Mythic Jesus

[Sky Dancer]

The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos.

Pagan Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (Eucharist), all before the advent of Christianity.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

Problems arise when one dude feels he can't tolerate something his neighbor is doing because the activity is making God mad.

The tail is wagging the dog when one sect or another has the political power to enforce their religious doctrine on everyone.

 

[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?

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.

I cited some of the evidence, and you decided it was worthless because it contradicted your belief that Jesus is not real. What you want me to believe is that a few people got together, made up a story, and managed to preach that someone who had never existed was crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans. They then claimed that this happened just a few years before, and actually told the lie to people that were alive at the time of the fake crucifixion, and all the other fake events, and no one called them on it.

They then managed to take this lie and spread it so far that in 3 decades the Emperor of Rome blamed the people who believed it for Rome being on fire. Then, in just 5 more decades, the people who believed the lie were so numerous that Roman governor of a Roman province needed advice on dealing with a sect that the government had instituted a death penalty for.

Can you point to any other time in history where a lie was so pervasive that it spread across the world in less than 100 years? Why didn't anyone simply stand up and point out that there where literally thousands of people who lived in, or were visiting, Jerusalem, and none of them saw the crucifixion? Why didn't anyone point out that none of them remembered anyone named Jesus ever having lived at the time?

What you believe is harder to explain than what I believe, I am not the one with the problem with reality here.

FYI, the Bible does not say there was an eclipse when Jesus was on the cross, it says there was darkness over the whole land. Whole land is open to interpretation, but darkness can easily be caused by clouds rolling in and blocking the sun. No need to explain an eclipse.

There is a major fault just outside Jerusalem and there are many recorder instances of quakes throughout history. The earliest we have records for was in 31 CE, which is in the time frame of the death of Jesus. Unless you want to challenge the geologists who say that you cannot say there is no record of an earthquake in Jerusalem.

Earthquake experts turn to history for guidance

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Never said it would. That does not invalidate hearsay evidence out of hand though, and it is occasionally admitted, even if it is decades old.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

In the case of Jesus, the story revolves around his own claim to be 'God who took on flesh and dwelt among us', and his followers claim that he walked out of a borrowed tomb.

If you don't believe with all your heart, soul and mind that those two statements are true, you have no business calling yourself a Christian.

The flip side of that is doubt in those claims and for me, the fact that the claims took on a life of their own not immediately, but 70 years after the events, and did so during a period of religious and political upheaval, and started with a 'vision' attributed to a preacher named Paul, calls the story into question.

 

[Marie888]

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.

Yes, you are. If you are asserting that Jesus Christ is a "myth" - that implies that you are asserting that all us Christians are people who believe in a just myth. Same difference and it's utter nonsense, lol.

No disrespect meant, but what? Do you think that people who know the Lord are going to listen to anything you say above what He says in His Word, or their own relationship with Him? Do you think that those He has revealed Himself to will have a sliver of a doubt of His existance by you making a thread that asserts that Jesus Christ is a myth?

What exactly is your agenda on this?

He IS the Lord. Nothing you or anyone else says or does will change that.

Romans
14: 11 For it is written: “ As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

.


The reason people kick against Him is plain as day. They don't want to have to give up their "sin" nor do they want anything they do exposed as "sin". Keep it in the darkness ya know? Keep their sin as something they aren't doing wrong - bascially calling wrong, "right" or "ok". Hey, I was there too; we all have been and still sometimes struggle with things. He told us in His Word why people reject Him. He indeed exposes our sin.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

What is amazing is that upon coming to His truth, the revelation of His love and grace, and learning Who He is cannot compare to anything of this world.

.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

Yes, you are. If you are asserting that Jesus Christ is a "myth" - that implies that you are asserting that all us Christians are people who believe in a just myth. Same difference and it's utter nonsense, lol.

No disrespect meant, but what? Do you think that people who know the Lord are going to listen to anything you say above what He says in His Word, or their own relationship with Him? Do you think that those He has revealed Himself to will have a sliver of a doubt of His existance by you making a thread that asserts that Jesus Christ is a myth?

What exactly is your agenda on this?

He IS the Lord. Nothing you or anyone else says or does will change that.

Romans
14: 11 For it is written: “ As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

.


The reason people kick against Him is plain as day. They don't want to have to give up their "sin" nor do they want anything they do exposed as "sin". Keep it in the darkness ya know? Keep their sin as something they aren't doing wrong - bascially calling wrong, "right" or "ok". Hey, I was there too; we all have been and still sometimes struggle with things. He told us in His Word why people reject Him. He indeed exposes our sin.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

What is amazing is that upon coming to His truth, the revelation of His love and grace, and learning Who He is cannot compare to anything of this world.

.

Amen. So true.

 

[hortysir]

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.

I cited some of the evidence, and you decided it was worthless because it contradicted your belief that Jesus is not real. What you want me to believe is that a few people got together, made up a story, and managed to preach that someone who had never existed was crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans. They then claimed that this happened just a few years before, and actually told the lie to people that were alive at the time of the fake crucifixion, and all the other fake events, and no one called them on it.

They then managed to take this lie and spread it so far that in 3 decades the Emperor of Rome blamed the people who believed it for Rome being on fire. Then, in just 5 more decades, the people who believed the lie were so numerous that Roman governor of a Roman province needed advice on dealing with a sect that the government had instituted a death penalty for.

Can you point to any other time in history where a lie was so pervasive that it spread across the world in less than 100 years? Why didn't anyone simply stand up and point out that there where literally thousands of people who lived in, or were visiting, Jerusalem, and none of them saw the crucifixion? Why didn't anyone point out that none of them remembered anyone named Jesus ever having lived at the time?

What you believe is harder to explain than what I believe, I am not the one with the problem with reality here.

FYI, the Bible does not say there was an eclipse when Jesus was on the cross, it says there was darkness over the whole land. Whole land is open to interpretation, but darkness can easily be caused by clouds rolling in and blocking the sun. No need to explain an eclipse.

There is a major fault just outside Jerusalem and there are many recorder instances of quakes throughout history. The earliest we have records for was in 31 CE, which is in the time frame of the death of Jesus. Unless you want to challenge the geologists who say that you cannot say there is no record of an earthquake in Jerusalem.

Earthquake experts turn to history for guidance

And imagine the number of people that were beaten, jailed, and killed because of their "lie"?!!
At some point somebody would have caved and said, "OKAY! I lied! Please stop!"
We're only human. We can only endure so much, and the Romans were experts at torture.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How do historians determine the accuracy of ancient documents and records?
Historians look at:

•How close, in time and geographically, were the writers of the documents to the original events?


•How many early copies do we have, how close are the copies to the originals (in time)?


•Do the documents have contradictions or factual inaccuracies?


•Are the descriptions of locations, roads, structures and geographical features confirmed by archeology?


We have copies of other ancient documents that are considered historically accurate. For example, Caesar wrote his history of the Gallic Wars between 50 and 60 BC. The earliest copies we have were made around the year 1000. We have ten copies from that time period. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

The Roman historian Tacitus wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in about 115 AD. We have one copy of the first six books in this series. It was copied in about 850 AD. Books 11 through 16 are available in a copy made about 1050 AD. Books 7 through 10 are lost. The Annals of Imperial Rome is considered by historians to be accurate.

We have nine Greek manuscripts of first century historian Josephus' work titled, "The Jewish War." These copies were made in the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries. They are considered by historians to be accurate.

Aristotle lived around 350 BC. The earliest copy of his epic poems comes from A.D.1100 -- over 1,400 years after his death. We have five early copies of Aristotle's works.

We have eight copies, dated about 900 A.D., of the history of Thucydides. He lived in the mid-400's BC. Historians have long ago determined, based on these eight manuscripts created 1300 years after the original was written, that the history of Thucydides is accurate.

Homer's Iliad, the bible of the ancient Greeks, composed in 800 BC has an impressive 650 ancient Greek copies available -- the earliest is from the second and third centuries AD - 1000 years after the original was written.

So how does the New Testament compare with these universally accepted historical documents?

We have over 22,000 early copies of ancient New Testament manuscripts! Some papyri manuscripts date to the first century, within a few decades of when the original was written. There are over 5,600 ancient Greek manuscripts. Over 9,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts. And over 8,000 ancient manuscripts in Ethiopic, Slavic and Armenian. The earliest copies date so close to when the originals were written that the time difference is essentially non-existent.

We have papyri copies containing portions of the Gospels, the book of Acts, Paul's letters and the book of Hebrews made in the first, second and third centuries. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri date to about the year 200. The M. Martin Bodmer Papyri also date to about the year 200. The Saint John's Library Papyri -- containing a portion of the book of John -- was made in Egypt and dates to between the years 98 and 130 AD (The book of John was written in approximately 90 AD).

Summary:

Numbers of copies: No other ancient historical documents come even close to being available in such large numbers (the Iliad is second with 650 copies) as is the New Testament.

Closeness to the originials in time: No other ancient historical documents are available in copies made so soon after the originals were written. (Most other documents are available only in copies made over 1000 years after the original.)

Contradictions: Other than a few minor differences in the Old Testament that are attributed to "typos" - none of which are related to fundamental doctrines or beliefs, there are no contradictions.

Archeology: Archeology has never contradicted anything in the Bible and has confirmed much of the Bible.

The conclusion: based on the number of copies, and their closeness in time to the originals, the New Testament has ample support for its accuracy.

 

[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.

Yes, you are. If you are asserting that Jesus Christ is a "myth" - that implies that you are asserting that all us Christians are people who believe in a just myth. Same difference and it's utter nonsense, lol.

No disrespect meant, but what? Do you think that people who know the Lord are going to listen to anything you say above what He says in His Word, or their own relationship with Him? Do you think that those He has revealed Himself to will have a sliver of a doubt of His existance by you making a thread that asserts that Jesus Christ is a myth?

What exactly is your agenda on this?

He IS the Lord. Nothing you or anyone else says or does will change that.

Romans
14: 11 For it is written: “ As I live, says the LORD, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”

12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God.

.


The reason people kick against Him is plain as day. They don't want to have to give up their "sin" nor do they want anything they do exposed as "sin". Keep it in the darkness ya know? Keep their sin as something they aren't doing wrong - bascially calling wrong, "right" or "ok". Hey, I was there too; we all have been and still sometimes struggle with things. He told us in His Word why people reject Him. He indeed exposes our sin.

John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

What is amazing is that upon coming to His truth, the revelation of His love and grace, and learning Who He is cannot compare to anything of this world.

.

There is very little historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Most of the information comes from believers, not historians. That makes the story of Jesus mythical.

Theological belief is not the same as historical truth.

Mithraism has the same story as Jesus and it predates Christianity. I suspect Christianity merely incorporated Mithraism into it's own credo.

I'm looking at whether there is any historical evidence for Jesus. There isn't. The Epistles and Gospels come well after Jesus supposedly, lived, died and was resurrected.

As far as the existence of a historical Jesus, where is the proof? Julius Caesar can be proved, Jesus cannot.

I advise you to leave this topic, Marie. It seems to be upsetting you.

Jesus may be theological truth to you, Marie, but there is little to no historical evidence that he existed.

What evidence can you offer? The New Testament? Written at least 70 to 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived. All the "evidence" of Jesus comes from believers, NOT historians.

What's my agenda? I think this is a fascinating topic, that's why I started it.

Faith is faith. You believe in Jesus and it makes you happy. Enjoy it. Find a topic on this forum that doesn't upset you. Stop personalizing the topic. I haven't said a thing about your personal belief. I'm interested in history.

I consider that it is a possibility that a man named Jesus really did live in that part of the world, at that time. If he did, I think he was a political radical, a religious reformer, and a teacher of morals (much like Ghandi), and I think his followers built up a religion around him, turning him into a god.

I will also state that it is a possibility that he never lived at all, and was a construction of those who would create a new religion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

In the case of Jesus, the story revolves around his own claim to be 'God who took on flesh and dwelt among us', and his followers claim that he walked out of a borrowed tomb.

If you don't believe with all your heart, soul and mind that those two statements are true, you have no business calling yourself a Christian.

The flip side of that is doubt in those claims and for me, the fact that the claims took on a life of their own not immediately, but 70 years after the events, and did so during a period of religious and political upheaval, and started with a 'vision' attributed to a preacher named Paul, calls the story into question.

Jesus never claimed to be "God who took flesh and dwelt among us." I guess that means that, by your definition, no one is a Christian, because no informed believer believes your false qualifications of being a Christian. The rest of your post is as full of shit as that misrepresentation of Jesus's words because Paul saw Jesus less than a decade after his crucifixion.

You will, of course, claim that you are free to believe whatever you want in response to this post, and that is absolutely true. What you should remember is that you are actually basing your belief on lies, not the truth as it is known, because the entire story in the Book of Acts occurs before the sacking of Jerusalem, which happened in 70 CE, which was about 40 years after the events you so causally dismiss. That, in case you have trouble with math, is significantly less that the 70 years you claim passed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says:

“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

In other words, Josephus writing about Jesus is likely a forgery.

The Christian movement has always been mythical. It's a wonderful myth, but it's still a myth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I cited some of the evidence, and you decided it was worthless because it contradicted your belief that Jesus is not real. What you want me to believe is that a few people got together, made up a story, and managed to preach that someone who had never existed was crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans. They then claimed that this happened just a few years before, and actually told the lie to people that were alive at the time of the fake crucifixion, and all the other fake events, and no one called them on it.

They then managed to take this lie and spread it so far that in 3 decades the Emperor of Rome blamed the people who believed it for Rome being on fire. Then, in just 5 more decades, the people who believed the lie were so numerous that Roman governor of a Roman province needed advice on dealing with a sect that the government had instituted a death penalty for.

Can you point to any other time in history where a lie was so pervasive that it spread across the world in less than 100 years? Why didn't anyone simply stand up and point out that there where literally thousands of people who lived in, or were visiting, Jerusalem, and none of them saw the crucifixion? Why didn't anyone point out that none of them remembered anyone named Jesus ever having lived at the time?

What you believe is harder to explain than what I believe, I am not the one with the problem with reality here.

FYI, the Bible does not say there was an eclipse when Jesus was on the cross, it says there was darkness over the whole land. Whole land is open to interpretation, but darkness can easily be caused by clouds rolling in and blocking the sun. No need to explain an eclipse.

There is a major fault just outside Jerusalem and there are many recorder instances of quakes throughout history. The earliest we have records for was in 31 CE, which is in the time frame of the death of Jesus. Unless you want to challenge the geologists who say that you cannot say there is no record of an earthquake in Jerusalem.

Earthquake experts turn to history for guidance

And imagine the number of people that were beaten, jailed, and killed because of their "lie"?!!
At some point somebody would have caved and said, "OKAY! I lied! Please stop!"
We're only human. We can only endure so much, and the Romans were experts at torture.

Those Roman torturers were actually quite impressed by the Christians. some of them were so impressed that they became Christians themselves. They knew that torture would convince innocent people confess guilt just to get it to stop, even gladiators and Roman soldiers, yet women were enduring tortures that would break strong men, and praying for the people that were torturing them.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There are two basic views of the Biblical Jesus as a real person today, the religious Christian view and the secular historical view. The religious Christian view takes the Gospels as accurate and reliable accounts of the life of Jesus, including all of the miracles. The religious Christian view demands that Jesus Christ was a popular and well known figure in the region, who drew crowds of thousands of people and performed great miracles, who was such a revolutionary figure that the Jewish priesthood was compelled to have him arrested and put to death in dramatic fashion before hundreds or thousands of witnesses.

The secular historical view, which may also be held by some Christians, takes the Gospels as exaggerated accounts of the life of a real Jesus. The secular historical view basically starts with the Gospels and then removes the fantastic or "supernatural" claims in the Gospels and accepts what is left as history. The secular historical view tends to minimize the role of Jesus in the region, stating instead that he was barely noticed by others. Secular historians who believe that Jesus existed rely on the Gospels as essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of his life.

All this is based on the idea that the Gospels are historical fact. But are they? At a minimum, they were written by unknown individuals 50 to 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived.
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

 

[Sky Dancer]

I cited some of the evidence, and you decided it was worthless because it contradicted your belief that Jesus is not real. What you want me to believe is that a few people got together, made up a story, and managed to preach that someone who had never existed was crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans. They then claimed that this happened just a few years before, and actually told the lie to people that were alive at the time of the fake crucifixion, and all the other fake events, and no one called them on it.

They then managed to take this lie and spread it so far that in 3 decades the Emperor of Rome blamed the people who believed it for Rome being on fire. Then, in just 5 more decades, the people who believed the lie were so numerous that Roman governor of a Roman province needed advice on dealing with a sect that the government had instituted a death penalty for.

Can you point to any other time in history where a lie was so pervasive that it spread across the world in less than 100 years? Why didn't anyone simply stand up and point out that there where literally thousands of people who lived in, or were visiting, Jerusalem, and none of them saw the crucifixion? Why didn't anyone point out that none of them remembered anyone named Jesus ever having lived at the time?

What you believe is harder to explain than what I believe, I am not the one with the problem with reality here.

FYI, the Bible does not say there was an eclipse when Jesus was on the cross, it says there was darkness over the whole land. Whole land is open to interpretation, but darkness can easily be caused by clouds rolling in and blocking the sun. No need to explain an eclipse.

There is a major fault just outside Jerusalem and there are many recorder instances of quakes throughout history. The earliest we have records for was in 31 CE, which is in the time frame of the death of Jesus. Unless you want to challenge the geologists who say that you cannot say there is no record of an earthquake in Jerusalem.

Earthquake experts turn to history for guidance

And imagine the number of people that were beaten, jailed, and killed because of their "lie"?!!
At some point somebody would have caved and said, "OKAY! I lied! Please stop!"
We're only human. We can only endure so much, and the Romans were experts at torture.

Those Roman torturers were actually quite impressed by the Christians. some of them were so impressed that they became Christians themselves. They knew that torture would convince innocent people confess guilt just to get it to stop, even gladiators and Roman soldiers, yet women were enduring tortures that would break strong men, and praying for the people that were torturing them.

This is your argument? That Jesus must have existed because the Romans tortured Christians?

The Romans tortured tons of people.

The only "proof" that Christians have for the life of Jesus is the Gospels whose origins were not even mentioned by historians until 130CE with Papias being the first.

 

[Baron]

Jesus is a myth. A most successful one.

Socialism and gay marriage are myths, but Jesus is real!

Jesus Is Real!

 

[Sky Dancer]

The fact that the Gospel of Mark is the first narrative story of the life of Jesus that was written, and the three other stories about the life of Jesus are dependent on it either directly or indirectly, makes the Gospel of Mark the lynchpin of the entire Jesus story. Understanding Mark is the key to understanding the whole story of Jesus.

Most scholars today agree that the Gospel of Mark was written either during or after the destruction of Judea by the Romans, which occurred around 70 CE. The most widely accepted dates for the writing of Mark range from between 66 CE to 100 CE, with a fringe of scholars claiming times outside of this range on both sides.

The period in which the Gospel of Mark was written is well known among scholars of ancient literature as an era of allegorical writing.

Allegory is defined as follows:

Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
ALLEGORY


Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

I have no problem with the Bible existing as allegory and theology, but not as historical truth.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Jesus is a myth. A most successful one.

Socialism and gay marriage are myths, but Jesus is real!

Jesus Is Real!

Hahahahaha

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is very little historical evidence of Jesus' existence. Most of the information comes from believers, not historians. That makes the story of Jesus mythical.

I thought you said there was none? Does that mean you were wrong, and are now trying to get by without admitting it by moving the goalposts?

I personally cited two separate historians that mentioned Jesus, neither of them were Christians. I can also cite non historians that mention him, and even point out that there is more historical evidence that Jesus lived, and died, than exist to prove that Alexander the Great existed. Does that make him a myth, or do you chose to only relegate Jesus to that category because of your personal bias and hatred?

Theological belief is not the same as historical truth.

Quite true. That actually goes hand in hand with the belief idiotic prince who ran around India claiming to be a wise man actually was, or that he said half of the things that were attributed to him. That does not change the fact that he is an actual historical figure, nor does it make him a myth, even if the stories surrounding him are mythological.

Mithraism has the same story as Jesus and it predates Christianity. I suspect Christianity merely incorporated Mithraism into it's own credo.

That is certainly one explanation. I, myself, am left to wonder why Christianity, if it wanted to incorporate both Mithracism and Judaism, chose to reject the animal sacrifices they both involved.

I'm looking at whether there is any historical evidence for Jesus. There isn't. The Epistles and Gospels come well after Jesus supposedly, lived, died and was resurrected.

So? Can you point to any contemporary accounts of Tutankhamen? Socrates? Confucius? Should I reject all the evidence of all historical figures because no one can find anything written about them that dates to before they died? Can you prove no such account ever existed? Are you aware that the library at Alexander was burned at one point?

As far as the existence of a historical Jesus, where is the proof? Julius Caesar can be proved, Jesus cannot.

How can you prove Julius Caesar existed? All we have is the testimony of people who claim to have seen him, and a bunch of hearsay evidence for his existence.

Come to think if it, that sounds a lot like what we have for Jesus, except there is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is Julius. Rejecting Jesus simply because you hate people you think hate you is childish.

I advise you to leave this topic, Marie. It seems to be upsetting you.

She is taking it personally that you are calling her a liar, why wouldn't that upset her. She knows that Jesus is real because she has met him, and she talks to him every day. If I went around and said your partner was a myth, and that there is no evidence she existed, and that anyone who believes in her is deluded, wouldn't you take it personally?

Jesus may be theological truth to you, Marie, but there is little to no historical evidence that he existed.

As I have pointed out, repeatedly, there is more evidence that he existed that there is that many of the other people you believe in existed.

What evidence can you offer? The New Testament? Written at least 70 to 100 years after Jesus supposedly lived. All the "evidence" of Jesus comes from believers, NOT historians.

The new testament was completed withing 60 years of Jesus's death. Most of it was written by eyewitnesses, which means it is actually pretty solid evidence, and that it would stand up in a court, even if it was written years later.

What's my agenda? I think this is a fascinating topic, that's why I started it.

If you actually thought it was a fascinating topic you would examine the evidence that is being presented. The fact that you choose to reject it out of hand proves you have an agenda.

As for what it is, you hate Christians because they all want to control your life and force you to marry a man. That proves you are delusional, so your agenda is easily rejected by sane people.

Faith is faith. You believe in Jesus and it makes you happy. Enjoy it. Find a topic on this forum that doesn't upset you. Stop personalizing the topic. I haven't said a thing about your personal belief. I'm interested in history.

Why should she not defend her faith? The problem with most Christians is that they are unwilling, and unable, to defend their faith. Faith is not an unfounded belief in something that cannot be proven, it is trust in yourself, and your ability to reason. Marie's willingness to defend her faith from idiots like you will only make that faith stronger, as long as she is willing to learn from what she gets wrong.

I consider that it is a possibility that a man named Jesus really did live in that part of the world, at that time. If he did, I think he was a political radical, a religious reformer, and a teacher of morals (much like Ghandi), and I think his followers built up a religion around him, turning him into a god.

Now you want to define Jesus to meet you conception of a good person.

Jesus went out of his way to stay out of politics. I suppose that makes him a political radical, if you think avoiding a topic is radical. Given your penchant for jumping into threads and turning them into personal attacks on you I fully believe you think keeping your mouth shut is radical, but most of the world doesn't.

Jesus could be considered a religious reformer, if you accept that his goal was to change something. The fact that he ended up founding an entire new religion tends to make me think he had no intention of reforming anything though.

Nor was Jesus a teacher of morals like Gandhi. Gandhi was actually a political radical, just in case you have trouble with the concept. He led a revolution against the British Empire, and defeated them using the publicity of their actions against them.

I will also state that it is a possibility that he never lived at all, and was a construction of those who would create a new religion.

It is also possible that the moon is made of green cheese. I think the evidence totally discounts that as being true, just like the evidence discounts Jesus being a lie. If you want to believe a lie I will not stop you. I will, however, point out that it is a lie every time I see, or hear, you saying it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says:

“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

In other words, Josephus writing about Jesus is likely a forgery.

The Christian movement has always been mythical. It's a wonderful myth, but it's still a myth.

Not that I expect crediblity from you, but you should quote the entire text here. It actually proves the exact opposite of what you think it does.

Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to till the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious. It is also according to the manner of Josephus, in other parts of his history, to pass over in silence what appeared to make against his nation. When he wrote, the Christian religion had made considerable progress, and every thing respecting it must have been well known to him. He had therefore no middle way. It was necessary cither to enter somewhat particularly into the subject, or to pass it over entirely. To have mentioned it, as is done in the passage in question, would have been to condemn himself. His testimony, then, to Christianity, is found in his silence; and especially as he was a priest, is abundantly strong. Not having embraced the Christian religion, and, at the same time, being unable to contradict the facts on which it was founded, or to set them aside, he passes it quietly by. The minute description he has given of the other religious sects in Judca, fully proves that his silence was that of design, to which his circumstances compelled him.

Debate on the evidences of ... - Google Books

Campbell is clearly arguing that Josephus' bias is such that he is not credible as a historian. The fact that he does not mention Christianity at all, despite the fact that it was already giving the Roman empire problems, is proof that we should not give particular weight to the fact that he does not mention Jesus.