The first in a series that explore the highly avoided subject of: Was Jesus a Myth?

Views: 340

Comment by Darryal K on April 7, 2011 at 6:14pm
Most likely
Comment by Morgan Matthew on April 7, 2011 at 8:01pm
Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on April 7, 2011 at 8:24pm

@Gaytor - thanks man - that has exactly the info I am looking for to counter an argument of the validity of “Dates” to prove the authenticity of prophecy with the Jehovah Witnesses. There is a lot to consider there.

Comment by Gaytor on April 8, 2011 at 12:51am
I liked it too Reg. I hope that it helps. Maybe when you have it all laid out you can put it into a blog so we can see how it helped you?
Comment by Walter Maki on April 8, 2011 at 1:27am
I like the way it was laid out and easy to follow. I might have to watch this a few more times to get it locked into my thinking process.
Comment by Kenneth Montville D.D. on April 8, 2011 at 11:20am

Interesting, but not necessarily factual. I am going to play Devil's Advocate here a bit. 1 Thessalonians was Paul's first writing, not Galatians although both date to a very early time. Second, the premise is that x because of y therefore z. I.e. Non-Christians wrote about Christianity because of Paul therefore Jesus is not needed. This is a fallacious claim as what about Paul's source? Paul's writings are the earliest surviving documents about Christianity, but the operative word here is surviving. Point being that notoriety of a group needs to be achieved before historians will bother writing about them.


There is no doubt among many actual scholars that the gospels are vastly exaggerated, Greco-Roman biographies often are. Simply look at Plutarch's Life of Alexander if you want an example. No historian takes Plutarch to be historically accurate but there is little doubt that Alexander the Great did some of those things. The point of a Greco-Roman biography is not to tell us historical facts but to tell us biographical details that explain the nature of a person. This has to do with the Greco-Roman view of what was to become psychology, in the first few centuries. They believed that people had an innate nature about them, this nature was unchanging and could be viewed in the actions of a person from birth until death, as such biographies presented stories, sometimes exaggerated and sometimes manufactured whole cloth, to explain that nature. This is the major flaw that most Christians suffer from and I witness many skeptics fall into with them. Reading Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as a history text is like reading Alice in Wonderland as a geology text.

Comment by Bill Lewis on April 8, 2011 at 11:28am
Excellent, the lay out made it easy to see and understand, will keep this one.
Comment by Gaytor on April 8, 2011 at 11:29am
Valid ponts kenneth. Certainly there was a Q,M and L source and what caused those to be and exactly when they came to be are good questions. Additionally, some of the texts that portray Jesus in a way different than you would expect are good arguments for the historical validity. Ie john baptising Jesus. Why would he need John to baptise himself to himself? I'm personally non-commital on the historical Jesus. Waiting for Carriers book. Is it out yet?
Comment by Kenneth Montville D.D. on April 8, 2011 at 11:55am

Richard Carrier? I don't think so, if it is I haven't heard anything about it.


I think one can make the argument that Jesus never existed, I have even made the argument myself before, but a hard and fast conclusion will never be reached in my opinion.

Comment by Brian Kinsella on April 16, 2011 at 2:48am

David Fitzgerald gave a great talk on this at Skepticon 3 last year.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service