Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[fallingblood]

If Josephus was born c37, how could he be a reliable source for Jesus....???

IO can't believe you even believe that....... conspiracy!!!

I love it. First, you complain that the account in Josephus was a forgery. Then you complain about wikipedia. Now, after I've used sources you can't just dismiss off hand, that show that Josephus did in fact write something about Jesus, you complain about this? Is there anything else you want to complain about since you can't actually debate it? Honestly, just admit that you can't debate against me.

 

[MW0082]

I love it. First, you complain that the account in Josephus was a forgery. Then you complain about wikipedia. Now, after I've used sources you can't just dismiss off hand, that show that Josephus did in fact write something about Jesus, you complain about this? Is there anything else you want to complain about since you can't actually debate it? Honestly, just admit that you can't debate against me.

I didn't say it was a forgery, but do you want to properly debate and tell my how Josephus is a credible source? Can you give a credible source for proof of Jesus?

I am starting to think you cannot sir......

 

[dogsgod]

I didn't say it was a forgery, but do you want to properly debate and tell my how Josephus is a credible source? Can you give a credible source for proof of Jesus?

I am starting to think you cannot sir......

I said they we're forgeries, and stupid ones at that.

 

[fallingblood]

Prceisley, at that is why Fallingblood falls flat here. It's hearsey not actual proof. So far you have failed at proving Jesus is not a MYTH or an actual person.. pfft

Amazing, the old hearsay argument. The thing is, hearsay can be actual proof. We allow hearsay in court in many circumstances even. The hearsay argument simply does not fly. Maybe you want to actually look up the idea of hearsay.

More so, maybe you want to look up how information is passed on in an oral culture.

 

[fallingblood]

I didn't say it was a forgery, but do you want to properly debate and tell my how Josephus is a credible source? Can you give a credible source for proof of Jesus?

I am starting to think you cannot sir......

I've given you all of the information needed. If you can't actually take the time to read it, then it's not worth my waste of time to tell you what you can find easily, since I provided you the links.

I've given the evidence, and you haven't responded but by making dismissive remarks.

And maybe you want to address the OP. That would be great.

 

[fallingblood]

I said they we're forgeries, and stupid ones at that.

Prove it. Show that there is a reason to assume both accounts are forgeries.

 

[MW0082]

I've given you all of the information needed. If you can't actually take the time to read it, then it's not worth my waste of time to tell you what you can find easily, since I provided you the links.

I've given the evidence, and you haven't responded but by making dismissive remarks.

And maybe you want to address the OP. That would be great.

You gave me links to biased sites that claim Josephus was a valid claim to the existence of Jesus, it is not. Hearsey is not allowed in courts, it's special circumstances for that.

Now if you would liek to debate, maybe you should research that, you provided links claiming Josephus was valid, and I ask how is that valid when he was bron after "Jesus' " life...??

not a valid source if you ask me... Seems your simply backpedeling...

 

[dogsgod]

There's so many problems with the short reference, but for starters, here's one for now.

"Called Christ" is right out of the NT, something a Christian scribe would be familiar with, and it was Christian scribes that were the custodians of Josephus' works. Now, how would Josephus' readers know who Josephus would be referring to had he included "called Christ" to identify someone while that identifier is unknown, and of whom was supposedly killed as a common criminal over 60 years prior to his writing? Christ who? Christians argue that Jesus Christ was well known yet aside from a few Christians, no one else wrote about him, these dubious Josephus references would have been the first. Simply remove the obvious forgery, "called Christ" and we can see that this Jame's brother was most probably, "Jesus, the son of Damneus."

 

[fallingblood]

You gave me links to biased sites that claim Josephus was a valid claim to the existence of Jesus, it is not. Hearsey is not allowed in courts, it's special circumstances for that.

Now if you would liek to debate, maybe you should research that, you provided links claiming Josephus was valid, and I ask how is that valid when he was bron after "Jesus' " life...??

not a valid source if you ask me... Seems your simply backpedeling...

So now you dismiss them because they are "biased?" I'm done with you until you start making some logical argument. Dismissal is not an argument. Honestly, it's just useless to argue with you.

 

[MW0082]

So now you dismiss them because they are "biased?" I'm done with you until you start making some logical argument. Dismissal is not an argument. Honestly, it's just useless to argue with you.

Thats ok, because I have been done with you. I kept giving you the benefit of the doubt but you cannot back up anything you claim properly. All you do is reflect your own lack of debating skills onto other people.


Let me help you, in order to debate you have to answer questions not avoid them with your childish fits for people not seeing things the same as you...

Good luck with that...


But just to be clear Josephus is not a credible source, for YOU could not back it up!!!!!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Amazing, the old hearsay argument. The thing is, hearsay can be actual proof. We allow hearsay in court in many circumstances even. The hearsay argument simply does not fly. Maybe you want to actually look up the idea of hearsay.

More so, maybe you want to look up how information is passed on in an oral culture.

I agree that hearsay can be regarded as evidence but to a degree this "evidence" is a little weak. While it does boast as slightly a confirmation on the part of Josephus testifying of "Christ" it appears to be out of place as though it were inserted later by a copyist. Remove the (who was called Christ) and it flows very well and makes much more logical sense to the narrative on a whole. I know some will disagree. While we are told to ponder the possibility of an actual Jesus we must also agree that there is the possibility the brief interjection of this phrase is an interpolation. The earlier mention of Jesus in book 18 is without a doubt added by Christians and must be stricken and regarded pretty much as nothing more than a hatchet job..... so in book 20 the mention of James and (Jesus, who was the Christ) would mean nothing to the readers. The passage in book 20, in fact, was not even about them and more to do with Ananus.

 

[dogsgod]

As the second century pagan Celsus wrote:

"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." ​

 

[dogsgod]

Celsus on Christianity

"Is your belief based on 'fact' that this Jesus told in advance that he would rise again after his death? That your story includes his predictions of triumphing over the grave? Well let it be so. Let's assume for the present that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead the simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolix, Pythagoras' servant convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead, having hidden himself away in a cave for several years, and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy - or Phamsinitus in Egypt? Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, and above all Heracles and Theseus? But quite apart from all these risings from the dead, we must look carefully at the question of the resurrection of the body as a possibility given to mortals. Doubtless you will freely admit that these stories are legends, even as they appear to me; but you will go on to say that your resurrection story, this climax to your tragedy, is believable and noble."

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."



Ouch.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Celsus on Christianity

"Is your belief based on 'fact' that this Jesus told in advance that he would rise again after his death? That your story includes his predictions of triumphing over the grave? Well let it be so. Let's assume for the present that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead the simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolix, Pythagoras' servant convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead, having hidden himself away in a cave for several years, and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy - or Phamsinitus in Egypt? Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, and above all Heracles and Theseus? But quite apart from all these risings from the dead, we must look carefully at the question of the resurrection of the body as a possibility given to mortals. Doubtless you will freely admit that these stories are legends, even as they appear to me; but you will go on to say that your resurrection story, this climax to your tragedy, is believable and noble."

"Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."



Ouch.

Ouch..!...indeed...

 

[tigrers99]

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.

True. Also the best way to tell if Jesus was for real is to look at what the ancient Jewish writers said of Him. When we look into the Talmud, be it the Jerusalem or Babylonian, we notice that it was not these writers practice to include dates. It was their practice to attack indirectly but viciously....none so viciously attacked as Jesus. They dance all around Him without naming Him, but the attacks, so horrendous, are very well understood by the unbiased reader as to who the subject is.


Also, as physical proof that this person was bodily resurrected, we have the shroud of Turin. I defended this artifact as authentic before the latest Discovery Channel's amazing segment showed in much clearer detail as to what Jesus actually looked like and how the unknown radioactive light moved over the body in order for the image to be left in the cloth. It was already known that this cloth came from the church north of Jerusalem in the 1st century. It has had an interesting journey. However, even with this physical evidence, like Jesus was to have said, "If the Jews will not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if any of their close realitves rose from the dead and came to them. (Luke 16:31)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

True. Also the best way to tell if Jesus was for real is to look at what the ancient Jewish writers said of Him. When we look into the Talmud, be it the Jerusalem or Babylonian, we notice that it was not these writers practice to include dates. It was their practice to attack indirectly but viciously....none so viciously attacked as Jesus. They dance all around Him without naming Him, but the attacks, so horrendous, are very well understood by the unbiased reader as to who the subject is.

Let's start out with the obvious. The sources you're using are even weaker than the Testimonium Flavianum. The Talmud was written a few centuries after the supposed facts so this does not help your case.

Also, as physical proof that this person was bodily resurrected, we have the shroud of Turin. I defended this artifact as authentic before the latest Discovery Channel's amazing segment showed in much clearer detail as to what Jesus actually looked like and how the unknown radioactive light moved over the body in order for the image to be left in the cloth. It was already known that this cloth came from the church north of Jerusalem in the 1st century. It has had an interesting journey. However, even with this physical evidence, like Jesus was to have said, "If the Jews will not believe Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if any of their close realitves rose from the dead and came to them. (Luke 16:31)

I'm not sure where you've been for that last decade or so but that shroud has been proven to be a hoax.

So again, you don't seem to have much in the way of evidence for a historical Jesus considering the sources you're using were written centuries later or proven hoaxes......

 

[Oberon]

Even so, they're both forgeries. "Called Christ" is right out of the NT

We've been over this.

What problems? So far, out of hundreds and hundreds of references in early christian literature to Jesus, and the various titles, you have found five, two of which are placed on the lips of unbelievers, one is a translation, one is written to unbelievers, and the other I explained before. Five. Out of hundreds. How is this a problem?



For example?



Wrong. First, non-believers like Vermes have put forth great arguments that the longer reference mentioned Jesus.

As for the shorter, the reasons are clear:

1)There are no textual variations
2) This is anything but a typical christian phrase
3) The syntax fits perfectly in the passage.
4) There is no reason to suppose interpolation



Let's see: Dogsgod, who has no expertise, can't read the original languages, hasn't studied the issue, and references websites.

Versus

The scholarly unanimity, built on many published arguments reviewed by experts over decades and decades and still stands...

hmmm...

 

[logician]

Perhaps it's the fact that he was an historian, by trade, that lends him credibility.

Everyone knows he was a historian, but his writings were definitely "messed" with to come up with what little "hearsay" evidence exists for the supposed Jesus. Josephus was also known to go into great detail about the most minor events in history, yet included no important detail whatsoever about this supposed Jesus.

 

[logician]

You didn't ask for DOB, location, or date of death, you asked for stories (God, man, at least read your own posts).

Uh, you're the one not reading for comprehension, here's my original post.

"1. When he was born.
2. When he died.
3. Nobody can point to a SPECIFIC man in history and say, yep, that was Jesus.
4. The little "evidence" claimed to support the existence is either hearsay, or forged.
5. No historian contemporary to the time of the supposed Jesus ever heard of such a man.
6. There are no writings or books written by the supposed Jesus."

 

[Quagmire]

Uh, you're the one not reading for comprehension, here's my original post.

"1. When he was born.
2. When he died.
3. Nobody can point to a SPECIFIC man in history and say, yep, that was Jesus.
4. The little "evidence" claimed to support the existence is either hearsay, or forged.
5. No historian contemporary to the time of the supposed Jesus ever heard of such a man.
6. There are no writings or books written by the supposed Jesus."

Nope, here's the post I responded too:

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.

Nice try.

again: I know at this point it's pretty much hopeless to ask you to start actually reading the posts you're responding to, but could you at least read your own?