Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[waitasec]

Robert G. Price has a take on this very thing, you might be interested to read;

The author of Mark was writing an allegorical story that intentionally portrayed the Jews and the disciples as failures, the purpose of which was to explain why Judea was utterly destroyed. The Gospel of Mark is a story about failure, destruction, and despair. This is critical to understand for the entire Gospel. This is why the author of Mark has Jesus die on the cross, quoting from Psalm 22, saying "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

The original ending of Mark indicates that after Jesus had risen nothing happened. There are actually four different endings to Mark, but scholars agree that the ending most likely to be original is the shortest one, that ends with the women who had found the empty tomb being afraid and saying nothing. This would indicate that the author of Mark is saying that they had dropped the ball, and this symbolizes a further failure of the Jews, presumably responsible for their woes.

thank you for that, i'll look into it

since there are no other documentation other than the propaganda of the gospels of jesus the son of god.
what do you consider the letters from paul to be?

i agree that the gospel of mark has to do with the jews failure because of the destruction of the temple, no doubt imo. matthew was written purely for the jews but against the pharisees and sadducee's, luke (and acts) was all about the gentiles and john was not a big fan of where the jewish community was taking judaism and the fact that he had to reconcile that jesus never came back within the lifetime of the disciples and thus the foundation of an ideology that salvation was through faith.
it all started with mark. i don't think mark conjured up this person. there must have been followers of a charismatic person they thought would deliver them from the romans and mark was one of them...
it doesn't matter if he existed or not but i think this struck a chord and we know through documentation how christianity became what it is today...

 

[MW0082]

MW0082- I'm not going to go over everyone of your cut and pasted posts. But since a couple of members here who are much more knowledgeable on the information about some of the individuals you say are similar to Jesus, I will link to those posts. Simply, they show that the characters you mentioned simply are not what you are portraying.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2170369-post11.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2175039-post126.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2171066-post134.html

They don't cover all of the figures you mentioned, but they give enough information on a few to raise serious suspicion on the information that you posted.


On a side note though, I would be very pleased if one of the members here who does believe that Jesus is a myth would actually address the OP. That would be just great.

I am sorry to say, it is not a cut and paste effort. That is the information I believe to be true on said characters. A proper rebuttal would be to disprove this, which you have not....

 

[McBell]

I am sorry to say, it is not a cut and paste effort. That is the information I believe to be true on said characters. A proper rebuttal would be to disprove this, which you have not....

It is in fact a cut/paste effort.
There is no way that you were able to type out all those posts in their present form with less than 60 seconds between posts.

 

[MW0082]

It is in fact a cut/paste effort.
There is no way that you were able to type out all those posts in their present form with less than 60 seconds between posts.

Thats not the point, I am not throwing stuff out there I don't believe. fallingblood has asked me to provide my side, so I did. Yet he has refused to rebut it..... So there

 

[McBell]

Thats not the point,

Then why say something that is flat out false then?

 

[dogsgod]

thank you for that, i'll look into it

since there are no other documentation other than the propaganda of the gospels of jesus the son of god.
what do you consider the letters from paul to be?

i agree that the gospel of mark has to do with the jews failure because of the destruction of the temple, no doubt imo. matthew was written purely for the jews but against the pharisees and sadducee's, luke (and acts) was all about the gentiles and john was not a big fan of where the jewish community was taking judaism and the fact that he had to reconcile that jesus never came back within the lifetime of the disciples and thus the foundation of an ideology that salvation was through faith.
it all started with mark. i don't think mark conjured up this person. there must have been followers of a charismatic person they thought would deliver them from the romans and mark was one of them...
it doesn't matter if he existed or not but i think this struck a chord and we know through documentation how christianity became what it is today...

The epistle writers, including Paul, are obsessed with a risen Christ, the Son of God, a spiritual entity that was sacrificed in a heavenly realm. The gospels introduce a Jesus from Galilee, a teacher and miracle worker of whom the epistles shed no light on. The first gospel is a possible merge of a Jesus movement and a Jerusalem Christ cult that the author of Mark was a member of.

Within this book review, Robert M. Price discusses this;

A couple of books ago Wells did what scholars are popularly suspected of being constitutionally incapable of doing: he changed his mind. Accepting insights from James D. G. Dunn, Burton L. Mack and others, Wells came to agree that there was most probably a historical Galilean Jesus at the bottom of the hypothetical Q document. This allowed him to admit that the Synoptic Jesus material had not suddenly appeared ex nihilo after Paul to fill the vacuum of a "life of Jesus." No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about. The legendary figure owed the name "Jesus" to its definition as "salvation" and perhaps to Joshua traditions from the Old Testament. In time, the two Jesuses became fused together. The Q sage was not originally held to have been crucified and resurrected, nor was the Pauline savior Jesus hitherto supposed to have been a teacher. One might think momentarily of Rudolf Steiner's arcane notion that the Matthean and Lukan nativity stories recount the births of two separate Jesus children, each descended from David along a different route, whose spirits merged after the death of one of them in adolescence. But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth. This is one of the ways that ancient scriptures received new textual material (including "corrections") and new layers of interpretation. We must not overlook the sociology of redaction and interpolation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The epistle writers, including Paul, are obsessed with a risen Christ, the Son of God, a spiritual entity that was sacrificed in a heavenly realm. The gospels introduce a Jesus from Galilee, a teacher and miracle worker of whom the epistles shed no light on. The first gospel is a possible merge of a Jesus movement and a Jerusalem Christ cult that the author of Mark was a member of.

Within this book review, Robert M. Price discusses this;

A couple of books ago Wells did what scholars are popularly suspected of being constitutionally incapable of doing: he changed his mind. Accepting insights from James D. G. Dunn, Burton L. Mack and others, Wells came to agree that there was most probably a historical Galilean Jesus at the bottom of the hypothetical Q document. This allowed him to admit that the Synoptic Jesus material had not suddenly appeared ex nihilo after Paul to fill the vacuum of a "life of Jesus." No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about. The legendary figure owed the name "Jesus" to its definition as "salvation" and perhaps to Joshua traditions from the Old Testament. In time, the two Jesuses became fused together. The Q sage was not originally held to have been crucified and resurrected, nor was the Pauline savior Jesus hitherto supposed to have been a teacher. One might think momentarily of Rudolf Steiner's arcane notion that the Matthean and Lukan nativity stories recount the births of two separate Jesus children, each descended from David along a different route, whose spirits merged after the death of one of them in adolescence. But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth. This is one of the ways that ancient scriptures received new textual material (including "corrections") and new layers of interpretation. We must not overlook the sociology of redaction and interpolation.

Which book is he reviewing?

 

[dogsgod]

Which book is he reviewing?

Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? 2005
G. A. Wells

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? 2005
G. A. Wells

Thanks.

 

[waitasec]

The epistle writers, including Paul, are obsessed with a risen Christ, the Son of God, a spiritual entity that was sacrificed in a heavenly realm. The gospels introduce a Jesus from Galilee, a teacher and miracle worker of whom the epistles shed no light on. The first gospel is a possible merge of a Jesus movement and a Jerusalem Christ cult that the author of Mark was a member of.

Within this book review, Robert M. Price discusses this;

A couple of books ago Wells did what scholars are popularly suspected of being constitutionally incapable of doing: he changed his mind. Accepting insights from James D. G. Dunn, Burton L. Mack and others, Wells came to agree that there was most probably a historical Galilean Jesus at the bottom of the hypothetical Q document. This allowed him to admit that the Synoptic Jesus material had not suddenly appeared ex nihilo after Paul to fill the vacuum of a "life of Jesus." No, the chastened Wells admitted, there had indeed been a historical wisdom teacher named Jesus, some of whose sayings survive in the Gospels via Q. But this historical Jesus had nothing to do with the legendary savior Jesus whom Paul preached about. The legendary figure owed the name "Jesus" to its definition as "salvation" and perhaps to Joshua traditions from the Old Testament. In time, the two Jesuses became fused together. The Q sage was not originally held to have been crucified and resurrected, nor was the Pauline savior Jesus hitherto supposed to have been a teacher. One might think momentarily of Rudolf Steiner's arcane notion that the Matthean and Lukan nativity stories recount the births of two separate Jesus children, each descended from David along a different route, whose spirits merged after the death of one of them in adolescence. But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth. This is one of the ways that ancient scriptures received new textual material (including "corrections") and new layers of interpretation. We must not overlook the sociology of redaction and interpolation.

this act of inserting new ideas and creative editing surely was evident.

religion was probably approached completely different back then. if they knew they were essentially exaggerating the truth, i believe religion was for the purpose of establishing a community or an anti establishment club.

 

[MW0082]

Then why say something that is flat out false then?

I don't know why someone would say that, ask someone who is saying false things.....

 

[McBell]

I don't know why someone would say that, ask someone who is saying false things.....

You have.
You copy/paste like 11 posts in a row and then claimed that you did not.

 

[MW0082]

You have.
You copy/paste like 11 posts in a row and then claimed that you did not.

I said it is not a cut and paste effort, it is my answer. And yes it was cut and pasted from Word seeing how I am limited on the amount I can put in each post and didn't want to lose it and have it spelled check. grasp at straws much....?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Horus;

Born of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy: Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus’ mother “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” An angel tells Jesus’ father to: “Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.” Break in life history: No data between ages of 12 & 30. Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucifed, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.

You forgot one of my favorite comparisons....Apollonius of Tyana

 

[MW0082]

You forgot one of my favorite comparisons....Apollonius of Tyana

There are really so many.... I do not know this one. Can you elaborate please?

 

[dogsgod]

“In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts, but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a Son of God though he called himself the son of man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended into heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder worker?”

“His name was Apollonius of Tyana. He died about 98 C.E. and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s “Life of Apollonius.”

“Readers who too hastily assumed that the preceding described Apollonious’s earlier contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, may be forgiven their error if they reflect how readily the human imagination embroiders the careers of figures of the past with common mythical and fictional embellishments.”

 

[newhope101]

Recently, we have had a few threads sprout up about whether or not Jesus existed. A few members on this forum have argued that Jesus is nothing more than a myth. The basis of that idea though, as we will see, is completely illogical.

There is a little background that is needed. First, Jesus was a Jew. The earliest writer we have that mentions him, Paul, was a Jew. The Gospel writers, with the exception of Luke, were Jews. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus within Judaism. More so, he is in Israel, the Jewish homeland. Jesus is firmly in Judaism. That is important.

Now, if we are to believe that Jesus was simply created, we have to ask why. Is there a logical reason for any Jew to create Jesus? I would have to say there isn't.

The reason is quite simple. When we look at Jesus, a couple of things pop out. Jesus was being portrayed as the Messiah and Jesus died on the cross. Here is the problem. As soon as Jesus died, according to Judaism, Jesus was a failed Messiah. Not a very logical story for a group trying to prove a Messiah.

At the same time though, there was no lack of supposed Messiahs, or failed Messiahs. There was no reason to create another figure who was a failed Messiah and was not anything wholly unique. His message was the same message others were preaching. He was just one more faith healer. And he was just one more supposed Messiah who was crucified.

There are a couple of other illogical reasons to assume it is made up. First, the story is flawed. Early Christians were trying to claim that Jesus was sinless, perfect. Yet, at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, we see Jesus being baptized by John. There would be no reason for this if Jesus was perfect. It's an embarrassing story, which would have been better left out.

Another is that Jesus was from Nazareth. Some Jesus mythers claim that Nazareth didn't even exist during that time so the idea is that the creators of Jesus also created a city to fit him. The problem is that we know Nazareth existed in the first century. We have archeological records from that time showing that Nazareth was a village in the first century. However, it was a village that was of little importance. It was of such little importance it wasn't mentioned in literature until well after Jesus died. It had no religious significance, no political significance, really no significance at all. Instead though, we see Matthew and Luke going through work just to show that this Jesus of Nazareth actually was born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was created, one would assume they would just have had him from Bethlehem instead of putting him in an obscure village and then creating a story how he had to go to Bethlehem to be born.

The most embarrassing aspect of the life of Jesus though is that he died. When he died, he was proven to be a failed messiah. There is no logical reason that the Jews would have created a story about a failed messiah who died such a humiliating death.


One final thing though. Many of the Jesus mythers claim that Jesus was copied from other god men. But lets look at Augustus quickly. He was considered to be the son of a god. He was considered to be a god, at least in Egypt. He was considered the savior, redeemer of the world. I mention that because he has the same similarities with Jesus as other claim that these god men do, yet no one doubts that Augustus lived.


The idea that Jesus was simply a myth is illogical.

Well, our western dating system is based on Jesus' birth, Judaism I thought, believed there was a Jesus, failed or not, he must have been a person, Most importantly the bible is the only holy scipture I know of where the writers did not take glory for themselves as did Buddah and Mohammed. Jesus did not become rich and told his followers to pray to God, his father. Neither did the apostles take glory and amass riches from their preaching work.

There was no emarassment with Jesus death. It was just that Jesus did not do what the Jews expected. They expected some hero. Rather they got a messiah that stated he had to offer his life up to save many and called the religious leaders of the day, pharasees and saducees, hypocrites. They did not want to acknowledge their shamefull behaviour and disgusting money making rip offs, nor the excessive demands they made on the Jewish people. They lived in luxury for the day and expected to be treated as important. That's just a few of the reason quoted in the bible as to why they were called "sons of their father the devil". No wonder Jesus was not accepted as the messiah by the Jews. To date, there has been no 'hero' for the Jews or anyone else. Jesus prophesied a doomed nation on account of their disbelief and lack of faith, and the Holy land has had misery ever since. Rather than being a holy place it is a place of unrest and murder and has never seen peace for any length of time.

Myth or not, at least the Jesus story highlights practicing what one preaches rather than hypocricy. Many religions claim to not be caught up in materialism, yet many prophets, and religious leaders, lived in shameless luxury while the masses starved...and continue to do so today ie Pope.

Below is just one example of evidence of the existence of a man called Jesus. Of course there is debate about it as with all finds.

"Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence?"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This rather plain 20-inch limestone ossuary, a burial box for bones, bears on its side a remarkable inscription identifying it as having belonged to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The style of the inscription dates it to around A.D. 62, the year James, brother of Jesus, was martyred.The box was apparently unearthed in Jerusalem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Photos courtesy Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, D.C. [/FONT]

 

[fallingblood]

Thats not the point, I am not throwing stuff out there I don't believe. fallingblood has asked me to provide my side, so I did. Yet he has refused to rebut it..... So there

I did not ask you to provide your side in this thread. I asked you before to make a thread showing your side, which you made the thread, but never really provided much evidence.

At most, as stated in the OP, please just tell me why there would be a logical reason for someone to create the Jesus myth?

Also, I provided rebuttals from other members here on the character list that you provided. Honestly, I've personally done little research on the connections because I see no reason to. Plus, I do not have the time to actually research all of those characters. Especially since others have, and have provided rebuttals already, which I listed.

 

[waitasec]

Well, our western dating system is based on Jesus' birth, Judaism I thought, believed there was a Jesus, failed or not, he must have been a person, Most importantly the bible is the only holy scipture I know of where the writers did not take glory for themselves as did Buddah and Mohammed. Jesus did not become rich and told his followers to pray to God, his father. Neither did the apostles take glory and amass riches from their preaching work.

There was no emarassment with Jesus death. It was just that Jesus did not do what the Jews expected. They expected some hero. Rather they got a messiah that stated he had to offer his life up to save many and called the religious leaders of the day, pharasees and saducees, hypocrites and they did not want to acknowledge their shamefull behaviour and disgusting money making rip offs. To date, there has been no 'hero' for the Jews or anyone else. Jesus prophesied a doomed nation on account of their disbelief and lack of faith, and the Holy land has had misery ever since. Rather than being a holy place it is a place of unrest and murder and has never seen peace for any length of time.

Myth or not, at least the Jesus story highlights practicing what one preaches rather than hypocricy. Many religions claim to not be caught up in materialism, yet many prophets, and religious leaders, lived in shameless luxury while the masses starved...and continue to do so today ie Pope.

Below is just one example of evidence of the existence of a man called Jesus. Of course there is debate about it as with all finds.

"Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence?"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This rather plain 20-inch limestone ossuary, a burial box for bones, bears on its side a remarkable inscription identifying it as having belonged to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The style of the inscription dates it to around A.D. 62, the year James, brother of Jesus, was martyred.The box was apparently unearthed in Jerusalem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Photos courtesy Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, D.C. [/FONT]

i believe that was a forger's hoax and this collector who makes this claim was involved in sketchy workings in the past

 

[fallingblood]

"Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence?"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This rather plain 20-inch limestone ossuary, a burial box for bones, bears on its side a remarkable inscription identifying it as having belonged to "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The style of the inscription dates it to around A.D. 62, the year James, brother of Jesus, was martyred.The box was apparently unearthed in Jerusalem. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Photos courtesy Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, D.C. [/FONT]

I will just address the bone box. I'm not sure how the trial has gone, the last time I checked it was still in court, but as of now, it can not be used as proof of Jesus. First, we do not know if it is authentic. Second, even if it was proved to be authentic, we still can not link it for positive to Jesus of the Bible. There would be a chance, but there were others James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus, during that time period.