Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on September 22, 2010 at 2:16pm

Having read every post and still not seen an adequate summary of the mythicist case (RR's came the closest, but wasn't organized), I'll present my own.

This theory is built for the most part on mainsteam NT critical scholarship. It doesn't rely on conspiracy theories, late datings for NT books, or forgeries more widespread than is already generally accepted by NT scholars. Virtually every piece of evidence, taken individually, is accepted by some critical scholars who believe in an historical Jesus. What's novel is the way the pieces are assembled to arrive at the conclusion.

Here are the pillars of the theory. Keep in mind that the is not one single theory but a range of mythicist theories, but they all seem to rely on the same core observations:

1. There is no historical Jesus in evidence in the earliest existing Xian writings, which include the authentic letters of Paul, Hebrews, and James. Moreover, the way that these early Xians describe the beginning of their cult leaves no role for an historical Christ: the religion is explicitly said to be based on revelations and interpretations of the OT (and apocrypha such as Enoch). Among the evidence in this category are that Hebrews even presents an argument for why Jesus was never on earth, whereas Paul quotes an early Xian hymn that says that the name Jesus was given to him after his resurrection. I would identify this aspect of the theory as the strongest point in its favor and the hardest part for the historical Jesus theory to explain. This is what you should be focusing on more.

2. The Gospels are largely if not entirely works of fiction, written during the late 1st c. and early 2nd c. (some people, such as Robert Price, date them later, but this is entirely unnecessary for the theory). As most of you know, the consensus in NT scholarship is that Mark was written first, Matthew and Luke copied him and also used a second source, Q. John sources are much more widely debated, but there is good evidence that he was at least familiar with the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and in any case that he wrote later than Mark is not much in dispute among critical scholars. Much of the Gospel of Mark has been demonstrated to have parallels in the OT, other Jewish literature, and contemporary Greek novels. Moreover, the passion narrative appears to constructed almost entirely out of "prophecies" (really, verses taken out of context) from the OT. Some overlap between Q and Mark has also been found, as well as some between Mark and Paul that could indicate borrowing in either direction (if from Mark to "Paul" then this would imply that it was only pseudo-Pauline, such as Ephesians or the Pastorals).

The weakest aspect of the mythicist theory is in its treatment of Q, an assumed document with very controversial analysis (by historicists) anyway. First of all, Q has been deduced to have a similar structure to the Gospel of Thomas, but in that document most of the verses just begin with something like "Jesus said:" followed by a quote. Many of these quotes have parallels in Greek cynicism and Jewish Rabbinical traditions, so it is unlikely that Jesus said them, and if he did, then he was just repeating what someone else had said (and who would remember that?). The most likely explanation for how these sayings ended up being attributed to him in Q and Thomas is that someone just prepended his name to a previously known quote.

3. The ideas that one finds in Xianity, of a Son of God, Messiah, revealer, are found in the Jewish apocalyptic literature of the period, such as found an Qumran, and concerning such similar figures as Seth, Melchizedek, Enoch, Abel, Enosh, and Noah. The "Son of Man" from Daniel was also an important source. In fact, a couple of the books in the NT - Hebrews and James - as well as such early Xian works as the Ascension of Isaiah appear likely to have originally not involved Jesus, but rather his name was added later. Then there's also the extensive influence of Hellenistic mystery religions on the development of early Xianity, such as the Eucharist, which is modeled on similar ritual meals of the pagans, and also the idea of a dying and rising God, as one finds in the myths of Osiris and Attis. That these pagan parallels were prior to Xianity was not even disputed by the church fathers, who claimed that Satan had created these religions first so that people would not believe when the real thing came along.

4. The next pillar is the wide diversity of Xian beliefs, right from the founding of the religion. As we can see from Paul's letters, early Xianity was a free-for-all,with no way to settle disputes about doctrine, which varied widely. Even well into the 2nd c., there were Xians whose beliefs did not seem to involve an earthly Christ. Rather, arguments for Xianity tended to rely upon Platonism and Naturalism until the Gospels had circulated widely by the end of the 2nd c., at which point the "facts" about Jesus contained therein suddenly became the basis for Xian arguments in favor of the religion.

5. Finally, we have that there exist no reliable non-Xian references to Jesus from the 1st c. The first one is by Tacticus, and that is around 80 years after the time of Jesus' purported death, has itself been questioned, with good reason, as authentic (although personally I think it's probably legit), and most likely derives its meager information from Xian sources. Aside from Tacticus, we have a compromised mention in Josephus (compromised because almost all critical scholars think at least part of the relevant section has been interpolated, and no uninterpolated copy exists, nor is there any reference to this all-important section for hundreds of years), a reference to "Chestus" (which was a Roman name meaning "good") in Suetonius (who in any event was talking about someone who was in Rome in the 50s, so not Jesus), a mention of Christ in Pliny the Younger (who only says that he is the object of Xians' worship), and a satirical work on Xians written around 150 AD by Lucian. Then there's Celsus, at the end of the 2nd c., whose attack on Xianity we can reconstruct from Origen; but Celsus also relied on the Gospels for his info about Jesus, except for a couple of slanders against Jesus that are unlikely to be true (such as, his father was a Roman named Pantera). That's it before the 3rd c. As someone once said, this isn't evidence of Christ, it is evidence of Christians.

This lack of evidence in non-Xian authors doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist (although it would rule against him being as prominent as depicted in the Gospels). But it does mean that any discussion of whether he existed or not must center on early Xian writings, which is where the mythicist case is made.

Anyway, that's mythicism in a (very large) nutshell.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on September 26, 2010 at 2:41pm

I believe that Jesus definitely existed, even as an Atheist. I believe that most historians are correct in not disputing his existence because there is absolutely nothing 'special' about his life if we're speaking from a non-miracle, non-son-of-God point of view. If we're speaking strictly historically, he wasn't the only one like himself.

If we take the unbelievable parts of Jesus' life and simply make them realistic, his life is much more believable:

Jesus was NOT born of a 'virgin'. Nowhere in the Bible does it state this. Oh, yes, in the translated version it does, and you could point that out to me in an instant. The problem is that it's a mistranslation. The original word, alma, does not mean 'virgin'. That is a very rough, inaccurate translation, which should read "young woman". He was born of a very young mother, not a virgin (keep in mind, to fulfill the messianic prophecy, Jesus would have had to have been Joseph's blood son, or his Messiah-ship is automatically null and void, because if he was not born of Joseph, then he is not from the line of David by default, so to say his birth was immaculate is to wipe him of his Davidic line completely). The real immaculate conception was supposed to have been Mary's birth, NOT Jesus', and regardless of the historical truth of that, it's obvious he was born of human parents.

His miracles? I need say no more than imagine a circle of teenagers passing a secret along one to the next, and by the time the circle reaches and end and starts again, the 'secret' has completely morphed into something astronomically difficult to imagine. Word of mouth says a lot.

Everyone knows he wasn't born on Christmas, either; likely he was born toward the end of summer or beginning of fall, as the Bible makes absolutely no mention of his birth-date in that regard and all of our knowledge is derived from who ruled in the contemporary world during his life (there's a disagreement between documents whether it was Herod or Augustus, whose reigns beginning and ends were a few years apart). His birthday was adopted to Christmas to sort of 'overtake' Pagan holidays, the same as Easter (the eggs and bunny having nothing at all in this world to do with Christianity; they were offerings to the sun goddess Easter up north to bring back the sun every six months). So we can say he was probably born in late summer. For a breakdown of how you would find the year of his birthdate, visit: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

So here's how I am currently looking at him as a recap and summarization: A man born of human parents, of middle age, who was baptized by John the Baptizer and became a rabbi afterward, whose accomplishments were spread by word of mouth and exaggerated over hundreds and then thousands of years.

Did he believe he was a Messiah? I'm sure he did! However, the Messianic prophecies in question were not all fulfilled and some were nudged. He was not born in Bethlehem, he was born in Nazareth (the fact is, the census in question that involved his family traveling would not have required him to travel at all; they would not ask people to 'return to the land of their fathers' for the census. They would have taken it right in the city where people were living: what good is it to know how many people AREN'T living where you're taking the census? It's obviously more useful to conduct each census in each respective city and simply make attendence mandatory. And that's how such a census would have been conducted in his day; the Bethlehem part was nudged in to make him fit yet another prophecy he actually didn't, because it was vital to the validity of their claims). Being that he was the child of Joseph and Mary, and was from the line of David, and also a priest (a rabbi; it's mentioned several times in the Bible), we must remember that he adhered in general to the Jewish religion and was probably trying to fulfill the messianic prophecy of 'A priest and king come and make way for the coming of God' (very rough, I don't remember the precise passage, but the idea is that everyone would need to be purified before God ended the world). His dad was also probably not a carpenter in the sense of working with wood, but probably worked with stone in Sepphoris like many Jews where Jesus lived (the terms can easily be mistranslated), allowing Jesus plenty of time to get a glimpse of Roman life as it differed from his Jewish life, which probably contributed as a child to his more tolerant views of people and beliefs that contradicted what was said in the Torah.

It's likely Jesus never said he was the son of God, as that was complete blasphemy in Judaism, who did not believe the Messiah would do anything supernatural or special, and would be born of human parents, so such passages were probably added for effect. It's also likely he intended to marry Mary Magdalene, was it was required in Jewish custom for all rabbis (and Jews alike) to marry and have children (lest they disobey gods first command: to go forth and multiply).

So where are we now? A middle aged man who learned his father's trade, undoubtedly having spent time in Sepphoris with him, who probably studied extensively and believed he fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of cleansing everyone before the coming of God, so he became a rabbi (probably during his 'missing years') and began to baptize people and teach them, ending up with a group of dedicated disciples behind him who blew him up to be more than he was, and toward the end of his life probably intended on or already was married before the Romans snatched him up and made an example of him. I don't believe he resurrected.

When I look at it from this realistic point of view (mind, the logical explanations were quite *brief*, but you can look up such break-downs of Jesus' probably more realistic life online more extensively; I read mine in a few books), I think it's very likely he existed as a real person, but was simply subject to having his accomplishments so glorified and blown out of proportion that he morphed into what he is seen as today, and that's no fault of his own. As I said before, he would not be the first to wander around claiming he fulfilled those prophecies, and in that respect was not special at all. The most 'special' thing about the man I can respect is that his views differed from traditional views in many areas and was probably seen as more radical and interesting, consequently.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on October 2, 2010 at 11:06pm

The problem with this picture of Jesus it that none of it was visible in any of the Xian documents from the first few decades of the movement (and not in any 1st-c. document outside of any of the Gospels). Nowhere does anyone discuss this itinerant preacher who went around talking about loving one another and the coming kingdom of God. Instead we just see Jesus Christ, the pre-existent sustainer of the universe, who will come riding on the clouds at the end of times, and communicates with the apostles via revelations and through scripture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on October 6, 2010 at 1:27pm

doone, I see that you are still interested in this topic. I would be happy to discuss and debate it further, but it would help if you would either ask questions about or raise objections to anything I've written.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Murray on October 6, 2010 at 7:32pm

None of this matters. Jesus is a myth, there was no man upon which the story is based. What you are dealing with are atheist apologists who just won't let go of the last threads of the mental illness called religion.

They argue:

1 - historian agree that Jesus was real. This is a baseless argument for the very fact that any historian who argues that Jesus is a myth still runs the risk of career suicide and until recently it was also a very real death sentence for them as the mythology was state supported and blasphemy was a capital crime. Historians cannot come out and say that Jesus is a myth and expect to keep tenure in the academic community and won't be taken seriously because most of their brethren that hold power are still very much infected by the religion virus.

2 - It would require a conspiracy to make up such a personage to center a religion around. This is also a bogus argument made even more amusing by the fact that most who use this also argue that the romans went out of their way to erase him from history. They ignore that they make the claim of requiring a great conspiracy to create such a personage and replace it with an even more ridiculous conspiracy considering how the romans loved to punish and advertise that punishment so people were afraid to go against them or repeat the supposed transgression that resulted in the death of the offender.

Xtianity is no different than any other religion in that it is nothing more than myth. There are sufficient myths that preceded xtianity with the exact same story line and basic character for any rational human being to be able to piece together the truth that the romans used something familiar when they created their new state religion in order to bring people into the fold. It has been a common tactic throughout history when creating new methods of control (religions) in order to make it easier for people to convert. There is an absolute void of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and enough proof of falsified documents created by the religious institutions out of desperation to prove that Jesus never lived.

Personally, it's not worth arguing with these apologists because they are still very much blinded by the faith that they claim to have cast off. The reality is that until we stop giving even the slightest bit of credence to these myths we will not be able to rid society of them. This is a conversation that atheists should not even bother giving play in the first place as it only gives the religious footing for their myth when there are still atheists gullible enough to give consideration of the possible existence of their imaginary god-man in any form. I don't know what sickens me more, religious apologists who ignore the very hatred that their books are based upon and pick and choose what they like or atheist apologists who can't cast off the last remnants of the religious ignorance that they claim no longer has a hold on their lives.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Murray on October 6, 2010 at 8:18pm

No, the only people who need to look inside themselves are those who are still so desperately grasping at these mythical straws and lies that have been fed to them for their entire lives. Mythology is just that - myth. It's just BS that has been carefully nurtured by the church and states that relied upon it to keep the sheeple under their control. It's just a lie that has been institutionalized and questioning it's reality has been punishable by many means and remains so today.

The reality is there is absolutely no valid historical evidence for the existence of a so-called man named jesus upon which this mythology is based. None!. None of the so-called evidence meets the requirements of historicity. If one were to be honest they would admit that there is an equal amount of "evidence" for the existence of hercules as there is for jesus. Both are nothing more than mythical creations.

Everyone who is going under the supposition that there had to be this historical figure upon which the xtian movement was based are ignoring the reality of what history shows us. There was no one person who started the renaissance, the reformation, the french revolution, started democracy or any of the other movements, social, political and for the most part religious, that changed the direction of humanity and their beliefs. There is absolutely no need for anyone to fight so hard to create a persona that never existed in order to justify the beginning of the xtian religious movement. It's just a story, a work of fiction with a fictional character at it's heart, nothing more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on October 8, 2010 at 6:43am

As you can tell from my posts, I learn toward the idea that there was no historical Jesus. But I wouldn't say that there is "no" evidence for his existence. For example, Tacticus, in the 2nd decade of the 2nd century, mentions that the founder of the Christian religion, after whom the religion was named, was given the death penalty by Pilate. Now, it's probable that Tacticus was just passing on information that derived, directly or indirectly, from Xians, and it's even possible that this passage in the Annals was interpolated (only a single copy of the book survives from Antiquity), so I wouldn't say this is strong evidence for the historical Jesus, but it is evidence, and certainly nothing comparable exists for Hercules.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on October 6, 2010 at 9:13pm

Actually it is extremely insulting. Or it would be if Josh actually knew what an apologist is.

An atheist apologist would be a person who defends atheism through the systematic use of reason. If that is what Josh wants to call us then I'm honored to accept this title. Thanks mate.

I should also point out something about the point you were trying to make about the conspiracy defence. The Romans did not invent christianity - the early christian cults were well established before the Roman Empire adopted it and subsumed them. There is also no conspiracy required to imagine why the Romans have no record of Jesus - they didn't care. He would have been a Jew of absolutely no standing and thus undeserving of note.

What is really insulting is your claim that we are somehow lesser atheists than Josh by the mere fact that we might discuss this. Personally I could not care less about whether there was an historical Jesus or not. I find the study of such things to be an interesting intellectual exercise. I have studied Tolkein's development of the elven language as an interesting intellectual exercise - that does not mean that I am clinging to some fanciful hope that elves and magical rings are real.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Josh Murray on October 9, 2010 at 9:38am

I am quite aware of what an apologist is. That does not detract from the fact that there are still atheists who are "apologists" for their former religions making up stories to justify their continued belief in someone who never existed. If you go through this entire thread, there are far too many making up a lot of contrived "histories" to explain who this person or persons may have been. It's as though they really think that the writers of the mythology had no access to the dozens of similar myths that come from previous culture or belief systems. You even have people who are using Tacitus as a defense of the potential existence of jesus as a person when the church has admitted for years that one of their own added the passage around the 14th century and it's a forgery.

As atheists, it is a waste of time to discuss the potential existence of jesus. Every single time we do this we are giving credence to the myth that xtians want to perpetuate - that such a man existed. It's time that we move on as humans and place these myths in the fiction section where they belong, rather than keeping a separate religion section, as though doing so makes these myths any more special than any other work of fiction.

There is nothing wrong with studying fiction, but there is something wrong with taking a fictional manuscript and trying to make it something it is not, that being reality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on October 9, 2010 at 10:11am

Thank you Josh. A well considered post.

I would think, though, that christians don't need us to validate their mythology. Anyone who is weak-minded enough to convert to christianity - based solely on whether or not there is a kernel of historical truth regarding Jesus - is not likely to have their conversion hastened by this discussion.

While the debate may be trivial, I would never say that honest discussion is a waste of time.

I do not make these points in order to simply disagree with you - I just wanted to acknowledge that I agree with some of what your saying and clarify my position regarding the rest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on October 8, 2010 at 7:02pm

Aside from the "No True Scotsman" fallacy you are making, I'm curious about something. You use the term "believer's bible" a lot. Are you referring to the christian Bible specifically?

How do you feel abut the Qur'an?

How do you feel about the Tanakh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skycomet the Fallen Angel on October 8, 2010 at 11:16pm

O_O Ummm... I've known Doone for a while and I believe he's a mod for this site. So, he's definitely not a fake atheist. I would also like to note that I intended this to be an intellectual discussion. Not a flame war - type thing.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page