Mythic Jesus

[Dragon]

An analogy I heard once still makes me smile;

Imagine a doctor sculpting a toe. A hundred years later and a thousand miles away a lawyer sculpts a finger 70 years after that a tax collector seven hundred miles away sculpts a nose.............
And so on throughout the centuries

When it's all said and done you have a sculpture as magnificent as that of David.

Coincidence?

To make the analogy correct, you have to ship the toe the doctor sculpted to the lawyer and then both the toe and finger to the tax collector and so on, so that they consciously and knowingly did their work with the other artists in mind. This was all before printing but not before publishing, and one gospel author had access to the work of those who had gone before, both canonical and non-canonical.

No coincidence.

 

[Sky Dancer]

On a personal note, you're saying that my actual relationship with the Lord is just a myth is absolutely ridiculous.

I can't see millions of people around the world, so I guess they are not there, and they are all myths. I can't see the wind, so I guess it's not there. I can't see the whole universe, so I guess it's not there.

Oh, and those who have gone before us and are now passed; we cannot see them anymore, so I guess they never here were either.

That's all I gotta say about that.

Nobody is saying ANYTHING about YOUR personal relationship with Jesus. I'm saying there is little evidence of the historical Jesus.

Your faith is your faith.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The oldest myth ever discovered is the Enuma Elish, which is the Babylonian myth of Creation:
Enûma Eli

One and only one thing is for certain.... From Enuma Elish to Zeus, Baal, Thor, The Volcano Gods and beyond - all had believers who were just as passionate about what they simply knew to be true as any Christian or Muslim alive today.

Major Gods and Goddesses of the World

Of course. Faith is belief. Belief is not dependent on fact. That's what makes faith, faith. You take a leap and believe something without factual evidence.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, crucifixion or resurrection. All "evidence" of Jesus comes from hearsay accounts many decades after he supposedly "lived". Jesus is a myth, one that many believe, and their faith serves them. It's about the same as believing in King Midas. Nonetheless, people believe in Jesus and they seem to benefit from that belief, even though there is no factual evidence of a historical Jesus.

Reason would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus supposedly performed or surrounded him:

1. Being born of a virgin mother;

2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;

3. The slaying of the innocent babies;

4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;

4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;

5. Earthquakes in the region;

6. The zombie saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and

7. The Resurrection.

that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers.

 

[Sky Dancer]

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered by Canadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, Why I Am Not A Christian:

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.


More at link:
Did Jesus Actually Exist?

 

[Dragon]

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered by Canadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, Why I Am Not A Christian:

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

This is not evidence against historicity claims of Jesus. It's an argument against using the Gospels to prove that he existed. Not the same thing.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

This is not evidence against historicity claims of Jesus. It's a lack of evidence for such claims. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

Incorrect. Paul does speak of Jesus as a recent historic man. He does indeed mix in a lot of spiritual elements, but he does not separate those from statements that a real person by that name lived.

4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

Incorrect. Paul refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus as literal events happening to a real person, which he endows with supernatural/mythical properties -- by no means the same thing. As for where he derives his information, it came from the community of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, whom by his own account he first persecuted and then joined. Word of mouth, oral testimony by those who had known Jesus, although Paul himself did not.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

True but misleading. Paul's spiritual Christ was the more important aspect and the one he emphasized, but he also made it clear that he believed in the existence of a genuine human being who embodied these spiritual aspects.

6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.

Indeed he does, and I am inclined to believe that many of the features of the mythic Christ were borrowed by him and others to endow the mythic Jesus. However, this does not invalidate the idea that there was a real historic Jesus as well. As stated earlier, I have a problem explaining the existence of Christianity in the first place if there was no such person.

 

[Baron]

One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus's existence in any contemporary source.

Your claim is absolutely wrong!

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The oldest myth ever discovered is the Enuma Elish, which is the Babylonian myth of Creation:
Enûma Eli

One and only one thing is for certain.... From Enuma Elish to Zeus, Baal, Thor, The Volcano Gods and beyond - all had believers who were just as passionate about what they simply knew to be true as any Christian or Muslim alive today.

Major Gods and Goddesses of the World

Of course. Faith is belief. Belief is not dependent on fact. That's what makes faith, faith. You take a leap and believe something without factual evidence.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, crucifixion or resurrection. All "evidence" of Jesus comes from hearsay accounts many decades after he supposedly "lived". Jesus is a myth, one that many believe, and their faith serves them. It's about the same as believing in King Midas. Nonetheless, people believe in Jesus and they seem to benefit from that belief, even though there is no factual evidence of a historical Jesus.

Reason would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus supposedly performed or surrounded him:

1. Being born of a virgin mother;

2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;

3. The slaying of the innocent babies;

4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;

4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;

5. Earthquakes in the region;

6. The zombie saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and

7. The Resurrection.

that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers.

Why do you have a problem acknowledging facts?

There is historical evidence that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A blow-by-blow summary of the evidence against historicity claims for Jesus is offered by Canadian historian and classical scholar Earl Doherty in his work, Why I Am Not A Christian:

“1. Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) was composed only in the late first century.

It is actually found in the writings of Paul, which predate Mark, and Mark was written by an actual witness to the events before he died. By the way, Jesus was alive in the early part of the 1st century, and Mark was written less than 30 years later, and before Rome was burned. People did not tend to write everything down at the time because paper was rare, and expensive.

2. There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions.

There is reference to Nero blaming the burning of Rome on Christians, and Tacitus recorded that Christus had received the ultimate punishment. That was in the 1st century, and was not inserted by Christians later.

3. The early apostles, such as Paul and Hebrews, speak of their Christ Jesus as a spiritual, heavenly being revealed by God through scripture, and do not equate him with a recent historical man. Paul is part of a new ‘salvation’ movement acting on revelation from the Spirit.

What?????

Paul not only claimed to have seen Jesus himself, he also had no problem pointing out that other people had seen him, and spoke to him, before he was crucified. and after his resurrection. Maybe if you actually read what he really said instead of relying on the lying words of Buddhists, many of whom have a distinct problem with truth, you would not look like a complete idiot when discussing other religions.

4. Paul and other early writers place the death and resurrection of their Christ in the supernatural/mythical world, and derive their information about these events, as well as other features of their heavenly Christ, from scripture.

No they do not.

5. The ancients viewed the universe as multi-layered: matter below, spirit above. The higher world was regarded as the superior, genuine reality, containing spiritual processes and heavenly counterparts to earthly things. Paul’s Christ operates within this system.

Not everyone in the world was a Gnostic.

6. The pagan ‘mystery cults’ of the period worshiped savior deities who had performed salvific acts which took place in the supernatural/mythical world, not
on earth or in history. Paul’s Christ shares many features with these deities.


More at link:
Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Why should I look at a link that is full of lies?

 

[Sky Dancer]

One and only one thing is for certain.... From Enuma Elish to Zeus, Baal, Thor, The Volcano Gods and beyond - all had believers who were just as passionate about what they simply knew to be true as any Christian or Muslim alive today.

Major Gods and Goddesses of the World

Of course. Faith is belief. Belief is not dependent on fact. That's what makes faith, faith. You take a leap and believe something without factual evidence.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, crucifixion or resurrection. All "evidence" of Jesus comes from hearsay accounts many decades after he supposedly "lived". Jesus is a myth, one that many believe, and their faith serves them. It's about the same as believing in King Midas. Nonetheless, people believe in Jesus and they seem to benefit from that belief, even though there is no factual evidence of a historical Jesus.

Reason would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus supposedly performed or surrounded him:

1. Being born of a virgin mother;

2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;

3. The slaying of the innocent babies;

4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;

4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;

5. Earthquakes in the region;

6. The zombie saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and

7. The Resurrection.

that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers.

Why do you have a problem acknowledging facts?

There is historical evidence that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified.

Where is it? There is nothing but hearsay evidence that occurred decades after Jesus supposedly "lived".

Jesus is a myth. A most successful one.

 

[Sky Dancer]

A myth is a fanciful explanation of a given phenomenon. A myth, is a guess, a story, a speculation, or a fanciful explanation of a phenomenon, in the absence of accurate information.

Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence.

The belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein related -- manuscripts which contradict each other as well as themselves.

Pagan gods who occupied Mount Olympus were all mythical beings -- mere shadows, and yet Paganism was the religion of the most advanced and cultured nations of antiquity. Therefore, Christianity can still be a popular religion yet based on a myth.

Christianity may be a lie, but it is a glorious lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course. Faith is belief. Belief is not dependent on fact. That's what makes faith, faith. You take a leap and believe something without factual evidence.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus' life, death, crucifixion or resurrection. All "evidence" of Jesus comes from hearsay accounts many decades after he supposedly "lived". Jesus is a myth, one that many believe, and their faith serves them. It's about the same as believing in King Midas. Nonetheless, people believe in Jesus and they seem to benefit from that belief, even though there is no factual evidence of a historical Jesus.

Reason would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus supposedly performed or surrounded him:

1. Being born of a virgin mother;

2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;

3. The slaying of the innocent babies;

4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;

4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;

5. Earthquakes in the region;

6. The zombie saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and

7. The Resurrection.

that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers.

Why do you have a problem acknowledging facts?

There is historical evidence that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified.

Where is it? There is nothing but hearsay evidence that occurred decades after Jesus supposedly "lived".

Jesus is a myth. A most successful one.

We are not in a court of law, hearsay evidence is permissible. Tacitus was a Roman Senator, and a historian. Why would he mention him if he did not believe he was real?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A myth is a fanciful explanation of a given phenomenon. A myth, is a guess, a story, a speculation, or a fanciful explanation of a phenomenon, in the absence of accurate information.

Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence.

The belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein related -- manuscripts which contradict each other as well as themselves.

Pagan gods who occupied Mount Olympus were all mythical beings -- mere shadows, and yet Paganism was the religion of the most advanced and cultured nations of antiquity. Therefore, Christianity can still be a popular religion yet based on a myth.

What is you problem with reality?

 

[Sky Dancer]

A myth is a fanciful explanation of a given phenomenon. A myth, is a guess, a story, a speculation, or a fanciful explanation of a phenomenon, in the absence of accurate information.

Christians rely mainly on the four Gospels for the historicity of Jesus. But the original documents of which the books in the New Testament are claimed to be faithful copies are not in existence. There is absolutely no evidence that they ever were in existence.

The belief in Jesus, then, is founded on secondary documents, altered and edited by various hands; on lost originals, and on anonymous manuscripts of an age considerably later than the events therein related -- manuscripts which contradict each other as well as themselves.

Pagan gods who occupied Mount Olympus were all mythical beings -- mere shadows, and yet Paganism was the religion of the most advanced and cultured nations of antiquity. Therefore, Christianity can still be a popular religion yet based on a myth.

What is you problem with reality?

What is yours? If Jesus is historical truth, where is the evidence?

I have no problem that you believe in Jesus. You just don't have any historical proof he existed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why do you have a problem acknowledging facts?

There is historical evidence that Jesus lived, and that he was crucified.

Where is it? There is nothing but hearsay evidence that occurred decades after Jesus supposedly "lived".

Jesus is a myth. A most successful one.

We are not in a court of law, hearsay evidence is permissible. Tacitus was a Roman Senator, and a historian. Why would he mention him if he did not believe he was real?

Hearsay evidence admitted fifty to one hundred years later would not be admissible.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It still boils down to opinion.

There is NOTHING about religion in general, any given faith, or any sect or sub group of any given belief set, that is anything other than opinion.

I will defend your right to be, in my humble opinion, wrong until my keyboard is silenced.

I cant' ask for more or less from any of y'all. None of us can. Freedom may come at a cost tallied in blood, but the true price of being free is tolerance of your weird fucking neighbor.

 

[AmericanFirst]

One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus's existence in any contemporary source. The earliest literature concerning him was written by Paul, who never knew him or anyone else who might have known him and who never heard anything about his life story. Paul mentioned none of these now-so-familiar details, which were added much later by unknown writers who pretended to bear the names of various disciples and who sprinkled their writings with mythic data gathered from sacred-king traditions of contemporary Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian and Levantine salvation cults.
The Jesus Myth | Is Christ a Historical Person?

It is called FAITH. I think you are wrong on Jesus existence never being proven. It is just that people do not believe he IS the Son of God.

 

[AmericanFirst]

I don't understand your point. Jesus is ok with me as a mythic character. Great story.

He is not a mythic character. He is the Son of God. On the other hand, buddha is a false prophet.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I don't understand your point. Jesus is ok with me as a mythic character. Great story.

He is not a mythic character. He is the Son of God. On the other hand, buddha is a false prophet.

That is your belief, not a statement of fact. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus's existence in any contemporary source. The earliest literature concerning him was written by Paul, who never knew him or anyone else who might have known him and who never heard anything about his life story. Paul mentioned none of these now-so-familiar details, which were added much later by unknown writers who pretended to bear the names of various disciples and who sprinkled their writings with mythic data gathered from sacred-king traditions of contemporary Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Persian and Levantine salvation cults.
The Jesus Myth | Is Christ a Historical Person?

It is called FAITH. I think you are wrong on Jesus existence never being proven. It is just that people do not believe he IS the Son of God.

It is called FAITH exactly. Not proof. You can believe anything you wish. You cannot prove that Jesus ever existed or exists now. Julius Caesar had a TON of historical evidence of his existence. That isn't true for Jesus.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people long after Jesus supposedly lived.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. It is at least 40 years after Jesus supposedly lived that we have any writing about him.

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them."

Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

[dblack]

Nothing about Jesus of Nazareth was committed to paper until at least 70 years after his death. There is also compelling evidence that he lived and died and was buried in Israel. http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/166938-if-a-tomb-was-found.html

The fact that a dude by the name of 'Jesus' lived a political life in Israel 2000 years ago I've never questioned - what you have to ask yourself is, "Did he walk out of his tomb?"

Knowing that the stories of his miracles were committed to paper some 70 years after his death and done so during unstable and revolutionary times makes me highly skeptical. A complete absence of the miraculous during modern times, and a world history that mocks the existence of righteousness makes me call 'bullshit!' on the whole thing.

That sounds about right. But I wonder sometimes if we aren't missing the boat by worrying about the literal truth of religious stories. And I think that applies equally to believers and non-believers alike. Whatever gods and religious beliefs are, they're most certainly real. They have a real impact in the world. Does it matter whether they are composed of genuine supernatural existence (whatever that means), or 'merely' live in the minds of the faithful? Couldn't either adequately explain the events that most people attribute to gods?