a much better one is that while he didn't know Jesus while he was alive, others did. After all, he refers to Jesus' brother. One specific literal brother, identified by his kinship relationship to Jesus. There's no reason to believe that Paul was lying, or that he lacked the ability to realize James' kinship was made-up, or any other reason to doubt that Paul actually knew a relative of the living Jesus. This is only strengthened by the one unquestioned non-christian early reference to Jesus: Josephus' reference to the same brother. So even if one discounts the majority of specialists who argue that the so-called testimonium flavianum is entirely an interpolation, rather than an edited version of an original which did refer to Jesus, there is still this second reference to James Jesus' brother.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

:sarcastic Nor my family for that matter.

While I sympathize with you there (I wouldn't want my story told by my family members), let's say that a family member did give an account of your life. Will it be completely accurate? No. Perhaps not even very close at all. But is it enough to establish that you lived? Certainly.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But that evidence is rather thin don't you think? You're basing a conclusion about a person's personality on what people wrote about him many years after his death. I wouldn't want people to necessarily base their opinion on me by what the people in this forum would write about me. :sarcastic Nor my family for that matter.

Well that how we do history, we base our conclusions about historical figures on what others wrote about that person. Get it?

And actually my hypothesis that Jesus was a cult leader has it's basis in Ehrman who believes and give substantial evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

While I sympathize with you there (I wouldn't want my story told by my family members), let's say that a family member did give an account of your life. Will it be completely accurate? No. Perhaps not even very close at all. But is it enough to establish that you lived? Certainly.

Alot depends how much they liked you. If they liked you too much most likely they would sugarcoat alot

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well that how we do history, we base our conclusions about historical figures on what others wrote about that person. Get it?

And its also why it isn't a conspiracy to question history. Get it?

And actually my hypothesis that Jesus was a cult leader has it's basis in Ehrman who believes and give substantial evidence that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

My problem with your hypothesis is that you are using modern terms and contexts. A person who acted like Jesus today might very well be considered a cult figure but would he have been 2000 years ago? No, at least, not in the manner you are implying. You have to consider the evidence in the context of the period, not in modern terms.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

While I sympathize with you there (I wouldn't want my story told by my family members), let's say that a family member did give an account of your life. Will it be completely accurate? No. Perhaps not even very close at all. But is it enough to establish that you lived? Certainly.

Without collaborating evidence? Are you sure? My family's been known to make stuff up.

My personal belief is that a Jesus figure existed. My only beef is with the whole "any one who doubts is a stupid conspiracy nut" attack. History is full of doubts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

History is full of doubts.

Yes, including when it comes to the historical Jesus. But there are reasonable doubts and unreasonable doubts. The idea that the there is no single figure Jesus behind the gospels is not a reasonable doubt.