9 of 12
9
Blog: Is Jesus a Myth?
Posted: 10 July 2011 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 121 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2011-07-06

These arguments of Paul are to a historical situation. The followers of Jesus were Jewish and had no teachings from Jesus that they were to stop following the Jewish Law. Why because Jesus was Jewish. He was a human brother of James. They thought that he was a great teacher ( as refelcted in Q)  and a blameless man that would return soon at the end of the ages as Messiah and in the general resurrection.

How do we know this? Because there are two major movements from the first century that cause many more by the second century.  There is the movement in Jerusalem as pointed to by Paul and headed by the original followers of Jesus.  And there is Paul who opposes their understanding of the very person they followed.

Hang on TG, let me get this straight, so you’re saying that the bible (Paul, Galatians) proves the claims of the bible (Life of Jesus)???

And that’s a logical position to take?

The bible also gives a lineage of people dating back from Jesus to Adam so I suppose the bible proves the bible and the Garden of Eden was a real place with real people. Everyone in the bible kept on referring back to it as ‘real history’ periodically right on through the NT, including Paul. The sin of the first man and the fall… I suppose anyone refusing to accept this Garden myth as historically true must be crackpot because Paul clearly believed it to be so.

We’re talking about a mythology here. Shouldn’t we first start with historical record from Jerusalem? I already quoted the Jewish Encyclopedia. There is nothing in Jewish historical documentation that is valuable in finding the Jesus of history. No court records from the Jews, nothing from the Romans as far as court records for a trial by Pilate either, nothing from Philo about a movement by this supposed historical Jew, and Josephus is long since non-contemporary and interpolated so thoroughly that he’s worthless for the most part. What about this proposed Jersulem church? Nothing there either. You’ve tried to give excuses for why there would be nothing from the Jerusalem church, but that in no way establishes hard fact as I see it. I don’t really find any of these leaps of faith from NT scholarship strong enough to move from an agnostic position of uncertainty, the MP, to a position of certainty which evemerists and believers are stuck having to provide…

[ Edited: 10 July 2011 05:43 PM by tat tvam asi]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2011 07:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 122 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-07-25

Hi. I’m new to the blog. I have tried to read through the comments, but have not read them all. I apologize. There is a little too much of “drowning the fish”: quotes of quotes of yet other quotes. May I suggest that you simply list the number(s) of the comment(s) you are responding to (in top right corner of each entry) to simplify later readings?

Unless Jesus’ birth certifcate is found tomorrow, or a document of reliable origin is discovered to give admissible evidence of his existence, there is no way to establish his reality once and for all. Even if the existence of a Jesus was established, the fundamental question remains: Is what the Bible says about him true?

The book “Misquoting Jesus” demonstrates the lack of original scriptural texts that could give any admissible evidence to this question as well. Before one can quote the Bible to prove the Bible (as mentioned in a comment), one needs to find corroboration of the contents: This has never been done. Therefore, the Bible is neither a historical, nor a scienctific reference for anything. Besides, there is not one corroborated, calendar date mentioned in all of the Bible. And, how can the writers of the Bible possibly now what Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane to his Father (when all others are asleep) or to the whore after all others have left?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2011 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 123 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2011-07-06

Yes, and also why does the gospel of Matthew refer to the disciple Matthew, as the one they called Matthew? It’s obvious that we’re dealing with writings well past anything first hand. The above example of questioning how the writer would know what was happening while every witness in the storyline was asleep or absent is another primary example. Thanks for pointing that out James. And I agree that even if we found a birth certificate or a court record from the early first century we’d still be worlds away from concluding on the beleiver position as valid. As it stands, I see this in terms of taking the position that we are dealing with mythology until proven otherwise. We need more credible evidence to make a move from uncertainty to certainty as concerns the historicity of the individual, and then even more credible evidence to try and move from a position of certainity on the historicityof Jesus to a position of certainity on the supernatural elements of the myth. So there’s a grand canyon between the mythicist position and the believer position…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2011 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 124 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-07-25

Glad to be able to bring some useful thoughts to the discussion.

Before anyone can quote (or even interpret) the Bible (or any scriptures), they have to show that it has any authority, validity or authenticity. Those who absurdly interpret and quote, ad nauseum, scriptures, cannot (no one ever has) present corroboration or authentication for the scriptures they quote. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is ridiculous and a circular argument of no interest: the Bible is true… because…  the Bible says so.


Can the Bible be considered a historical document? Certainly not. Besides, there is not one corroborated, authenticated, calender date of any kind in the Bible, whether Old or New Testament.


Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), demonstrates the lack of original texts and the fact that those we have remaining are ridden with mistakes and additions. Even Mark and Luke dispute the birth place of Jesus and do not specify when he was born.


The authenticity of the Bible and the authenticity of a Jesus, are two different issues. What is stunning is the lack of information surrounding this Jesus as compared to several other persons of his time. We have abundant corroborated documents and information concerning a slave by the name of Spartacus, concerning a Gaius Julius Caesar and many more, but no description and no records of a man presumed to be the “son of god”. We have considerably more information concerning a certain Buddha who was born 500 years before Christ; disappointing to say the least.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2012 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 125 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  35
Joined  2012-07-04
James Clovispoint - 02 August 2011 04:13 PM

Glad to be able to bring some useful thoughts to the discussion.

Before anyone can quote (or even interpret) the Bible (or any scriptures), they have to show that it has any authority, validity or authenticity. Those who absurdly interpret and quote, ad nauseum, scriptures, cannot (no one ever has) present corroboration or authentication for the scriptures they quote. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is ridiculous and a circular argument of no interest: the Bible is true… because…  the Bible says so.


Can the Bible be considered a historical document? Certainly not. Besides, there is not one corroborated, authenticated, calender date of any kind in the Bible, whether Old or New Testament.


Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), demonstrates the lack of original texts and the fact that those we have remaining are ridden with mistakes and additions. Even Mark and Luke dispute the birth place of Jesus and do not specify when he was born.


The authenticity of the Bible and the authenticity of a Jesus, are two different issues. What is stunning is the lack of information surrounding this Jesus as compared to several other persons of his time. We have abundant corroborated documents and information concerning a slave by the name of Spartacus, concerning a Gaius Julius Caesar and many more, but no description and no records of a man presumed to be the “son of god”. We have considerably more information concerning a certain Buddha who was born 500 years before Christ; disappointing to say the least.

EXCELLENT points!

Where do you think I stand on the issue? LOL

BTW, Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical right? Or at least a strong chance he was?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2012 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 126 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
JesusNEVERexisted - 04 July 2012 08:57 AM
James Clovispoint - 02 August 2011 04:13 PM

Glad to be able to bring some useful thoughts to the discussion.

Before anyone can quote (or even interpret) the Bible (or any scriptures), they have to show that it has any authority, validity or authenticity. Those who absurdly interpret and quote, ad nauseum, scriptures, cannot (no one ever has) present corroboration or authentication for the scriptures they quote. Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible is ridiculous and a circular argument of no interest: the Bible is true… because…  the Bible says so.


Can the Bible be considered a historical document? Certainly not. Besides, there is not one corroborated, authenticated, calender date of any kind in the Bible, whether Old or New Testament.


Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), demonstrates the lack of original texts and the fact that those we have remaining are ridden with mistakes and additions. Even Mark and Luke dispute the birth place of Jesus and do not specify when he was born.


The authenticity of the Bible and the authenticity of a Jesus, are two different issues. What is stunning is the lack of information surrounding this Jesus as compared to several other persons of his time. We have abundant corroborated documents and information concerning a slave by the name of Spartacus, concerning a Gaius Julius Caesar and many more, but no description and no records of a man presumed to be the “son of god”. We have considerably more information concerning a certain Buddha who was born 500 years before Christ; disappointing to say the least.

EXCELLENT points!

Where do you think I stand on the issue? LOL

BTW, Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical right? Or at least a strong chance he was?

 


myth
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

[ Edited: 09 July 2012 09:51 AM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 127 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  35
Joined  2012-07-04

LOL….so Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical or at least thinks it was very possible?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 128 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
JesusNEVERexisted - 09 July 2012 09:49 AM

LOL….so Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical or at least thinks it was very possible?

 

There is not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed.
The entire story is so ridiculous it boggles the mind that anyone can accept it as truth.
There is nothing to suggest at any of the world’s religions are based on anything but myth.

 

 

[ Edited: 09 July 2012 11:14 AM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 129 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  35
Joined  2012-07-04
toombaru - 09 July 2012 10:00 AM
JesusNEVERexisted - 09 July 2012 09:49 AM

LOL….so Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical or at least thinks it was very possible?

 

There is not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed.
The entire story is so ridiculous it boggles the mind that anyone can accept it as truth.
There is nothing to suggest at any of the world’s religions are based on anything but myth.

 

 


AMEN my friend!

What is the best link you know of that explains the Jesus myth?

What scholars you know of that say Jesus is a myth? I know of Price, Carrier, and Doherty.  Any others?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 04:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 130 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
JesusNEVERexisted - 14 July 2012 12:39 PM
toombaru - 09 July 2012 10:00 AM
JesusNEVERexisted - 09 July 2012 09:49 AM

LOL….so Sam Harris thinks Jesus was mythical or at least thinks it was very possible?

 

There is not a shred of evidence that Jesus ever existed.
The entire story is so ridiculous it boggles the mind that anyone can accept it as truth.
There is nothing to suggest at any of the world’s religions are based on anything but myth.

 

 


AMEN my friend!

What is the best link you know of that explains the Jesus myth?

 

What scholars you know of that say Jesus is a myth? I know of Price, Carrier, and Doherty.  Any others?

 

Just google: “Is Jesus a myth”
There are a lot of good books in which the authors speculate on the origin and function of religion.
The common culprit seems to be the fear-based conceptual mind whose evolved function is to survive, both in its the present experiential reality and in its imagined eternity.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 05:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 131 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

As an Ancient Historian it annoys me when the bible both Old and New Testaments are dismissed out of hand as rubbish. They are ancient texts and like virtually all such texts are a mixture of facts, myth and magic. If a historian rejected all the texts from say Egypt and Assyria because they mentioned gods and miracles we would be left with little but king lists and laundry lists. The bible is valid historical source material and should be treated as such. It is incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is true; but it is equally incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is false.

Given the amount of detail about Jesus that appears in the New Testament it is extremely likely that he did exist and was some sort of itinerant preacher. How much of that detail is true or accurate and how much is fabricated is a different question. To say he didn’t exist you would have to believe that sometime towards the end of the 1st century AD a group of people sat down to start a religion, thought up a name and created a back story. Given the poor quality of the writing I don’t think they would have had sufficient imagination. 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 132 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 28 July 2012 05:53 PM

As an Ancient Historian it annoys me when the bible both Old and New Testaments are dismissed out of hand as rubbish. They are ancient texts and like virtually all such texts are a mixture of facts, myth and magic. If a historian rejected all the texts from say Egypt and Assyria because they mentioned gods and miracles we would be left with little but king lists and laundry lists. The bible is valid historical source material and should be treated as such. It is incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is true; but it is equally incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is false.

Given the amount of detail about Jesus that appears in the New Testament it is extremely likely that he did exist and was some sort of itinerant preacher. How much of that detail is true or accurate and how much is fabricated is a different question. To say he didn’t exist you would have to believe that sometime towards the end of the 1st century AD a group of people sat down to start a religion, thought up a name and created a back story. Given the poor quality of the writing I don’t think they would have had sufficient imagination. 

A large amount of detail adds no credibility to a myth.
If there were a man walking around raising the dead, turning water into wine, casting out demons, healing the blind and walking on water, don’t you imagine that one of his contemporary historians would have mentioned his name.

[ Edited: 28 July 2012 10:33 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 July 2012 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 133 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
toombaru - 28 July 2012 09:55 PM
agerweb - 28 July 2012 05:53 PM

As an Ancient Historian it annoys me when the bible both Old and New Testaments are dismissed out of hand as rubbish. They are ancient texts and like virtually all such texts are a mixture of facts, myth and magic. If a historian rejected all the texts from say Egypt and Assyria because they mentioned gods and miracles we would be left with little but king lists and laundry lists. The bible is valid historical source material and should be treated as such. It is incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is true; but it is equally incorrect to say that just because it is in the bible it is false.

Given the amount of detail about Jesus that appears in the New Testament it is extremely likely that he did exist and was some sort of itinerant preacher. How much of that detail is true or accurate and how much is fabricated is a different question. To say he didn’t exist you would have to believe that sometime towards the end of the 1st century AD a group of people sat down to start a religion, thought up a name and created a back story. Given the poor quality of the writing I don’t think they would have had sufficient imagination. 

A large amount of detail adds no credibility to a myth.
If there were a man walking around raising the dead, turning water into wine, casting out demons, healing the blind and walking on water, don’t you imagine that one of his contemporary historians would have mentioned his name.

There are some historical consistencies in the bible .
That adds no cridibility to the claim that it is divinely inspired or in any way should influence human behavior.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 03:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 134 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

{A large amount of detail adds no credibility to a myth.
If there were a man walking around raising the dead, turning water into wine, casting out demons, healing the blind and walking on water, don’t you imagine that one of his contemporary historians would have mentioned his name.}
}

Well I am assuming that he wasn’t doing any of these things, we are not talking about the myth of Jesus but the reality. With any ancient text you have to strip away the mythical parts to find what can be plausibly considered to be true. Further, an itinerant preacher (amongst others) in a Roman province is unlikely to have attracted sufficient attention for contemporary historians to have commented on. 

For example the King David (or Dadu) of the OT has always been considered by many historians to be a historical figure (albeit a composite one), as it happens we were lucky enough to find corroboration in a seal from the ‘house of Dadu’.  We are unlikely ever to find such physical evidence for Jesus because he wasn’t important enough to appear in the archeological record. 

We shouldn’t judge the historicity of the bible by the bias of its current readership. That applies to both those who think its literally true for religious reasons and those that think its entirely false because the former think its true!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 08:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 135 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  802
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 29 July 2012 03:25 AM

{A large amount of detail adds no credibility to a myth.
If there were a man walking around raising the dead, turning water into wine, casting out demons, healing the blind and walking on water, don’t you imagine that one of his contemporary historians would have mentioned his name.}
}

Well I am assuming that he wasn’t doing any of these things, we are not talking about the myth of Jesus but the reality. With any ancient text you have to strip away the mythical parts to find what can be plausibly considered to be true. Further, an itinerant preacher (amongst others) in a Roman province is unlikely to have attracted sufficient attention for contemporary historians to have commented on. 

For example the King David (or Dadu) of the OT has always been considered by many historians to be a historical figure (albeit a composite one), as it happens we were lucky enough to find corroboration in a seal from the ‘house of Dadu’.  We are unlikely ever to find such physical evidence for Jesus because he wasn’t important enough to appear in the archeological record. 

We shouldn’t judge the historicity of the bible by the bias of its current readership. That applies to both those who think its literally true for religious reasons and those that think its entirely false because the former think its true!

Jesus without his miracles is meaningless and his actual existence becomes irrelevant.
The most backs logic applied to the bible will prove it meaningless.
It’s inconsistencies alone should convince the most ardent believer.
People believe because they want to believe.

 

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 12
9
 
‹‹ Passion of the atheist      Chew-toy alert ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed