To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[Trey of Diamonds]

With history, we do the same thing. If Jesus existed or didn't exist, we have to look at the evidence and test either hypothesis against it to determine if it has any validity.

Have you even read the posts between Cynthia and myself? She is attacking those who doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure by calling them stupid and involved in a conspiracy. My point has been that those people don't deserve the attacks and that doubt in history, (not math ), is not only acceptable but expected. We aren't discussing the myth at all.

 

[Falvlun]

**Harken Ye All to the Awesome Mod Post**

Make sure you all are keeping it civil here. Insults aren't necessary. ​

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Have you even read the posts between Cynthia and myself? She is attacking those who doubt the historicity of the Jesus figure by calling them stupid and involved in a conspiracy. My point has been that those people don't deserve the attacks and that doubt in history, (not math ), is not only acceptable but expected. We aren't discussing the myth at all.

Yes. Throwing insults at people who don't agree with you is not very acceptable for debate. Especially when you're discussing a topic such as this that has no clear answer.

 

[fallingblood]

Those are the primary reasons. But I do want to address something you've mentioned in your post. Paul? Really? His writings are one of the million and one things that caused me to leave Christianity, and it was one of the bigger things. If you want to take Paul's words at face value, you'd have no choice but to label him a fraud, and I'll mention several reasons here. He only quotes Jesus once. Just once.

It is true he only quotes Jesus directly once. However, Paul often quotes or paraphrases ideas without attributing to whom the quote belongs.

That, and all we actually have of Paul is a few letters that he wrote (and not even all of the letters he wrote). It is probable that he spoke much more about Jesus while he was preaching. However, we don't actually have any of his sermons. But it is quite probable that he spoke much more about Jesus in those sermons, and we can be confident about this as Jesus was essential to the movement.

His works make up the primary texts of the NT, and yet he didn't find it necessary to quote Jesus except for one time. He mentions no biographical information about Jesus, at all.

Actually he does. He mentions that Jesus was born of a woman. He was born according to the flesh. He was born a Jew, and was the descendant of David. He was crucified, died, and was buried. It's not much, but Paul also wasn't writing a biography. That and we only have a very small portion of what Paul taught.

His works are just him talking about his personal philosophy on the Jesus movement. The theology he writes about is in stark contrast to what Jesus taught in the Gospels. And the two most damning pieces are the fact that he recounts his conversion experience twice, and there are different details in both accounts, and he says, himself, not once, not twice, but at least three times, that he deceived people to get them to convert to Christianity. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he teaches different things in different letters. To use Paul as a source for the historicity of Jesus is just absurd.

Paul is confusing. There are some that believe he contradicts himself. There are those who believe that just shows that his beliefs were evolving. And then there are those who acknowledge the contradictions, and then see if they can be figured out. Most of the time, they can be figured out.

Most of what he writes really isn't in stark contrast to what Jesus taught. The big difference is that Paul taught to Gentiles. Other than that though, they were generally the same. More so, Paul was supported by the Jerusalem Church, which directly continued the work of Jesus, and was composed of the brother of Jesus, and some of the head disciples of Jesus. And Paul submitted to them. When they had disagreements, Paul may have argued his case, but he ultimately submitted to what the Jerusalem conference said.

In addition, Paul even collected money for the Jerusalem church, which again shows us that he was connected to them. If Paul was teaching such stark contrasts, there is no reason for us to think that the Jerusalem church would allow Paul to continue. They could strip him of any authority, and that would be a major blow to Paul.



In the end though, I think Paul alone shows us that Jesus existed. We could argue whether or not he was a good man or not, if he was corrupt, or what not. However, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He may not have met Jesus, but he met James, the brother of Jesus, as well as Peter and John, who were head disciples of Jesus. More so though, we are told that Paul met with Peter, and spent time with him.

So Paul may not be a first hand account on Jesus, but he bases his information off of first hand accounts. And really, that should be enough. Much of our information concerning any historical figure is not from the author knowing the character, but them basing their information off of first hand accounts. In that regards, I see no reason to make an exception for Paul, and just dismiss him.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It is true he only quotes Jesus directly once. However, Paul often quotes or paraphrases ideas without attributing to whom the quote belongs.

That, and all we actually have of Paul is a few letters that he wrote (and not even all of the letters he wrote). It is probable that he spoke much more about Jesus while he was preaching. However, we don't actually have any of his sermons. But it is quite probable that he spoke much more about Jesus in those sermons, and we can be confident about this as Jesus was essential to the movement.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but it does make sense.

Actually he does. He mentions that Jesus was born of a woman. He was born according to the flesh. He was born a Jew, and was the descendant of David. He was crucified, died, and was buried. It's not much, but Paul also wasn't writing a biography. That and we only have a very small portion of what Paul taught.

It true Paul wasn't writing a biography. But the things he does mention about Jesus are very vague. But the point of the thread was about the historicity of Jesus, so using Paul would not be a very wise thing to do.

Paul is confusing. There are some that believe he contradicts himself. There are those who believe that just shows that his beliefs were evolving. And then there are those who acknowledge the contradictions, and then see if they can be figured out. Most of the time, they can be figured out.

If the consensus among Christians was that Paul's thoughts were evolving, and that his, nor Christianity's beliefs as a whole, were not monolithic, I could have an easier time accepting him. I'm aware of the fact that Christians, throughout the centuries, have done their best to figure out the contradictions of Paul. Some can be rectified. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, however.

Most of what he writes really isn't in stark contrast to what Jesus taught. The big difference is that Paul taught to Gentiles. Other than that though, they were generally the same. More so, Paul was supported by the Jerusalem Church, which directly continued the work of Jesus, and was composed of the brother of Jesus, and some of the head disciples of Jesus. And Paul submitted to them. When they had disagreements, Paul may have argued his case, but he ultimately submitted to what the Jerusalem conference said.

I'm not so sure that the idea that Paul and Jesus were in general agreement are so cut and dry as some people think. I'm also of the same opinion that he and the Jerusalem church were not so cordial with each other. With the first one, I can offer some of my ideas, with the second, it's more of a personal feeling I get.

In addition, Paul even collected money for the Jerusalem church, which again shows us that he was connected to them. If Paul was teaching such stark contrasts, there is no reason for us to think that the Jerusalem church would allow Paul to continue. They could strip him of any authority, and that would be a major blow to Paul.

While this does indeed seem to be the case, we can take instances from today. Various different Christian denominations will often help out those from other denominations, especially during times of catastrophe, such as was the case here. Not only that, but some Christian denominations will even go so far as helping out other religions.

In the end though, I think Paul alone shows us that Jesus existed. We could argue whether or not he was a good man or not, if he was corrupt, or what not. However, Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He may not have met Jesus, but he met James, the brother of Jesus, as well as Peter and John, who were head disciples of Jesus. More so though, we are told that Paul met with Peter, and spent time with him.

This would seem to make a good case, but I do have a problem with it. Even though Paul might have met with Peter, James, and the others, his knowledge is still second hand. To say that Paul's friendship with Peter and James is acknowledgement of the existence of Jesus, is to assume that Peter and James were not being deceptive. What I'm trying to do is see if there's anyway the Bible can be used as a tool to gather historical information, so skepticism is required. To take Peter and James at face value, is to apply the religious notion that they would have no reason to be deceptive, and were telling the truth. Now, they might have been, but they may not have.

So Paul may not be a first hand account on Jesus, but he bases his information off of first hand accounts. And really, that should be enough. Much of our information concerning any historical figure is not from the author knowing the character, but them basing their information off of first hand accounts. In that regards, I see no reason to make an exception for Paul, and just dismiss him.

I can agree with your idea that information about historical figures can come from second hand accounts. However, when that is the case, the character, not only of just one person, but many more come into play. Like I stated above, I don't necessarily take Peter and James at face value. And it's not necessarily that I think that they're being purposefully deceptive, but could simply be mistaken. I've thought of an example, it's not a great one, but it should illustrate my position: let's take the Loch Ness Monster. Many people believe that it exists. There are stories going back hundreds, if not over a thousand, years of people reporting sightings of this creature. However, we have absolutely no physical evidence of it's existence. Every video and photograph taken has proved either to be a hoax, a case of mistaken identity, or something else that can easily explain away the creature. But, we have accounts of people who have friends or relatives who have seen it, sometimes we even have first hand accounts. Should these accounts be taken at face value? Most of the people who have sighted this creature seem to be honest, and would have no reason to lie about it. And yet I, as well as many other people, have a hard time believing that this creature exists. Now, take UFO's. There's plenty of evidence of their existence, and it's a phenomenon that I accept happens. The reason being is that there is corroborating evidence to back up the claims of the stories of some people who have witnessed UFO's. So I try to look at this topic in a similar light.

 

[doppelganger]

There could have been a actual, historical person named "Jesus" and it could still be the case that every story about what he did, what he taught and what happened to him is myth.

If there were a particular person, there's virtually no historical record to work off to learn anything about him.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There could have been a actual, historical person named "Jesus" and it could still be the case that every story about what he did, what he taught and what happened to him is myth.

If there were a particular person, there's virtually no historical record to work off to learn anything about him.

This is true. Even if the small amount of evidence that we have outside the Bible could prove the existence of Jesus, this doesn't mean that the Bible is correct in what it says about him. It might lend more credence to some of the stories, but it doesn't automatically vindicate the Bible.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's a position I really respect.

This next part isn't directed specifically at you but I wanted to add it. There is a possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I think too many people view history in absolutes. However that isn't how history works. Unlike sciences, history isn't proven. Instead, it is based off of probability. We can look at a historic event, and based on the evidence, put it on a spectrum of probability.

I agree but want to add that science isn't an absolute either nor does it set out to prove. It's ever changing as new discoveries are brought to light. History, on some level, is the same. I can acknowledge the possibility he didn't exist or the possibility he did. If he didn't then oh well. If he did then who was he and how accurate are the gospels.

It isn't a 100% sure Jesus existed, and this isn't true just for Jesus. However, I, among many others, put him as having a very high probability of existing.

I can respect that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Arguing about this has no meaning, for several reasons:
1. You're not going to change my mind on whether Jesus existed or not. That's not to say my mind may not change one day, but I don't see it happening.
2. I'm not going to change your mind. You've made it clear that you absolutely believe he existed, and there's nothing I can say, or anyone else, that's going to change that.

I changed my mind here before after reading the about the subject. You said you have done the same. You made reference to works in English, but when I asked for academic works in English, you didn't give me any.

Paul? Really? His writings are one of the million and one things that caused me to leave Christianity, and it was one of the bigger things. If you want to take Paul's words at face value, you'd have no choice but to label him a fraud, and I'll mention several reasons here. He only quotes Jesus once.

1) I'm not concerned with his quotes or references to Jesus (there are a few)
2) Paul has all sorts of biases and things a historian should doubt. As I explained earlier, often enough these support a historical Jesus.
3) Of primary interest is Paul's knowledge of those who knew Jesus, particularly his brother.

He mentions no biographical information about Jesus, at all.

He does.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that he teaches different things in different letters.

That's what makes Paul useful, and his biases clearer. He's writing to thsoe who already believe in Jesus. His letters make clear that he's trying to authenticate his role as a disciple. He does this through his reference to the revelation he received from Jesus. But if revelation is all it takes, why is he subordinate to specifc people who, in our other sources (which are independent of Paul) knew Jesus? Why, in particular, does he refer to a certain James, who is identified by his kinship to Jesus in Paul, Josephus, and the gospels? Paul knew a living relative of Jesus, who is attested to in a source written by a non-christian who was alive while James was. So In addition to all the other evidence, how might a mythicist argument deal with that? Either by ignoring it, or by very convoluted, improbable arguments.

Here's the thing, we both have the same evidence, the same ancient sources. You, by reading your scholars, believe that evidence points to the actual historicity of Jesus. I, and my sources, believe that the same evidence points to the idea that he did not in fact exist. Same sources, different interpretations.

We don't have the same sources. Because understanding the Paul's letters, the gospels, etc., requires and understanding of greco-roman and judaic genres, language, etc. It requires a much broader reading of sources which have nothing to do with Jesus.

Most importantly, however, you differentiate "my scholars" and your "sources." But so far, you haven't made reference to a single academic source on the subject. You referred to a few names, out of which one is a specialiest, but there's a reason he's only written popular works. So to make the argument that we've come to different conclusions after reading the "same sources" is spurious. For example, to judge the historical value of the gospels, one must know what ancient history looked like, how close historical works typically were to the events or individuals they describes, how likely it is (which itself is based on several different lines of evidence) that the gospel authors had access to reliable tradition, etc.

To claim that because you read a bunch of the original sources somehow gives you the understanding which historians who have been working in this area and using 2 centuries of previous work all seem to have missed seems to me quite a claim. To defend it by "different interpretations" only more so.

 

[outhouse]

I don't necessarily agree with that

I agree

But only in the context that paul talked about jesus from stories floating around, but he really knew nothing of the real jesus. And preached his own theology on top of what little he knew about jesus.

But the things he does mention about Jesus are very vague

exactly

he couldnt get into detail about anything because he was in the dark.

we was in fact, a self proclaimed disciple.

But the point of the thread was about the historicity of Jesus, so using Paul would not be a very wise thing to do.

Theres only a small amout of info that can be used, because its early material it cant be thrown out as completely useless.

But agreed most scholars use other material.

I'm not so sure that the idea that Paul and Jesus were in general agreement are so cut and dry as some people think

There not in agreement at all. They didnt know each other and if jesus wasnt put on a cross pual would have been hunting him down to imprison/kill him for the sadduceees, like the others he was persecuting. [that is if jesus was alive, and the movement would have still moved foward as much as it did].

Jesus hated romans as did all jews in that time, and paul was a roman first and formost.

had he really been a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel, he would have been more along jesus line of thought, but instead we see just the opposite of the apostle loving Gamaliel who sticks up for them, we have a apostle murderer with his roman roots showing in full color for all to see.

There are more doubts about paul being a Pharisee then a roman, no one doubts his roman roots at all.

Even though Paul might have met with Peter, James, and the others, his knowledge is still second hand

remember this, how did that brief meeting go? they met shortly and and basically fought with one another and what amounts to banishing paul.

There is little to no tie at all with paul and the early church, paul even states he learned no theology from man, only jesus ghost.

. To say that Paul's friendship with Peter and James is acknowledgement of the existence of Jesus, is to assume that Peter and James were not being deceptive. What I'm trying to do is see if there's anyway the Bible can be used as a tool to gather historical information, so skepticism is required. To take Peter and James at face value, is to apply the religious notion that they would have no reason to be deceptive, and were telling the truth. Now, they might have been, but they may not have.

he states there is disagreement here. I find this to be evidence for a real jesus.

there should be disagreement between people that hated jews and a roman jew who wanted to preach to gentiles more so then jews.

Like I stated above, I don't necessarily take Peter and James at face value. And it's not necessarily that I think that they're being purposefully deceptive, but could simply be mistaken

in this case you have to look at the source, of who is writing what they are said to say

So I try to look at this topic in a similar light

Except theres more here then that. There is evidence that something happened to a religion right before it collapsed and was reborn.


we know for a fact there was a split in judaism and that there would be a historical man behind this reform movement. Thi slast sentance is the best proof we have for a historical jesus, that is not biblical jesus we see from the perspective of his direct enemies .

 

[839311]

I should call you conspiracy theorist because that;s what you are, your little theory that Jesus never existed is just that...a conspiracy theory ungrounded in reality just like those who deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Your theory has no scholarship, no science and no backing to it whatsoever, yet you persist like people who deny that the earth is round to perpetuate your nonsense.

Zeitgeist I would like to inform you was only a movie and a rather bad movie filled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. So I would like you to put up or shut up. Show us your scholarship please.

And what other conspiracy theories do you guys believe in? Do you think that 9/11 actually was organised by aliens from the planet Nibiru on the orders of the reptilian Queen Elizabeth and her pet Bigfoot?

From the one perspective, the claims about Jesus are all surreal - virgin birth, walking on water, etc. - and all such claims should be looked at skeptically and suspiciously.

Another thing is theres barely any record of his early life. The gospels are also different in how they account for his early years, and are mutually exclusive. If even the earliest writers were making things up about his early years, then there is cause to suspect the rest of it may be made up too.

Even if Jesus did exist, he was almost certainly nothing more than an eccentric preacher. The quality of his teachings, in my opinion, aren't even of a high quality. Much of it is insane, liking gouging your eyes out if you look at a woman lustfully.

 

[HOLYSHINE7]

Why are you even on this site if all you do is doubt our Father?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

From the one perspective, the claims about Jesus are all surreal - virgin birth, walking on water, etc. - and all such claims should be looked at skeptically and suspiciously.
Another thing is theres barely any record of his early life. The gospels are also different in how they account for his early years, and are mutually exclusive. If even the earliest writers were making things up about his early years, then there is cause to suspect the rest of it may be made up too.
Even if Jesus did exist, he was almost certainly nothing more than an eccentric preacher. The quality of his teachings, in my opinion, aren't even of a high quality. Much of it is insane, liking gouging your eyes out if you look at a woman lustfully.

'Claims about Jesus' or the powerful works Jesus did, was showing on a small scale what Jesus will do in the future under his 1000-year messianic reign over earth. Jesus is the one who fulfills God's promise to Abraham that all families of earth will be blessed, and all nations of earth will be blessed. Blessed with curing of healing of the nations.
[Gen 12v3;22v18; Rev 22v2]

Jesus early life is clear: According to Luke [2vs51,52] at age 12 Jesus went home with his parents and remained subject or in subjection to them until grown. Jesus learned the skills of a carpenter.

Matthew [5v29] in talking about one's eye, Jesus is Not advocating self-mutilation but stressing metaphorically to be willing to remove one's eye from viewing what is sinful such as porn.
Jesus was using that hyperbole as an exaggeration for effect.

 

[fallingblood]

It true Paul wasn't writing a biography. But the things he does mention about Jesus are very vague. But the point of the thread was about the historicity of Jesus, so using Paul would not be a very wise thing to do.

I agree, Paul was quite vague. However, Paul does give us something to begin to work with, as in he sets up a basic framework. As in, he shows us that Jesus existed, even though he doesn't say much about him.

I'm not so sure that the idea that Paul and Jesus were in general agreement are so cut and dry as some people think. I'm also of the same opinion that he and the Jerusalem church were not so cordial with each other. With the first one, I can offer some of my ideas, with the second, it's more of a personal feeling I get.

I agree, there was probably some harsh feelings between Paul and the Jerusalem church. Paul does show this in his letters.

At the same time though, I think Paul provided a lot for the Jerusalem church. They appear to have wanted a Gentile mission (acts states that Peter was actually part of this to begin with), and Paul provided just this. On the other hand, Paul need some sort of authority, and by working with the Jerusalem church, he got that. So it was a win win situation for both, even if neither one thought it was ideal.

This would seem to make a good case, but I do have a problem with it. Even though Paul might have met with Peter, James, and the others, his knowledge is still second hand. To say that Paul's friendship with Peter and James is acknowledgement of the existence of Jesus, is to assume that Peter and James were not being deceptive. What I'm trying to do is see if there's anyway the Bible can be used as a tool to gather historical information, so skepticism is required. To take Peter and James at face value, is to apply the religious notion that they would have no reason to be deceptive, and were telling the truth. Now, they might have been, but they may not have.

I really don't see any reason to see them as being deceptive. Primarily because I don't see what there was to gain. They could have started religious movement regardless of Jesus. I just don't see making up Jesus to have been productive for them, and in fact, I think it would have been more trouble then it was worth.

Then in the case of James, he does seem to have had a lot of respect on his own, and we see this coming from Josephus. He seemed, from what Josephus tells us, to have been a respectable fellow. That, and Josephus also tells us that James was the brother of Jesus. What I think is important here is that by this time, as we see in the Gospels, the brothers of Jesus were being played down. The family of Jesus in fact, was being played down.

So really, I do take James and Peter as being truthful, simply because I can't see what there would be to gain. And yes, it would then be a second hand account, but from a good source.

I can agree with your idea that information about historical figures can come from second hand accounts. However, when that is the case, the character, not only of just one person, but many more come into play. Like I stated above, I don't necessarily take Peter and James at face value. And it's not necessarily that I think that they're being purposefully deceptive, but could simply be mistaken. I've thought of an example, it's not a great one, but it should illustrate my position: let's take the Loch Ness Monster. Many people believe that it exists. There are stories going back hundreds, if not over a thousand, years of people reporting sightings of this creature. However, we have absolutely no physical evidence of it's existence. Every video and photograph taken has proved either to be a hoax, a case of mistaken identity, or something else that can easily explain away the creature. But, we have accounts of people who have friends or relatives who have seen it, sometimes we even have first hand accounts. Should these accounts be taken at face value? Most of the people who have sighted this creature seem to be honest, and would have no reason to lie about it. And yet I, as well as many other people, have a hard time believing that this creature exists. Now, take UFO's. There's plenty of evidence of their existence, and it's a phenomenon that I accept happens. The reason being is that there is corroborating evidence to back up the claims of the stories of some people who have witnessed UFO's. So I try to look at this topic in a similar light.

I get what you're saying. With James and Peter, all that I take from them is that Jesus existed. I can't see James having created the story that he was the brother to Jesus. It would have been to easy to dismiss. I also can't see the disciples all making the same lie, and people just taking it at face value. I would expect some doubt at least, yet we find nothing like that until I believe the 1800's, maybe the 1700's (I know it was first mentioned in a non-scholarly work by a couple of French authors).

However, if we accept that Jesus existed, then I can see the skepticism about ideas concerning his life. Which is why I find it productive to compare the life of Jesus (or the stories of Jesus) with those of Augustus or Alexander the Great (I just like these two characters, and they are accepted as having existed). We see some similarities, such as miraculous births, and generally, mythical elements like that I do dismiss. But it does get hard to paint a real picture of Jesus. So I can see the skepticism there.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I agree, Paul was quite vague. However, Paul does give us something to begin to work with, as in he sets up a basic framework. As in, he shows us that Jesus existed, even though he doesn't say much about him.

I disagree, I believe Paul alludes to Jesus' ethic throughout his epistles, he might not directly quote but he seems very familiar with Jesus' teachings

At the same time though, I think Paul provided a lot for the Jerusalem church. They appear to have wanted a Gentile mission (acts states that Peter was actually part of this to begin with), and Paul provided just this. On the other hand, Paul need some sort of authority, and by working with the Jerusalem church, he got that. So it was a win win situation for both, even if neither one thought it was ideal.
I really don't see any reason to see them as being deceptive. Primarily because I don't see what there was to gain. They could have started religious movement regardless of Jesus. I just don't see making up Jesus to have been productive for them, and in fact, I think it would have been more trouble then it was worth.

Which is another thing. Paul and James are at odds with each other, so why would Paul give James any credence by calling him the brother of the lord unless Paul knew that it was the truth? Wouldn't it be embarrassing to admit that someone he opposed or was at odds with had a closer relationship to his lord than him?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul and James are at odds with each other, so why would Paul give James any credence by calling him the brother of the lord unless Paul knew that it was the truth?

Different James.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I agree, there was probably some harsh feelings between Paul and the Jerusalem church. Paul does show this in his letters.

At the same time though, I think Paul provided a lot for the Jerusalem church. They appear to have wanted a Gentile mission (acts states that Peter was actually part of this to begin with), and Paul provided just this. On the other hand, Paul need some sort of authority, and by working with the Jerusalem church, he got that. So it was a win win situation for both, even if neither one thought it was ideal.

Here's the thing I like about your way of thinking here. You can admit to the fact that Paul had his issues and problems, and that maybe the church wasn't as monolithic as some other Christians think. With that being said, I think there was an inherent problem with Paul taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Not that he did it, which was fine, but the fact that he was taking something which, up until then, was primarily a Jewish movement, and introducing it to people who were more than likely unfamiliar with Jewish customs. The council of Jerusalem in Acts does some to ease this transition, but it didn't completely alleviate the situation. This can be seen by the idea that Paul introduced pagan elements into his Christianity.

I really don't see any reason to see them as being deceptive. Primarily because I don't see what there was to gain. They could have started religious movement regardless of Jesus. I just don't see making up Jesus to have been productive for them, and in fact, I think it would have been more trouble then it was worth.

I do agree with this; I think I corrected this later in my post.

I get what you're saying. With James and Peter, all that I take from them is that Jesus existed. I can't see James having created the story that he was the brother to Jesus. It would have been to easy to dismiss. I also can't see the disciples all making the same lie, and people just taking it at face value. I would expect some doubt at least, yet we find nothing like that until I believe the 1800's, maybe the 1700's (I know it was first mentioned in a non-scholarly work by a couple of French authors).

This makes sense.

However, if we accept that Jesus existed, then I can see the skepticism about ideas concerning his life. Which is why I find it productive to compare the life of Jesus (or the stories of Jesus) with those of Augustus or Alexander the Great (I just like these two characters, and they are accepted as having existed). We see some similarities, such as miraculous births, and generally, mythical elements like that I do dismiss. But it does get hard to paint a real picture of Jesus. So I can see the skepticism there.

This seems to mirror my views, that if Jesus of Nazareth did exist, the Bible stories are basically exaggerations of his life, mythological stories centered around a man who was more than likely just a revolutionary Jewish teacher.

 

[fallingblood]

From the one perspective, the claims about Jesus are all surreal - virgin birth, walking on water, etc. - and all such claims should be looked at skeptically and suspiciously.

Much of historical Jesus research is based on just that, looking at things carefully. That is how much ancient literature is looked at. Especially considering that we have a number of historical figures who had miraculous birth stories attributed to them, or who had supernatural stories added to them.

Another thing is theres barely any record of his early life. The gospels are also different in how they account for his early years, and are mutually exclusive. If even the earliest writers were making things up about his early years, then there is cause to suspect the rest of it may be made up too.

We can look at many ancient figures and see little if anything known about their early lives. And when we do see something about their early lives, it is many times very mythical in nature. So then should we assume that those other historical are made up as well? That would mean coming to the conclusion that Augustus or Alexander the Great were made up as well.

Even if Jesus did exist, he was almost certainly nothing more than an eccentric preacher. The quality of his teachings, in my opinion, aren't even of a high quality. Much of it is insane, liking gouging your eyes out if you look at a woman lustfully.

Most actual historical work on Jesus see him as a preacher. I won't touch on the "insane" part, as you have another thread on that topic.

 

[arcanum]

I know. The moment he mentioned Robert Eisenman I wanted to reach for my revolver. The guy is a conspiracy theorist.

This Robert Eisenman, a conspiracy theorist?....you see his credentials?

Robert H. Eisenman

 

[Iti oj]

Why are you even on this site if all you do is doubt our Father?

this isn't christian site....nor run by Christians its a place for all faiths, and even christian forums like carm have atheist.