Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[fallingblood]

yet Augustus isn't claiming to be the son of god, or even god himself. Augustus isn't the foundation of a massive religious orginization in which defines whether we will have a good after life or not. So please we are not talking about Augustus because he is not the person telling me who I have to be to get into to heaven now is he. So again please provide undoubtful proof Jesus existed.........

I would also like to point out how you ironically ignored all the evidence I displayed to you earlier. Guess thats how the cookie crumbles...

Actually, he was considered and claimed to be the son of a god. He was even declared to be a god after his death. You should do a little more research on that.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not addressing everything in this thread, because there is no point. It has nothing to do with the OP. That is what I wanted to discuss, as that is why I posted it.

So I would be grateful for even this: for those who believe that Jesus is a myth, tell me why first century Jews would create this myth?

 

[Politesse]

“In the first century of the Common Era

After Jesus, I note for the plagiarism crowd.

there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one God

Monotheism in Antioch? Crazy man, crazy.

and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts, but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity.

Pretty standard ascetic practice, no?

He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead.

He worked some miracles, but not all the ones you are implying. Moreover, this wasn't as extraordinary a claim in the 1st century, when everyone though holy men worked miracles.

His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a Son of God

A Goddess, according to some.

though he called himself the son of man.

He thought his parents were human? Crazy.

Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested.

And then acquitted.

After his death

From the flu, according to one account...

his disciples

a disciple...

claimed he had risen from the dead

not quite...

appeared to them alive

in a dream...

and then ascended into heaven

in a different version of his death story than the one in which he died and appeared to his friend and so forth.

“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.”

This, at least, is true.

 

[MW0082]

I'm not addressing everything in this thread, because there is no point. It has nothing to do with the OP. That is what I wanted to discuss, as that is why I posted it.

So I would be grateful for even this: for those who believe that Jesus is a myth, tell me why first century Jews would create this myth?

Simple propaganda to control the masses. the amount of influence they have and still hold is unimaginable. People live their whole lives based on this character.

 

[MW0082]

Actually, he was considered and claimed to be the son of a god. He was even declared to be a god after his death. You should do a little more research on that.

Actually his story is drastically different from that of Jesus Christ, do you want to stay on track?

Augustus we can prove existed as a person. There are eye witnesses to him and his events. They were documented when they happend. If you're making a point here I am obviously missing it. Where is there any proof of Jesuses existence? And please don't patronize me by using gospels to prove this, Jesus cannot prove his own existence. You're going to need actual proof.......

 

[Sunstone]

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 idea that Jesus was simply a myth is illogical.

I don't believe Jesus was entirely a myth, but that idea is not illogical. You need to study "urban legends".

 

[MW0082]

I don't believe Jesus was entirely a myth, but that idea is not illogical. You need to study "urban legends".

Precisely, at this point the existence of Jesus is as proven as his non existence. Yet one group allows the possibility of the others to be true when the other doesn't. It seems Jesuses existence is based more on faith than actual fact, that's all I am saying.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not addressing everything in this thread, because there is no point. It has nothing to do with the OP. That is what I wanted to discuss, as that is why I posted it.

So I would be grateful for even this: for those who believe that Jesus is a myth, tell me why first century Jews would create this myth?

Post 55, 58, 61, 66, offered some suggestions as to how the gospels came about.

 

[Quagmire]

yet Augustus isn't claiming to be the son of god, or even god himself.

Actually, those exact claims were made for Augustus. That and "Savior of the World".

Augustus isn't the foundation of a massive religious orginization

Arguably, neither is the historical Jesus.

in which defines whether we will have a good after life or not. So please we are not talking about Augustus because he is not the person telling me who I have to be to get into to heaven now is he.

Still talking about religion.

So again please provide undoubtful proof Jesus existed.........

Why? Even if there were such proof it's unlikely you'd look at it (since you don't seem to be looking at any of the other information being given you in this thread).

I would also like to point out how you ironically ignored all the evidence I displayed to you earlier. Guess thats how the cookie crumbles...

None of it was evidence relating to the topic of this thread. You might as well have posted evidence that the Green Bay Packers are likely to win the Superbowl this year.

I'm not addressing everything in this thread, because there is no point. It has nothing to do with the OP. That is what I wanted to discuss, as that is why I posted it.

So I would be grateful for even this: for those who believe that Jesus is a myth, tell me why first century Jews would create this myth?

It's hopeless, Fallingblood. The irony is that the thing that makes it impossible for a lot of people to approach this topic from an academic perspective rather than a religious one, especially people who want to write off the gospel accounts as complete superstition, is their own superstitious dread. People are afraid of this topic so their approach to a thread like this is always going to be primarily emotional.

Maybe you should post these threads in Historical Debates from now on (?)

 

[MW0082]

Actually, those exact claims were made for Augustus. That and "Savior of the World".

And yet we can prove he was real and we cannot for Jesus. Why?

Arguably, neither is the historical Jesus.

But he is, Christianity is based on his teaching and that he IS the son of god....

Still talking about religion.

This is a religious forum after all, not to mention I have been waiting for fallingblood to rebut me till I am wrong, and has yet to do so. regardless of what YOU think the point is fallingblood knows he/she is being dodgy and shawty at best.....

Why? Even if there were such proof it's unlikely you'd look at it (since you don't seem to be looking at any of the other information being given you in this thread).

I absolutely would, and determine for my own mind whether it is legit or not. Yet how can I believe in a god whose son's existence cannot even be proven. And what evidence has been provided in this thread of any kind to refute my claims..?

oh none.....

None of it was evidence relating to the topic of this thread. You might as well have posted evidence that the Green Bay Packers are likely to win the Superbowl this year.

It was evidence relating to what fallingblood and I have been debating for some time now, yet that thread was closed and he started this thread out of that one..... hello..?

It's hopeless, Fallingblood. The irony is that the thing that makes it impossible for a lot of people to approach this topic from an academic perspective rather than a religious one, especially people who want to write off the gospel accounts as complete superstition, is their own superstitious dread. People are afraid of this topic so their approach to a thread like this is always going to be primarily emotional.

Maybe you should post these threads in Historical Debates from now on (?)

I am sorry but you approaching it
academically
only makes more illogical sense. How can you approach something
academicallyif you can't prove it to be true? In an academic sense you would think proof would be needed. Not the cop out of studying his MYTH, if he is a myth then religion is fraud. It's logic...

The bottom line and my point is the biggest most powerful religion is based on fallacies and myths, and that the story of Jesus is 100% plagiarized from previous messiahs and prophets....

 

[Quagmire]

And yet we can prove he was real and we cannot for Jesus. Why?

Gee, I don't know...maybe because in his day Augustus was the most powerful and influential personage on the planet, surrounded by scribes, scholars, historians, poets, sculptors and bureaucrats who's job it was to document and immortalize the prominent figures of their day, in the geo-polictal epicenter of Western Civilization and Jesus was an obscure religious teacher with a small, mostly illiterate following and who lived in a relatively small Roman province that, aside from it's value as a trade center, the rest of the world considered unimportant?

But he is, Christianity is based on his teaching and that he IS the son of god....

The belief that he was the son of God is the foundation of Christianity. This says nothing at all about the historical persona.

And as far as his teachings go, the truth is we don't know with anything near certainty what he actually said or taught.

Christianity is based on belief, not history. The belief that he was divine and the belief that he said what the Gospel accounts have him saying is the foundation of Christianity. Christian beliefs are, for the most part, a moot point when trying to discuss the possibility that there actually was a first century itinerant teacher in Judea who later became the central figure of those beliefs.

This is a religious forum after all

And this was intended to be an academic debate, not a religious one. You still need to learn the difference.

, not to mention I have been waiting for fallingblood to rebut me till I am wrong,

Why should he do that if the points you want him to rebut have nothing to do with the OP?

and has yet to do so. regardless of what YOU think the point is fallingblood knows he/she is being dodgy and shawty at best.....

No, if anything he's being patient with you.

I absolutely would, and determine for my own mind whether it is legit or not. Yet how can I believe in a god whose son's existence cannot even be proven.

You're still talking about religion here.

And what evidence has been provided in this thread of any kind to refute my claims..?

oh none.....

If you're talking about your cut&paste barrage it's best that no one replies to those, since they're all off-topic and will most likely be deleted. If you want to discuss the topic you bring up with those posts, go ahead and start your own thread about it. But please: read the rules about spam and plagiarism first (Rules # 4 and 8).

It was evidence relating to what fallingblood and I have been debating for some time now, yet that thread was closed and he started this thread out of that one..... hello..?

Doesn't matter. Like i said: if you want to discuss the mythical similarities (etc., etc,....see my last reply)

I am sorry but you approaching it
academically
only makes more illogical sense. How can you approach something
academically if you can't prove it to be true?

You can apply an academic approach to anything, either to validate it, debunk it, or some combination of the two. The whole idea is to determine if something is provable, or at least probable.

In an academic sense you would think proof would be needed.

If that were true almost all of ancient history would go right out the window.

Not the cop out of studying his MYTH, if he is a myth then religion is fraud. It's logic...

Real close to giving up here.

The bottom line and my point is the biggest most powerful religion is based on fallacies and myths,

Great. Good thing we're not discussing that religion then, huh?

and that the story of Jesus is 100% plagiarized from previous messiahs and prophets....

100%? You haven't actually read the story, have you?

 

[logician]

1.We may not know the exact date, but then again, there are many ancient characters we don't know the exact date of when they were born. If you want to keep this position, then we can start eliminating many ancient characters. Actually, it wasn't even until recently that we finally found out when Harry Houdini was born, and he lived just a hundred years ago.
2.Again, there are many question marks about when people died. If you want to keep that position, then again, we can start eliminating many ancient characters.

The fact is, knowing the exact time of birth and death does not mean anything. We don't need those to know that a person lived. If that was true, we could erase many people off our history books.
3.Accept they point to the specific man in the Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus and all say, yep, that was Jesus. This is simply a dumb argument.
Hearsay, again, does not mean it is bad. Much of what we know about the emperor Tiberius is hearsay. Much of what we know about history in general is hearsay. Saying it is hearsay is illogical.

4.As for forgeries, I'm assuming you are talking about Josephus, which wasn't a forgery.
How many historians were keeping record of individuals peasant Jews during that time period? We know very little about Judaism in the 1st century because few people cared. Your argument here only shows that Jesus was considered to be not important.
That is ridiculous to use as an argument. How many ancient characters never wrote anything? There is no logic in that argument.
5.We can say with relative certainty that Jesus existed. We can say that he existed beyond a reasonable doubt. And the topic isn't even that. It is about how positions such as yours, that Jesus was a myth that was created it illogical. Maybe you want to actually address what I said instead of spreading the same misinformation you have become known for.

1 and 2. The fact that we do not know when he was born or when he died simply adds to the weight of evidence FOR the "Jesus is a myth" argument, it certainly doesn't add to the other sides. The fact that the birth story itself is not mentioned in one of the gospels indicates even more that the story itself is a myth.

3. Your argument is fallacious, You cannot use the gospels as evidence for themselves. As for hearsay, all people in history who we KNOW existed had contemporary historians write about them, had significant artifacts proving their existence, and usually had some of their own writings. The idea that Jesus was not "important" enough to write about is absurd. the gospels portray Jesus as preaching before "multitudes" in and around Jerusalem, and having a high profile trial. Historians of the day would not have missed writing about such events. However, we see no contemporary historical recordings of these events, again lending much weight to the "Jesus is myth" argument.

4. The arguments that the writings referring to Jesus by Josephus are forgeries have been posted many times. Simply because you dismiss them doesn't mean they go away.

5. This paragraph makes no sense at all. At least try to be coherent.

 

[Quagmire]

1 and 2. The fact that we do not know when he was born or when he died simply adds to the weight of evidence FOR the "Jesus is a myth" argument,

How so?

it certainly doesn't add to the other sides. The fact that the birth story itself is not mentioned in one of the gospels indicates even more that the story itself is a myth.

There actually are 2 birth stories in the Gospels (figured everybody knew at least that much), but since those fall pretty obviously into the mythos category I guess we can discard them (even so, claiming that they don't exist is a little weird).

As far as any credible birth story about Jesus....Wow! know what? I can't find any stories anywhere about the events surrounding Winston Churchill's birth. Guess someone must have just made him up too.

. Your argument is fallacious, You cannot use the gospels as evidence for themselves.

Way to ignore the other 75% of the post.

As for hearsay, all people in history who we KNOW existed had contemporary historians write about them,

Not even close. Or maybe you know better, tell us: who was Alexander the Greats press secretary?

had significant artifacts proving their existence,

Nor this.

and usually had some of their own writings.

Yeah I really enjoyed Genghis Khan's diary.

The idea that Jesus was not "important" enough to write about is absurd the gospels portray Jesus as preaching before "multitudes" in and around Jerusalem, and having a high profile trial.

Now who's trying to use the Gospels as evidence for their argument?

Historians of the day would not have missed writing about such events.

Like who for instance?

However, we see no contemporary historical recordings of these events, again lending much weight to the "Jesus is myth" argument.

You should actually start studying history and the nature of the evidence we do have for most historical figure before taking it upon yourself to make statements like this.

4. The arguments that the writings referring to Jesus by Josephus are forgeries have been posted many times. Simply because you dismiss them doesn't mean they go away.

Really? I've been reading most of these threads for quite a while and the only "argument" I've ever seen you give about any of this is "They're forgeries!" "Boy are those forgeries!" "Anybody can see those are forgeries!".

You might want to expand on some of this at some point.

5. This paragraph makes no sense at all. At least try to be coherent.

Made perfect sense to me? :yes:

What parts do you need help with?

 

[Tiberius]

We may not know the exact date, but then again, there are many ancient characters we don't know the exact date of when they were born. If you want to keep this position, then we can start eliminating many ancient characters. Actually, it wasn't even until recently that we finally found out when Harry Houdini was born, and he lived just a hundred years ago.

Wasn't there a census done when jesus was born? One would think that the results of this would still exist, given that there would have been many copies made etc.

And what about herod killing all the little boys? Why is there no mention of this? I mean, Josephus recorded Hero'd life in detail, yet he mentions nothing!

Again, there are many question marks about when people died. If you want to keep that position, then again, we can start eliminating many ancient characters

.

Yeah, because the largest empire in the world wouldn't keep track of executions.

And according to the book of matthew, when Jesus died, there was a huge earthquake and the dead bodies of saints rose up and "went into the holy city, and appeared unto many". Now, why is it that not a single person who saw this wrote it down? Or even passed on the story to a later historian? Is there in fact ANY mention of zombie saints at the death of Jesus outside the gospels? I think not!

Accept they point to the specific man in the Gospels, the writings of Paul, and Josephus and all say, yep, that was Jesus. This is simply a dumb argument.

I can do the same thing with Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker and Frodo Baggins. What's your point?

As for forgeries, I'm assuming you are talking about Josephus, which wasn't a forgery.

Well, that convinces me. I'm afraid that if you want to convince people that Josephus is an accurate account (never mind the fact that he wrote his thing about 60 years after the death of Jesus - he wasn't even born until four years after the alleged crucifixion!), you'll have to do a lot more than say, "Fraid not!"

How many historians were keeping record of individuals peasant Jews during that time period? We know very little about Judaism in the 1st century because few people cared. Your argument here only shows that Jesus was considered to be not important.

Yeah, because when someone feeds how many hundred people with a loaf of bread and a fish, no one thinks to write it down. And the healing of the deathly ill? Again, not worthy of record. And the zombie saints I mentioned early? No one would think to write that down either.

Fact is that you can't claim that Jesus did all these wonderful things in front of hundreds of witnesses and then say that no one at all thought to write anything down.

We can say with relative certainty that Jesus existed. We can say that he existed beyond a reasonable doubt.

The earliest sources we have about him stem from several decades after his death.

And why is it that Nazareth is not mentioned until the appearance of the gospels, despite many other new testament books appearing between the time of Jesus'; alleged life and the appearance of the Gospels? Why do none of them mention nazareth?

Indeed, the book of Luke starts by saying that the author is an interpreter of earlier material and not an eyewitness.

And the topic isn't even that. It is about how positions such as yours, that Jesus was a myth that was created it illogical. Maybe you want to actually address what I said instead of spreading the same misinformation you have become known for.

I have addressed what you have said. I look forward to your reply.

 

[logician]

How so?



There actually are 2 birth stories in the Gospels (figured everybody knew at least that much), but since those fall pretty obviously into the mythos category I guess we can discard them (even so, claiming that they don't exist is a little weird).

As far as any credible birth story about Jesus....Wow! know what? I can't find any stories anywhere about the events surrounding Winston Churchill's birth. Guess someone must have just made him up too.



Way to ignore the other 75% of the post.

Not even close. Or maybe you know better, tell us: who was Alexander the Greats press secretary?



Nor this.



Yeah I really enjoyed Genghis Khan's diary.



Now who's trying to use the Gospels as evidence for their argument?



Like who for instance?



You should actually start studying history and the nature of the evidence we do have for most historical figure before taking it upon yourself to make statements like this.



Really? I've been reading most of these threads for quite a while and the only "argument" I've ever seen you give about any of this is "They're forgeries!" "Boy are those forgeries!" "Anybody can see those are forgeries!".

You might want to expand on some of this at some point.



Made perfect sense to me? :yes:

What parts do you need help with?

ROFLMAO, I've never seen such incoherent ramblings. You've "proven"
nothing with these random outbursts.

 

[Quagmire]

ROFLMAO, I've never seen such incoherent ramblings. You've "proven"
nothing with these random outbursts.

You just proved my point for me.


Going to address any of the points I brought up? Answer a few questions?

Of course not. That's not your style.

 

[Quagmire]

Let me translate for the folks who joined us late:

When Logician says:

ROFLMAO, I've never seen such incoherent ramblings.

What that means is "I don't understand what you're saying to me and it hurts my head when I try.



When he says:

You've "proven"
nothing with these random outbursts.

That means: "I have no viable rebuttal for any of this"

 

[dogsgod]

As far as any credible birth story about Jesus....Wow! know what? I can't find any stories anywhere about the events surrounding Winston Churchill's birth. Guess someone must have just made him up too.

If you couldn't find any of the numerous stories surrounding the birth of Winston Churchill, then you really are as terrible a researcher as you appear to be.

 

[Quagmire]

If you couldn't find any of the numerous stories surrounding the birth of Winston Churchill, then you really are as terrible a researcher as you appear to be.

Really? You found some? Please share.

 

[Quagmire]

If you couldn't find any of the numerous stories surrounding the birth of Winston Churchill, then you really are as terrible a researcher as you appear to be.

OK, guess I should have googled it first. I'll give you this one.:foot: