Jesus Myth Theory

[d.thomas]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

[stubbornone]

Some have suggested that Christianity relied on syncretism from the very beginning and combined various myths to build the gospel accounts.

I have a theory that I personally believe makes a whole lot of sense. It explains everything without any need for any supernatural explanations.

Observation #1:

To begin with the Jews were obviously under Roman occupation and they were in dire need of a messiah, which they apparently believed might come along at any moment. There were obviously a lot of rumors about the coming of a messiah.

So that was a ripe superstition just waiting to hatch.

That is not evidence, its a hypothesis. And if Jesus is coming to fulfill of prophesy ... ummm ... guess what that means? Yep, the KNEW he was coming. There were other false messiahs, both before and after, so what makes Jesus so special?

Observation #2:

The Jews themselves had dramatically different points of view concerning their own religious beliefs. There were pantheistic or mystical-minded Jews at that time. In fact, even the modern day Jews will argue that the Jews themselves did not view their God in a strict anthropomorphic way like a "Zeus-like male figurehead". Many of them thought of God in a far more mystical way, even though they may have referred to him as the "Father". It was still intended to be a mystical idea of a spiritual God.

This would be an argument form the extreme, akin to claiming that the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christian mainstream thought. It would be better to deal with the Jews who, for example, administered the Temple and who Jesus regularly interacted with ... Jews that were active in the body politic as it were.

There was even a Jewish sect known as the Essene Jews who held a very mystical view of God that was very pantheistic in nature. Jesus may well have adopted those philosophies to some degree, or have at least been influenced by them. And their philosophy was very passive like the teachings of Jesus. (i.e. turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc.)

None of which points to how Jesus would emerge as the Son of God ... from a pantheistic minority.

This is great trivia, but it does not add to your theory of Jesus's lack of divinity does it?

Observation #3:

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at this time in history when Jesus would have lived. The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism would have been very attractive to an Essene Jew. In fact, it may have even been the source of the Essene Jewish sect.

#1 - Buddhism was geographically isolated, and almost impossible for Jesus to have run into.

#2 - 'May have been attractive too the Essene Jew' has no bearing on whether such interaction took place, and even less on whether it influenced Jesus. It is, like #1, entirely speculative.

#3 - Buddhism and Christianity certainly have overlapping points, but they have vast differences as well, particularly in areas like HOW one earns forgiveness. In some key matters the faiths clearly disagree and to claim that one was sources from a geographically distant cousin is at best ... speculative.

Again, no Christian (at least those more honorable and inclusive ones) claims that we have a lock on wisdom ... just that we have the most wisdom )

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was a philosophy of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". It was not concerned with religion. It didn't care how you thought of "god". That was unimportant to Mahayana Buddhism.

Which stands quite differently than supplication to God's will and seeking wisdom to do what is right in context. It also is quite different than the higher law.

Mahayana Buddhism also supported the ideal of becoming a Bodhisattva. This is a person who dedicates their life to teaching others the path to spiritual enlightenment which is the path of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action"

We do not preach spiritual enlightenment, we preach God.

It was a tradition in Mahayana Buddhism that to be taken in as a student under a monk you must promise to become a Bodhisattva and take on your own disciples and ask them to go out and teach the word too.

So this also fits in with the idea of Jesus taking on disciples and then asking them to carry on his teachings.

That is not only a stretch, it inaccurate. Jesus did take on disciples, but he called them Apostles. A term bereft in Buddhism.

Observation #4:

The Gospels themselves portray Jesus as someone who taught against the immoral teachings of the Old Testament. Not directly, but through his own teachings which were the direct opposite.

Actually he claims to come to fulfill the law. He gives us the higher law, for which there is no previous Pagan stance.

The Old Testament had God commanding people to judge each other and stone sinners to death.

Luke also commands us to judge one another, indeed rebuke.

Jesus taught not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

Jesus taught us to be careful in our judgements and to not judge hypocritically, not to abandon judgement. To be wary of judging others because we are judged by the same STANDARDS, is true.

If I lie am I not guilty? Would someone not point that out? Would the problem be judgement or lying?

And Jesus DOES, for example, judge the adulterous woman. You understandig of Christianity is off.

So the teachings attributed to Jesus are far more in line with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism (or even the Essene Jews), than in harmony with the teachings of the Old Testament.

Jesus could hardly renounce the Old Testament outright. So he had to come up with clever ways of replacing the immoral teachings of the Old Testament with the higher moral values of the "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action" of the Mahayana Philosophy.

And yet, he gives us atonement instead.

So he tried his best to do this without flatly refuting the original religion. Because remember Mahayana Buddhism isn't about religion, it's about "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". How you think of God is unimportant.

And he doesn't. The sins of the OT remain sins. The punishment need not always be death.

Observation #5:

Being of a pantheistic mindset Jesus would teach that he and the father are one. That is the pantheistic view. Tat T'vam Asi, which basically means "You are That", or "You Are That You Are". Or from a personal point of view, "I AM that I AM'. It's basically a statement that says that you are that which you seek. You are the source of your being. You are "God" if you like

.

This is again a serious stretch. The Messiah is a JEWISH concept, now why would Jesus borrow and completely change the Buddhist concept instead?

Even the gospels have Jesus confirming this when he is accused of blaspheme for saying that he and the Father are one. In his own defense he points to the Old Testament a says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"?

Why would he do that if he was proclaiming to be some sort of special demigod?

He's basically confirming that he's coming from a pantheistic mindset.

He is confirming that he is the son of God. Which is the simplest, and most accurate answer.

"Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but believe that interpretations of the term differ."

Jesus miost definitely believes that God is a personal God, one he calls Father. Your analysis is simply wrong brother - and it rests upon the deliberate exclusion of known, very well known, Christian teaching.

Observation #6:

Observation #7:

Jesus was highly misunderstood. Even the gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that his very own disciples were not understanding his teachings.

How does this make him not devine? He is bringing the concept of higher law, of the application of principle based morality to a culture that knew nothing previous save rules based morality. That some did not get it? Well .. yeah.

After all, I explain this concept now and people in this day and age don't understand it.

I am not sure how this makes Jesus less divine? My being dumb, for example, has no bearing on whether or not Lance Armstrong was doped going up the mountain on a bike. Jesus's being divine? Human failings in others simple do not matter.

Observation #8:

According to the Gospels Jesus was constantly having run-ins with the Jewish Pharisees who were the main religious authoritarians of his day. He also reportedly sat around and publicly proclaimed them to be hypocrites.

Clearly he had created a very adverse relationship with these religious authoritarians.

Once again, Jesus ideas undermine the religious powers that be. That some resisted has no element on whether or not Jesus was divine.

Observation #9:

Apparently this adverse relationship with the Jewish Pharisees came to a head and Jesus was brutally crucified and silenced.

That would be our doctrine, as was the necessity of which Jesus was sacrificed, and indeed predicted by Jesus.

Hence the resurrection.

Observation #10:

Historical records show that there were many disagreeing rumors about who this man was and what he might have stood for. One of those rumors was that he was somehow the promised "Messiah".

That particular rumor obviously began to gain momentum. Rumors that Jesus was born of a virgin, and was predicted by prophecy to have done various things began to emerge. Finally some men sat down with the Old Testament in one hand and a pen in the other and began to write rumors about Jesus that supported these ideas that he was this messiah.

Thus the New Testament was born

.

Hmmm, and The Hobbit was also written without creating an entirely new religion ...

The narrative of Jesus most definitely does not point to his lack of divinity.

Observation #11:

Even after these rumors continued to grow they still were never accepted by the Jews themselves, but eventually Constantine of Rome realized that he could use this religion to his advantage to control the superstitious masses so he declared it the official religion of Rome.

And Christian was born and eventually blossomed to become Roman Catholicism, and finally into the myriad of rebellious protesting Protestantisms that we see around us today.

And obviously the Arabs took there version of these original myths in a totally different direction in Islam.

They most certainly WERE accepted by a great number of Jews.

Islam is incredibly similar to Christianity. So how does the existence of Islam mean that Jesus was not divine or that Christians stole their theology, though it is totally different, from Buddhists in the Himalayan mountains?

No offense DI, I realize its an honest attempt, but it is all without evidence, and some parts like pantheism, rest only upon the deliberate exclusion of portions of the Christian record.

I have no doubt that Islam flows from Christianity and Juddasism, but there is also that guy Mohammed and no one claims his ideas where they differ from Christian teachings are the result of ripped off Pagan virtues.

In short, there is no way to confirm or deny the divinity of Jesus. We either assume that honest men are lying or telling the truth.

[Divine Insight]

That is not evidence, its a hypothesis.

That is exactly right stubbornone.

I congratulate you on finally comprehending something I've posted.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that I have evidence for anything. I have a hypothesis that is based on known historical truths. But these truths are not evidence for the truth of my hypothesis. However, they are evidence for the plausibility of my hypothesis, and that's sufficient to hold it out as a plausible hypothesis.

And that is all I claim stubbornone.

I claim to have a plausible hypothesis. Period amen.

That's all I need. As long as it's plausible without any need for a belief in anything supernatural, then I have a plausible hypothesis to explain the Jesus myths that don't require supernatural superstitions.

Understand this and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

And if Jesus is coming to fulfill of prophesy ... ummm ... guess what that means? Yep, the KNEW he was coming. There were other false messiahs, both before and after, so what makes Jesus so special?

The only thing that makes "Jesus" so special is that rumors grew from his life's events. This is the only thing that would make "Jesus" special.

I might also add, that my hypothesis is precisely that. A hypothesis.

I'm hypothesizing that these rumors were sparked by the life and times of a single person. But in truth, it's quite possible that the actual New Testament rumors are a collection of ideas from the lives of several different people who may have lived doing those times and there isn't even one single person who can be pointed to who actually even had a life that actually resembles the "Jesus" rumored to have lived by the New Testament gossips.

I am personally willing to accept that the rumors may potentially be attributed to having been sparked by a specific person potentially named "Jesus" or something along those lines. But that is speculation too.

The whole hypothesis is speculation. This is what hypotheses. They are speculation hopefully built from plausible events, which I claim my hypothesis qualifies as.

Observation #2:

The Jews themselves had dramatically different points of view concerning their own religious beliefs. There were pantheistic or mystical-minded Jews at that time. In fact, even the modern day Jews will argue that the Jews themselves did not view their God in a strict anthropomorphic way like a "Zeus-like male figurehead". Many of them thought of God in a far more mystical way, even though they may have referred to him as the "Father". It was still intended to be a mystical idea of a spiritual God.

This would be an argument form the extreme, akin to claiming that the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christian mainstream thought. It would be better to deal with the Jews who, for example, administered the Temple and who Jesus regularly interacted with ... Jews that were active in the body politic as it were.

I hold that your objection here is irrelevant. Yes, I agree that this Jesus would have been "out of the norm". In fact, the New Testament Gospels themselves proclaim that Jesus argued with the mainstream Jewish Pharisees, and he even sat around in his sermons proclaiming the Pharisees to be hypocrites.

Therefore, you're claim that Jesus would have needed to fit in with mainstream Judaism is totally ungrounded even by the Gospel rumors themselves.

He clearly did not agree with the mainstream Pharisees at all and is depicted throughout the entire Gospels to be at odds and in disagreement with the traditional Jewish Pharisees.

So my hypothesis wins on this point.

Jesus was necessarily "out of the ordinary" with respect to mainstream Jewish authorities.

The Gospels themselves clearly verify that this has to be the case.

So my hypothesis satisfies this criteria.

There was even a Jewish sect known as the Essene Jews who held a very mystical view of God that was very pantheistic in nature. Jesus may well have adopted those philosophies to some degree, or have at least been influenced by them. And their philosophy was very passive like the teachings of Jesus. (i.e. turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc.)

None of which points to how Jesus would emerge as the Son of God ... from a pantheistic minority.

This is great trivia, but it does not add to your theory of Jesus's lack of divinity does it?

Where are you coming up with a "pantheistic minority"?

There is nothing in my hypothesis that suggests that the disciples that Jesus took on were of the same philosophy as Jesus. On the contrary, I personally don't believe they were. After all, what would be the point in taking on disciples who already agree with your philosophy? That would be like an evangelist preaching to the choir.

No, that's not my hypothesis, that's your incorrect imagination.

Jesus was a loner. He took on brand new disciples and tried to teach them the better moral values of his philosophy. He wasn't concerned with attempting to teach them to become pantheists. His focus was on "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". As was done in the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism.

Observation #3:

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at this time in history when Jesus would have lived. The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism would have been very attractive to an Essene Jew. In fact, it may have even been the source of the Essene Jewish sect.

#1 - Buddhism was geographically isolated, and almost impossible for Jesus to have run into.

I disagree with your claim on this point. Buddhism itself had been around for over 500 years by this point in history. The Jews of Jesus day no doubt had full knowledge of Buddhism. They were not an isolated culture. Mahayana Buddhism itself was prominent in Pakistan, not just India back in those days. Jesus would have certainly been in a position to have had a fully understanding of the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism.

In fact according to the Gospel rumors Jesus was totally silent from the time he was about 12 until he reappeared at about the age of 30. That's 17 years of silence. More than enough time for Jesus to have traveled directly to India and become a Buddhist monk right in a monastery if he wanted to.

I'm not suggesting that he did that. He could have learned about this philosophy right in his homeland.

But your claim that he would have been isolated from this philosophy is totally unwarranted.

My hypothesis only requires plausibility because that all it claims to suggest.

And it's far more than merely plausible that Jesus could have learned about the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. On the contrary, I hold that it would be absurd to think that the educated Jews of that time weren't all at least aware that these Buddhism existed.

#2 - 'May have been attractive too the Essene Jew' has no bearing on whether such interaction took place, and even less on whether it influenced Jesus. It is, like #1, entirely speculative.

Entirely speculative is all it needs to be stubbornone.

I'm offering a plausible hypothesis that explains away any need for any supernatural explanations.

All it needs to be is plausible and it can't be dismissed as being implausible.

And that's all I require.

After all, I'm offering a plausible hypothesis that doesn't requires outrageous supernatural claims.

So as far as I'm concerned, a plausible hypothesis that explains the Jesus myth without any need for supernatural claims wins out over theories that make outrageous supernatural claims.

I'm putting this out here for intelligent people to consider stubbornone.

I'm not proclaiming that it has to be the absolute truth. I'm merely claiming that it's a reasonable explanation that is indeed quite plausible without any need for supernatural baloney.

#3 - Buddhism and Christianity certainly have overlapping points, but they have vast differences as well, particularly in areas like HOW one earns forgiveness. In some key matters the faiths clearly disagree and to claim that one was sources from a geographically distant cousin is at best ... speculative.

Again, no Christian (at least those more honorable and inclusive ones) claims that we have a lock on wisdom ... just that we have the most wisdom )

You are way off on this one. Any Jew will passionately tell you so.

Christianity didn't even exist in the days of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews did not believe that you could earn forgiveness by anything short of your own personal repentance, and redemption via your own actions. No one could pay for your salvation for you on your behalf.

In fact, this is a major point that the Jews argued against the New Testament rumors from the get go, and they still hold this position today.

You're attempting to compare modern day Christianity with modern day Buddhism.

Jesus was not a Christian. Christianity did not yet exist when Jesus lived. Christianity was born out of the rumors about Jesus.

Mahayana Buddhism would have been totally compatible with the Judaism of Jesus' day in terms of what is required for salvation. The Buddhist's taught that what is required is "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". And those principles would have been completely compatible with Judaism with of course the added ideal that the Jews would turn to the Old Testament for God's commandments and directives on what is considered to be "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". But other than turning to the Old Testament for guidance on what's right, they would be in agreement that this is all that is required for salvation.

Plus a believe in God of course, but supposedly Jesus taught that it is important to believe in God. And that would be compatible with the Mahayana Buddhism too. The Mahayana Buddhists believed in "God" they just weren't concerned with attempting to define God or with put God in a box as having a specific persona, etc.

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was a philosophy of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". It was not concerned with religion. It didn't care how you thought of "god". That was unimportant to Mahayana Buddhism.

Which stands quite differently than supplication to God's will and seeking wisdom to do what is right in context. It also is quite different than the higher law.

I disagree. It's not really different at all. The only difference would be that the Jews were accustomed to turning to the Old Testament scriptures for guidance, whereas the Buddhist believed that wisdom could be found from self-introspection.

Besides, this is yet another where you don't seem to realize the difference between the Jews and the Christians.

The Jews (even today) do not view their holy scriptures as "The Word of God", especially not in the way that Christians do. They view their scriptures more as a personal history of interactions between their culture and God.

You're looking at this entirely through the eyes of modern day Christianity. But that view did not exist in the days of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Christianity didn't even exist at that time.

Mahayana Buddhism also supported the ideal of becoming a Bodhisattva. This is a person who dedicates their life to teaching others the path to spiritual enlightenment which is the path of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action"

We do not preach spiritual enlightenment, we preach God.

Tell me about it.

And that's the downfall of Christianity right there.

Jesus clearly taught "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action".

So Jesus would make a terrible modern day Christian.

It was a tradition in Mahayana Buddhism that to be taken in as a student under a monk you must promise to become a Bodhisattva and take on your own disciples and ask them to go out and teach the word too.

So this also fits in with the idea of Jesus taking on disciples and then asking them to carry on his teachings.

That is not only a stretch, it inaccurate. Jesus did take on disciples, but he called them Apostles. A term bereft in Buddhism.

Of course Jesus would use terminologies and ideas of his own culture. He wasn't trying to "convert" anyone to Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism wasn't even concerned with kind of thinking. Mahayana means "The Great Vehicle". It was a movement in Buddhism that proclaims that religion is moot. All that truly matters is "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Actions".

How you think of God or religion is irrelevant as long as it doesn't interfere with "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Actions".

This is why Jesus rejected the immoral teachings of the Old Testament and replaced them with "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Actions".

The Old Testament had the Jews running around judging each another and stoning their neighbors to death for every little thing.

Observation #4:

The Gospels themselves portray Jesus as someone who taught against the immoral teachings of the Old Testament. Not directly, but through his own teachings which were the direct opposite.

Actually he claims to come to fulfill the law. He gives us the higher law, for which there is no previous Pagan stance.

That's simply not true.

Jesus did not fulfill any law. On the contrary he clearly rejected the judging of others and the stoning to death of people as sinners.

And your claim that there was no previous Pagan Stance is clearly false. Every single moral value that is attributed to Jesus in the New Testament had already been proclaimed by Buddhism, Confucianism, and even Taoism.

Jesus offered nothing new in terms of moral values. Nothing at all. That is a huge Christian falsehood.

Jesus had nothing special to offer in the way or moral values that couldn't already be found in Buddhism, and other previous religions.

The Old Testament had God commanding people to judge each other and stone sinners to death.

Luke also commands us to judge one another, indeed rebuke.

Show me where. Although I have no doubt that this is true. But if so, this only shows that the gospels are filled with inconsistencies and contradictions, because there are other places where Jesus is said to have taught not to judge others.

In fact, here you go: (from Luke too!)

Luke.6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

Right there you go. This is Jesus teaching people to judge not.

And now you're telling me that in other place in Luke Jesus commands us to judge others?

That would be a direct contradiction to Luke 6:37.

If Jesus is teaching people to judge not on one page of the gospels and then commanding them to judge people on another page, then he's sending mixed messages and giving impossible instructions.

Which one would you then follow? The advice to not judge others, or the commandment that you must judge others?

In fact, I'll agree right now that these gospel rumors are totally unreliable and riddled with self-inconsistencies and blatant contradictions.

All the more reason to expose them for the false rumors they are.

Jesus taught not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

Jesus taught us to be careful in our judgements and to not judge hypocritically, not to abandon judgement. To be wary of judging others because we are judged by the same STANDARDS, is true.

If I lie am I not guilty? Would someone not point that out? Would the problem be judgement or lying?

Pointing out that someone is lying and judging them to be a sinner because of it are two entirely different things.

You're confused about the difference between acknowledging truth and judging someone as being a sinner.

I can even acknowledge that someone killed someone. But I don't need to judge them to be a murderer. Maybe they had a reason they felt justified in their action. Maybe they are mentally ill and not even responsible for their actions.

Acknowledging wrongful actions and judging someone to be a sinner, are two entirely different things.

And Jesus DOES, for example, judge the adulterous woman. You understandig of Christianity is off.

Where does it say that Jesus judged the woman? All he did was tell her to go and sin no more. That doesn't even require that he believes that she had already sinned.

Moreover, if my hypothesis about Jesus is right, it would even be senseless to argue over little details about what Jesus might have said precisely. Once we recognized that the New Testament is nothing more than gossip and rumors we no longer need to take every word it claims to place into Jesus mouth as the verbatim truth.

In fact, that's already impossible. Didn't you just point out earlier that somewhere in Luke Jesus commands use to judge others? That would already be a contradiction with Luke 6:37 where Jesus tells us not to judge others.

So these gospel rumors are riddled with all manner of problems anyway.

Jesus could hardly renounce the Old Testament outright. So he had to come up with clever ways of replacing the immoral teachings of the Old Testament with the higher moral values of the "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action" of the Mahayana Philosophy.

And yet, he gives us atonement instead.

That's the beauty of my hypothesis Stubbornone.

If my hypothesis is true, I don't need to accept every single claim that is being made about Jesus in the New Testament rumors.

How do I know that Jesus had anything to do with offering people atonement for their sins?

If these rumors are indeed the rumors I claim they are, then we can toss out a lot of the nonsensical garbage. We don't need to justify every single claim being made.

After all, we certainly aren't going to accept that God spoke from a cloud and proclaimed that Jesus was his son.

We aren't going to accept that many saints rose from their graves along with Jesus in some supernatural resurrection.

And we don't need to accept all the outrageous claims that Jesus himself supposedly claimed to be "The Christ" or any other claims along those lines.

That's the whole POINT to recognizing that these are ultimately superstitious rumors that are mostly made up baloney.

We don't need to justify every single detail once we recognize that they are nothing more than superstitious rumors.

So he tried his best to do this without flatly refuting the original religion. Because remember Mahayana Buddhism isn't about religion, it's about "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". How you think of God is unimportant.

And he doesn't. The sins of the OT remain sins. The punishment need not always be death.

The only wages of sin in the OT is death. Or can you point to alternative punishments for sin. Not atonement of sins, but punishments for sins.

Observation #5:

Being of a pantheistic mindset Jesus would teach that he and the father are one. That is the pantheistic view. Tat T'vam Asi, which basically means "You are That", or "You Are That You Are". Or from a personal point of view, "I AM that I AM'. It's basically a statement that says that you are that which you seek. You are the source of your being. You are "God" if you like

.

This is again a serious stretch. The Messiah is a JEWISH concept, now why would Jesus borrow and completely change the Buddhist concept instead?

I personally have no reason to believe that Jesus ever claimed to be the messiah.

What you aren't understanding is that once you have realized that the NT is indeed just superstitious rumors there is no longer any need to accept that everything that has been attributed to him in those rumors came from him verbatim.

In fact, if you're going to demand that criteria, there is nothing you could do but accept precisely what the New Testament rumor claim.

According to the New Testament rumors God spoke from a cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear him".

If you're going to accept that as the "Gospel Truth" you're done. You have no choice but to accept all of it.

The whole point to my hypothesis is to recognize that these are indeed superstitious rumors that GREW OUT OF PROPORTION.

So I do not need to justify all of these outrageous claims of supernatural baloney.

That's the whole point to recognizing that they are superstitious rumors.

I'm just offering a practical and plausible hypothesis that explains how these rumors could have been sparked by a gross misunderstanding of a normal mortal man who was simply trying to introduce higher moral values into his own culture.

No demigod req'd.

Even the gospels have Jesus confirming this when he is accused of blaspheme for saying that he and the Father are one. In his own defense he points to the Old Testament a says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"?

Why would he do that if he was proclaiming to be some sort of special demigod?

He's basically confirming that he's coming from a pantheistic mindset.

He is confirming that he is the son of God. Which is the simplest, and most accurate answer.

"Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god, but believe that interpretations of the term differ."

Jesus miost definitely believes that God is a personal God, one he calls Father. Your analysis is simply wrong brother - and it rests upon the deliberate exclusion of known, very well known, Christian teaching.

You're wrong on both counts.

Jesus would not be confirming that he is the "Only Begotten Son of God" by pointing to a scripture that states that we too are gods.

He was defending himself against charges of blaspheme. Also, if he was claiming to be the "Only Begotten Son of God" then why proclaim it and then turn around and deny it?

If he wants to make that claim why didn't he stand by it even in the face of charges of blaspheme? After all isn't the TRUTH worth standing up for?

So I question the there is any truth at all that he was a special demigod or "The only begotten son of God".

Also if God was going around speaking from clouds confirming that Jesus was his son why didn't he speak out at that very moment? Were there no clouds in the sky on that day?

These stories have to be false superstitions stubbornone. There's no getting around it.

Also, your wrong about Pantheism not necessarily being about a "personal god".

The Buddhists believed that the seat of our very own consciousness is "God", and that seat of consciousness does not die when we die. Therefore they believe that their consciousness lives on after death.

You can't get anymore PERSONAL with God than that!

Pantheism is an extremely personal view of God, in that sense. Although, it may not qualify as a "personal God" by today's definitions of that term.

Observation #7:

Jesus was highly misunderstood. Even the gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that his very own disciples were not understanding his teachings.

How does this make him not devine? He is bringing the concept of higher law, of the application of principle based morality to a culture that knew nothing previous save rules based morality. That some did not get it? Well .. yeah.

After all, I explain this concept now and people in this day and age don't understand it.

I am not sure how this makes Jesus less divine? My being dumb, for example, has no bearing on whether or not Lance Armstrong was doped going up the mountain on a bike. Jesus's being divine? Human failings in others simple do not matter.

I didn't say anything above about Jesus not being divine. I simply pointed out that even the Gospels show that he was misunderstood even by his own disciples.

My entire hypothesis is to assume that Jesus was not divine but rather he was just a mortal man like the rest of us.

Observation #8:

According to the Gospels Jesus was constantly having run-ins with the Jewish Pharisees who were the main religious authoritarians of his day. He also reportedly sat around and publicly proclaimed them to be hypocrites.

Clearly he had created a very adverse relationship with these religious authoritarians.

Once again, Jesus ideas undermine the religious powers that be. That some resisted has no element on whether or not Jesus was divine.

I'm proclaiming that Jesus was not divine as a postulate to my hypothesis stubbornone.

I'm not attempting to "prove" that Jesus was not divine.

I'm just explaining why divinity was not required for any of these rumors to have been sparked.

Observation #9:

Apparently this adverse relationship with the Jewish Pharisees came to a head and Jesus was brutally crucified and silenced.

That would be our doctrine, as was the necessity of which Jesus was sacrificed, and indeed predicted by Jesus.

Hence the resurrection.

Predicted by Jesus?

Nothing in the New Testament can be said to have been predicted by Jesus.

The entire New Testament was written after Jesus had died. It's rumors about Jesus. These authors who wrote these rumors simply claim that Jesus predicted things. That's easy. Anyone could write a story like that.

If you are impressed by the claims that Jesus predicted anything, you aren't even considering how easily it would be to write those sorts of things into a rumored story about someone who was already dead.

And predictions attributed to Jesus are totally unimpressive, because they can't be verified to be actual predictions. They only exist in rumors about a man who was long since dead before these rumors were even written.

Observation #10:

Historical records show that there were many disagreeing rumors about who this man was and what he might have stood for. One of those rumors was that he was somehow the promised "Messiah".

That particular rumor obviously began to gain momentum. Rumors that Jesus was born of a virgin, and was predicted by prophecy to have done various things began to emerge. Finally some men sat down with the Old Testament in one hand and a pen in the other and began to write rumors about Jesus that supported these ideas that he was this messiah.

Thus the New Testament was born

.

Hmmm, and The Hobbit was also written without creating an entirely new religion ...

The narrative of Jesus most definitely does not point to his lack of divinity.

The narrative about Jesus is second hand hearsay rumors. It could claim anything at all about this man and we would have no way of verifying that any of it is true at all.

My hypothesis doesn't require any supernatural explanations.

If you believe the New Testament, you must believe all manner of supernatural events. A virgin birth, God speaking from a cloud, many saints raising from their graves, Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, and resurrecting from the dead himself.


My hypothesis = totally believable and plausible explanation for how these rumors were sparked.

The New Testament = totally outrageous supernatural events coupled with countless contradictions and self-inconsistencies concerning what Jesus even taught.

Observation #11:

Even after these rumors continued to grow they still were never accepted by the Jews themselves, but eventually Constantine of Rome realized that he could use this religion to his advantage to control the superstitious masses so he declared it the official religion of Rome.

And Christian was born and eventually blossomed to become Roman Catholicism, and finally into the myriad of rebellious protesting Protestantisms that we see around us today.

And obviously the Arabs took there version of these original myths in a totally different direction in Islam.

They most certainly WERE accepted by a great number of Jews.

Islam is incredibly similar to Christianity. So how does the existence of Islam mean that Jesus was not divine or that Christians stole their theology, though it is totally different, from Buddhists in the Himalayan mountains?

No offense DI, I realize its an honest attempt, but it is all without evidence, and some parts like pantheism, rest only upon the deliberate exclusion of portions of the Christian record.

I have no doubt that Islam flows from Christianity and Juddasism, but there is also that guy Mohammed and no one claims his ideas where they differ from Christian teachings are the result of ripped off Pagan virtues.

In short, there is no way to confirm or deny the divinity of Jesus. We either assume that honest men are lying or telling the truth.

I'm not claiming to have evidence for anything stubborn one.

I just put forth a practical hypothesis. That's all.

My hypothesis = totally believable and plausible explanation for how these rumors were sparked.

The New Testament = totally outrageous supernatural events coupled with countless contradictions and self-inconsistencies concerning what Jesus even supposedly taught.

I just offer this as a plausible explanation.

I'm not claiming that it necessarily needs to be true.

It's plausible, and that's all I need to show to offer it as a plausible explanation.

A plausible explanation is, well, plausible.

And as far as I'm concerned, a practical plausible explanation makes far more sense than a totally outrageous implausible collection of rumors.

A God who needs to have his only begotten son nailed to a pole before he can forgive people?

To me, that very concept right there is absolutely inconceivable and totally unacceptable.

So, since I have a far better explanation that is also plausible, I'll go with what makes the most sense to me. And it makes the most sense to me that the rumors about Jesus are totally outrageous superstitions that were potentially sparked by the life of a real person, but can in no way be true in terms of their outrageous claims of supernatural events. Including a the very idea of a God who would need to have his son nailed to a pole before he can forgive people. That has to be the most outrageous superstition of them all right there.

[GADARENE]

if there is nothing to any of this, as you believe, then it is okay to dismiss it and not be concerned with it, whatsoever.

be that as it may, it doesn't make sense to give these things a second thought. they aren't real. he is not your creator. there is nothing, nothing to them.

if an ant said you were a goofball, would that be insulting or get under your skin? of course not. an ant can't and if it could, it is an ant! you know?

I'm not concerned about the claims being made by the original religion Gadarene: (can you identify those claims?)

These religions are REAL in the sense that people today continue to believe in them. (that is their choice)

I'm not worried about being personally insulted by these religions.

I'm speaking out on behalf of people who are being hurt by them, both emotionally hurt, and physically hurt. (they are capable of speaking for themselves)

The planes that flew into the World Trade Center were REAL PLANES.

The bombs that suicide bombers blow themselves up with kill REAL PEOPLE.

The young girl that the Taliban shot in the head because she stood up against male-chauvinism being held out in the name of God was a REAL YOUNG GIRL.

These religions are REAL, even thought they are based on absurdly false rumors and superstitions. (and you have warned others)

Now you may say, "But everything you have mentioned above has to do with Islam not Christianity".

This may be true, but our ("our" meaning the western world) support for a belief in Christianity is truly support for Islam. (you are not responsible for the west's support or the perception of their support)

How can we ask the Arabs to quite believing in Islam (that isn't something you can ask them on behalf of the west and you are not supporting any of those myths) as long we are giving support to those very same foundational myths via our acceptance and belief (that is not what you are doing and you cannot control what arabs may perceive as the west's misguided support) that Jesus was the demigod son of the original God of Abraham? (that is their responsibility)

It's all the same religion really.

And the Arab countries are going to wake up to the reality that these things are nothing more than silly myths as long as we continue to act like as if they have merit. (you are not acting that way. you can't control how others act)

We need to toss these myths out for the sake of humanity. (you have. you can't toss them out on behalf of others)

Any support for the Jesus myth is no different from supporting the most radical fundamentalism of either Christianity or Islam.

Supporting a belief in a mythology supports that mythology in its entirety.

So it's really not even about religion at all, Gadarene. It's about getting people to quit supporting these dangerous superstitions of a jealous God. (that isn't up to you)

We could even "Save Jesus" respectfully as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

Imagine that.

"What? If I don't believe in these rumors of Jesus I'll be condemned? (who cares about meaningless rumors when they mean nothing anyway?)

And justifiably condemned by our creator? (he is not your creator, though)

These are horrible accusations. They deserve rebuttal. (they are worthless, old, stupid rumors and you have refuted them)"


it seems you may be taking these things personally, though. it seems as though you are concerned with the impact these horrible things will have on you. god condemns you. or the rumors about him condemn you, and that isn't right--that is what you seem to say.

regardless, this bunch of absolutely nothing is a great danger to the world and if you don't reject it, you are giving your approval to their plans to destroy the world.

but, remember, you believe there is nothing to all of this. if you believe that, and i'm sure that you do, your concerns are over nothing, see what I mean?

how do you distinguish what constitutes a rumor about jesus and what doesn't? If you like the real jesus (as you indicated, and just dislike what he was rumored to be, how do you separate fact from fiction, you know?)

[theopoesis]

The one thing about historical Jesus studies that is valid is that the various quests have spent significant amounts of time trying to develop and understand what criteria would show the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of various parts of the Bible. The criteria that have been proposed are:

(1) Multiple attestation: If several independent sources make the same or very similar claims, it is more likely that the historical event described is true. The key phrase here is more likely. There are only single accounts of some things that historically do happen, and there are multiple accounts of some things that do not. However, if two accounts are independent, that is, if they do not depend upon one another, and especially if they are opponents of one another, it is less likely that both (or all three or four or five...) are all colluding together to create a falsehood. We have multiple independent attestations of the historical existence of Jesus. Several of his sayings are multiply attested, as are several of his acts. These sources range widely from Roman historians to the synoptic gospels (usually only counted as one because they are literarily related) to non-canonical gospels like the Gospel of Thomas.

(2) Historical Plausibility: Does something historically fit in the context it was claimed to occur in? This is a major way of discrediting the historical accuracy of a claim. For example, if in discussing Louis XIV, King of France, I discuss how he once made fun of peasants from his automobile, you can easily tell that a story is a hoax. This is mostly a tool for discrediting, but in some fewer instances it can provide minimal support for a historical event. For example: what can plausibly historically explain the development of a new variety of Judaism which claimed (contra the claims of most every other kind of Judaism) that the messiah had died? A historically plausible explanation is the death of a messiah figure from among the group.

(3) Archaeological support: This is a very rare tool. In some instances you get lucky. For example, we have found ancient inscriptions that mention "the house of David" and "the house of Omri", thus attesting to two nations (Israel and Judah?) that claim their kingly lineage is traced to these two important figures. However, often what you uncover archaeologically is purely luck. Most historical figures leave no archaeological trace. Therefore, archaeology rarely allows us to disprove a historical claim unless it is quite large. On the other hand, it is also rare that archaeology will support a historical claim unless it is quite large. So the best we have for Jesus is a discovery that there was, in fact, a Pontius Pilate in Judea at the time.

(4) The criterion of embarrassment: If a historical event is recorded that would embarrass the person who tells it, then we can suspect that it is unlikely that the person would invent the story. Thus, for example, when early Christianity claims that Jesus was the messiah and that he was killed, that is an embarrassing claim. Messiahs were thought to be strong, not the sort to be killed on a cross. Likewise, when women (who lacked the cultural value to be considered valid witnesses) discovered the empty tomb, that would be embarrassing. The only witnesses in some of the gospels wouldn't even count as witnesses. Thus, some apologists say that the women really discovered an empty tomb. The problem with this should be clear: embarrassment isn't a strong basis for historicity. Many historical things happen that aren't embarrassing. Thus, other factors should always be considered first, with embarrassment an "added bonus" so to speak. Thus, in the case of the empty tomb, a naturalist would have a strong philosophical reason to reject the claim, but a weak historical reason to accept it. To a naturalist, the women as witnesses doesn't prove the historicity of the resurrection.

(5) Sociological explanation: Certain sociological phenomena were clearly documented for the early church. For example, martyrdom was highly valued. Most Christians celebrated a new variety of the passover meal where the bread and wine were said to be the flesh and blood of Jesus. (We know both of these things from Roman description of the early Christians, from archaeological discoveries, and from Christian documents themselves). Why would martyrdom be valued? maybe the founder was killed. Why would the passover be distorted so that it now referred to the death of a human? Maybe his historical death was considered a new sacrifice given to God.

(6) The criterion of dissimilarity: This is a bit like the criterion of embarassment. Some historical claims were so dissimilar to the early theology of the church that they are more likely to be true. The problem with this occurs when we consider that there were many kinds of theology in the early church. Thus, the saying "no one knows the day nor hour, not even the son" is often taken as historically accurate because it would be embarrassing for the early Church to admit that the unique Son of God (whom some even considered divine, but all considered unique) didn't know when the parousia would occur. In order to defend this claim, the scholar would need to show: a) that the gospel that contains this statement has a theology that otherwise would exclude it; b) that the statement was textually consistent across extant manuscripts.

There are additional criteria related to textual studies, theology, history, and so forth. But this gives you an idea of the types of discussion that are part of historical Jesus studies.

So on to the question: Was Jesus a myth? Perhaps, but we have strong historical reason to believe that he was a historical figure who was believed to be the messiah by his followers, but was killed. First, we have independent multiple attestation of his death. It is found in almost every canonical and non-canonical gospel, in Paul's epistles, in Peter's, in John's, and in the book of Revelation. It is mentioned in Acts, in the writings of the early church, in the writings of many Roman historians (attested to as something that early Christians believed, not as something witnessed), and possibly in Josephus (though either part or all of what we have is a later forgery). We have historical plausibility, both because it would explain why a religious movement devoted to a crucified messiah would emerge, and because it is likely that anyone who was leader of a messianic movement (often politically construed) would be executed by the Romans. We have minimal archaeological support - Pilate, the main claimed to have crucified Jesus, did exist. And we know that Romans actually crucified because of the skeletons of crucified criminals that we have uncovered. We have the criterion of embarrassment, because it would be contrary to every expectation for a Jewish group to claim that the messiah had died and not freed Israel from the Romans. We have the sociological explanation of later Christian emphasis on martyrdom because their leader had been killed, and on the reinvention of the passover meal, reconstrued as remembering the sacrifice of Jesus the messiah after he was executed. Finally, we have the the criterion of dissimilarity in a very minimal sense. Many early Christians believed that Jesus only appeared to be human but was actually a phantasm (these were called docetists). But, since even the docetists claim that Jesus was crucified, this is a disimilarity with their theology, which struggled to explain crufixion and death of a phantasm.

Thus, by every major criteria, we can defend that Jesus was a historical figure who was executed by the Romans and was believed to be the messiah by his followers. After this almost universally accepted claim, there are other statements and works that we could then apply the same criteria to in order to debate what plausibly happened. But it is nearly unanimous that Jesus existed.

[Divine Insight]

but, remember, you believe there is nothing to all of this. if you believe that, and i'm sure that you do, your concerns are over nothing, see what I mean?

False beliefs about a fictional jealous God that causes people to behave in divisive ways and pass judgements on one another based on these ancient superstitions cause people to do harm to one another. Whether that harm be emotional harm, physical harm, or simply the rejection of another person's moral merit simply because they don't believe in the same superstitions.

These things are real. Religions are real. And the negative effects of the jealous God religions are real, specifically those of Christianity and Islam.

So how can you continue to proclaim that my concerns are over nothing?

Do you think that the people who were killed in the WTCs on 911 are nothing?

Do you think that the constant religious tensions and real violence throughout the world that causes actual people to kill other people in the name of their religious beliefs is nothing?

Do you think that the belittlement, degradation, and humiliation bestowed upon same gender lovers in the name of this jealous God is nothing?

Do you think that the constant evangelism and proselyting of a religion that proclaims that everyone who refuses to cower down to it is a immoral person is nothing?

Do you think that the fact that these superstitions have such a grip on people that the fight to have these superstitions taught in our schools as though they have the same merit and worth as the sound intellectual inquiry of the science, is nothing?

All of these things are very real. Just because the myths are false, does not mean that the effects of those myths amount to nothing.

So you're not understanding what I'm attempting to expose. I'm attempting to expose real myths that cause people to behave in real ways that not to the benefit of humanity, education, or the future of our planet.

The religions are real, even though their false God is not.

how do you distinguish what constitutes a rumor about jesus and what doesn't? If you like the real jesus (as you indicated, and just dislike what he was rumored to be, how do you separate fact from fiction, you know?)

I don't need to. Once it is recognized that Jesus could not possibly have been the demigod that the religion claims, it no longer matters who he was or what he stood for.

I have no need to defend or salvage the character of some person who may or may not have even existed at all.

Sure, we can imagine that there was a real person who tried to teach the good moral values that have been attributed to this Jesus and that he was wrongfully and innocently executed for his efforts by the religious authoritarians of the day.

We can imagine that, and perhaps try to salvage his character if it makes us feel better. My hypothesis certainly offers a way to do that. There is nothing in my hypothesis that condemns Jesus in any way. My hypothesis suggest that this man saw the great immoral injustices that were being caused by his culture's belief in some ancient scriptural fiction about a jealous God. He took steps to try to dismiss those immoral teachings and behaviors and replace them with love, understanding, and forgiveness. That is certainly an honorable thing to have done. And if this cost him his life at the hands of the angry religious pharisees of the day, then Jesus was even a martyr for who stood up for higher morality.

My hypothesis allows for a vindicated Jesus to emerge from these myths and rumors unscathed. There's no need to condemn Jesus himself as a madman or liar. For some people who have fallen in love with the idea of a loving Jesus this may be important. And that's good, I'm glad that this hypothesis that has come me over the years allows for that. I don't mind saving face for Jesus myself. It's poetic justice. After all, he was attributed to having taught brotherly love, and all manner of right thought, right speech, and right actions.

We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't need to condemn Jesus to dismiss these rumors about him. People who would like to keep Jesus in their lives as personal guide to high moral values can certainly do so. He would become like Buddha. A teacher of love, right thought, right speech, and right actions, without the need to nail him to the jealous God of the Old Testament.

That is indeed a nice feature of this hypothesis, it's "Saves Jesus" for those who have fallen in love with him.

Jesus can't be held responsible for rumors that were created about him after he had died.

Once is is recognize that Jesus was not a demigod it's no longer important to distinguish what constitutes a rumor about Jesus and what doesn't. At that point your free to make those choices for yourself.

We push our moral values onto these religions now anyway via our own personal interpretations of them.

There are Christians who won't hesitate to use Jesus as a battering ram to judge others to be sinners, even those these scriptures themselves have Jesus teaching people not to judge others.

On the other hand there are Christians who take the teaching of not to judge others seriously and they would never use Jesus to judge another to be a sinner. Those Christians may even be the "Silent Majority".

It's unfortunate that it's often the vociferous minority who use Jesus as an excuse to accuse people of being sinners, even for the very reason of not believing that Jesus was God.

The religion itself isn't even consistent.

Look at the United States of America. Statistic show that most Americans claim to be Christians. Yet look at the election we've just had. Mitt Romney and the Republicans were being held up as being very "Strong Christians", even in the presidential debates Romney was trying very hard to pain himself as a believer in God whilst trying to make Obama out to be more of a secular atheists in his values.

Yet who won this election?

Clearly if the USA truly is a mostly Christian nation the vast majority of Christians see Barrack Obama as being more Christ-like than these hardcore republicans.

The real irony in all of this is that my hypothesis that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva actually fits in far better with the higher moral values that most Christians actually attribute to Jesus.

Christians could still make a valid religion out of Jesus like the Buddhists have made a valid religion out of Buddha. Buddhists don't need to see the Buddha as being God. All they need to do is see him as being a wise man.

A religion based on this kind of Jesus would no longer be a jealous God religion as Jesus will have been divorced from the Old Testament which he clearly did not agree with anyway, in terms of morality.

So my hypothesis of Jesus allows Jesus to be "saved".

All that needs to be dismissed are the rumors that connect him to a jealous God that even according to these very rumors Jesus did not agree with in terms of moral instructions.

[Divine Insight]

(1) Multiple attestation: We have multiple independent attestations of the historical existence of Jesus. Several of his sayings are multiply attested, as are several of his acts.

How could we ever know that this is true?

What if I'm right and the New Testament is indeed just rumors. Those rumors could include rumors about multiple different events of multiple different people.

In other words, if the rumors claim that a man rode into a city on a donkey, and it is historically verified that a man rode into a city on a donkey. Those rumors may indeed have been based on the events of that man.

However, at another point the rumors speak of a man who was said to walk on water. Maybe historically we can find independent attestations that some guy is believed to have walked on water.

Both of these events were well-known rumors at the time. They were both sparked by some real event. Therefore they can both been historically verified in this way. However, there is nothing that says that the man who rode into a city on a donkey was the same man who was said to walk on water.

The New Testament rumors could be a collection of many different popular rumors of the day, all being brought to bear on one character that the authors of these rumors claim to be "Jesus".

This actually makes sense to me. Authors who are attempting to make up rumors would be wise to incorporated as many "popular rumors" as they can attribute to their character. All the better to give the stories some appearance of credibility.

So this method of verification could backfire. This method assumes the honesty of the New Testament stories. But if honest of the stories is going to be assumed, then why even bother to try to verify them?

So there's a bit of circular thing going on there.

If any part of the New Testament stories are made up rumors, that brings into question the whole entire testament.

And that brings us to the very important question, "Did God speak from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his Son?"

If God did this, then why didn't he do this when Jesus was actively being accused of blaspheme?

Why would God speak from a cloud to announce that Jesus was his son when it was totally unimportant to do so, and remain totally silent when it really matters whether or not people believe Jesus is the Son of God?

It seems to me that these rumors can easily be dismissed as being clearly false just from basic inconsistencies like these.

Why would a God speak from a cloud announcing Jesus to be his son when no independent historical sources are around to acknowledge this, yet remain totally silent when Jesus is being accused of blaspheme?

IMHO, that kind of thing is blatant evidence right there that these stories have serious problems.

I would love to speak to all these other categories you've brought up, but I've been spending too much time in this thread already.

Not only would the existence of this man Jesus need to be historically verified, but before I would even remotely consider the outrageous supernatural events they claim those too would need to be shown to have independent historical evidence.

As far as I can see the lack of historical evidence for the supernatural claims is quite vivid.

How many people heard God speak from a cloud proclaiming that Jesus was his son?

How many people saw a multitude of saints raise from their graves and even go into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there?

How many people have historically reported that a man was going around the countryside with larges masses of people following him healing all manner of sickness and even raising people from the dead?

The Gospels even claim that Jesus was so popular that people from distance lands were coming to be healed by him. Yet there is no independent historical record that all these distant lands ever heard about this?

Also, Jesus was supposedly this popular, yet when the Roman soldiers were seeking to arrest him they had to have Jesus pointed out to them because they had no clue who he was?

These stories aren't even consistent in their own claims.

[GADARENE]

but, remember, you believe there is nothing to all of this. if you believe that, and i'm sure that you do, your concerns are over nothing, see what I mean?

False beliefs about a fictional jealous God that causes people to behave in divisive ways and pass judgements on one another based on these ancient superstitions cause people to do harm to one another. Whether that harm be emotional harm, physical harm, or simply the rejection of another person's moral merit simply because they don't believe in the same superstitions.

These things are real. Religions are real. And the negative effects of the jealous God religions are real, specifically those of Christianity and Islam.

So how can you continue to proclaim that my concerns are over nothing?

Do you think that the people who were killed in the WTCs on 911 are nothing?

Do you think that the constant religious tensions and real violence throughout the world that causes actual people to kill other people in the name of their religious beliefs is nothing?

Do you think that the belittlement, degradation, and humiliation bestowed upon same gender lovers in the name of this jealous God is nothing?

Do you think that the constant evangelism and proselyting of a religion that proclaims that everyone who refuses to cower down to it is a immoral person is nothing?

Do you think that the fact that these superstitions have such a grip on people that the fight to have these superstitions taught in our schools as though they have the same merit and worth as the sound intellectual inquiry of the science, is nothing?

All of these things are very real. Just because the myths are false, does not mean that the effects of those myths amount to nothing.

So you're not understanding what I'm attempting to expose. I'm attempting to expose real myths that cause people to behave in real ways that not to the benefit of humanity, education, or the future of our planet.

The religions are real, even though their false God is not.

how do you distinguish what constitutes a rumor about jesus and what doesn't? If you like the real jesus (as you indicated, and just dislike what he was rumored to be, how do you separate fact from fiction, you know?)

I don't need to. Once it is recognized that Jesus could not possibly have been the demigod that the religion claims, it no longer matters who he was or what he stood for.

I have no need to defend or salvage the character of some person who may or may not have even existed at all.

Sure, we can imagine that there was a real person who tried to teach the good moral values that have been attributed to this Jesus and that he was wrongfully and innocently executed for his efforts by the religious authoritarians of the day.

We can imagine that, and perhaps try to salvage his character if it makes us feel better. My hypothesis certainly offers a way to do that. There is nothing in my hypothesis that condemns Jesus in any way. My hypothesis suggest that this man saw the great immoral injustices that were being caused by his culture's belief in some ancient scriptural fiction about a jealous God. He took steps to try to dismiss those immoral teachings and behaviors and replace them with love, understanding, and forgiveness. That is certainly an honorable thing to have done. And if this cost him his life at the hands of the angry religious pharisees of the day, then Jesus was even a martyr for who stood up for higher morality.

My hypothesis allows for a vindicated Jesus to emerge from these myths and rumors unscathed. There's no need to condemn Jesus himself as a madman or liar. For some people who have fallen in love with the idea of a loving Jesus this may be important. And that's good, I'm glad that this hypothesis that has come me over the years allows for that. I don't mind saving face for Jesus myself. It's poetic justice. After all, he was attributed to having taught brotherly love, and all manner of right thought, right speech, and right actions.

We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't need to condemn Jesus to dismiss these rumors about him. People who would like to keep Jesus in their lives as personal guide to high moral values can certainly do so. He would become like Buddha. A teacher of love, right thought, right speech, and right actions, without the need to nail him to the jealous God of the Old Testament.

That is indeed a nice feature of this hypothesis, it's "Saves Jesus" for those who have fallen in love with him.

Jesus can't be held responsible for rumors that were created about him after he had died.

Once is is recognize that Jesus was not a demigod it's no longer important to distinguish what constitutes a rumor about Jesus and what doesn't. At that point your free to make those choices for yourself.

We push our moral values onto these religions now anyway via our own personal interpretations of them.

There are Christians who won't hesitate to use Jesus as a battering ram to judge others to be sinners, even those these scriptures themselves have Jesus teaching people not to judge others.

On the other hand there are Christians who take the teaching of not to judge others seriously and they would never use Jesus to judge another to be a sinner. Those Christians may even be the "Silent Majority".

It's unfortunate that it's often the vociferous minority who use Jesus as an excuse to accuse people of being sinners, even for the very reason of not believing that Jesus was God.

The religion itself isn't even consistent.

Look at the United States of America. Statistic show that most Americans claim to be Christians. Yet look at the election we've just had. Mitt Romney and the Republicans were being held up as being very "Strong Christians", even in the presidential debates Romney was trying very hard to pain himself as a believer in God whilst trying to make Obama out to be more of a secular atheists in his values.

Yet who won this election?

Clearly if the USA truly is a mostly Christian nation the vast majority of Christians see Barrack Obama as being more Christ-like than these hardcore republicans.

The real irony in all of this is that my hypothesis that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva actually fits in far better with the higher moral values that most Christians actually attribute to Jesus.

Christians could still make a valid religion out of Jesus like the Buddhists have made a valid religion out of Buddha. Buddhists don't need to see the Buddha as being God. All they need to do is see him as being a wise man.

A religion based on this kind of Jesus would no longer be a jealous God religion as Jesus will have been divorced from the Old Testament which he clearly did not agree with anyway, in terms of morality.

So my hypothesis of Jesus allows Jesus to be "saved".

All that needs to be dismissed are the rumors that connect him to a jealous God that even according to these very rumors Jesus did not agree with in terms of moral instructions.

you forget what you have already written. that's okay. just didn't want to see you hurt yourself

any way, good luck

[theopoesis]

(1) Multiple attestation: We have multiple independent attestations of the historical existence of Jesus. Several of his sayings are multiply attested, as are several of his acts.

How could we ever know that this is true?

What if I'm right and the New Testament is indeed just rumors. Those rumors could include rumors about multiple different events of multiple different people.

Well, if you are right and the New Testament is just rumors, then you still have all of the books outside of the New Testament that refer to Jesus doing and saying certain things. This criteria isn't just about asking "did Matthew, John, and Paul all think Jesus said this?" It also asks "what about the Gospel of Thomas, the epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas" and so forth. If a particular saying or emphasis is present in virtually every early Christian work, canonical or not, then it is much more likely that it traces to the historical Jesus and not to the particular sect that wrote an individual work.

In other words, if the rumors claim that a man rode into a city on a donkey, and it is historically verified that a man rode into a city on a donkey. Those rumors may indeed have been based on the events of that man.

However, at another point the rumors speak of a man who was said to walk on water. Maybe historically we can find independent attestations that some guy is believed to have walked on water.

No one, to my knowledge, uses multiple attestation to defend walking on water, or Jesus riding a donkey.

Both of these events were well-known rumors at the time. They were both sparked by some real event.

The questions you raise are important in the history of Biblical scholarship. It led scholars to study the development of legend, saga, and myth (more precise terms than "rumor"). For 20 years or so, this "form criticism" and "tradition criticism" and so forth tried to study cultures across the globe and across history, seeking to identify certain key markers that distinguish "legend" from "myth" from "history." They developed general outlines for how these things develop through time in oral and in written societies. And then they applied them to the NT in order to try to understand which parts of the NT were myth, and which history.

The results, most would say, would be that a historical man going into Jerusalem who was named Jesus was probably historical. His walking on water, more likely myth. However, not as clearly as, say, the gospel of Peter where Jesus is resurrected and the cross follows him out talking, and his head is as high as the sky. The later is more "surreal" we might say, while the former has "Realism", which indicates it is an earlier development of "myth." Of course, the apologist would say that such claims are rooted in naturalism. And, to an extent, they'd be right. Form and tradition criticism are now viewed as much more subjective than originally granted.

Therefore they can both been historically verified in this way. However, there is nothing that says that the man who rode into a city on a donkey was the same man who was said to walk on water.

Except for the fact that the multiple sources all claim that Jesus was the one who did both. If only a few linked these together, but a few others said two different men did this, we'd be in a different situation.

The New Testament rumors could be a collection of many different popular rumors of the day, all being brought to bear on one character that the authors of these rumors claim to be "Jesus".

This might explain multiple attestation if several authors all collected the same stories and applied them to the same alleged Jesus. But it still wouldn't account for historical plausibility, for example. Or for many sociological aspects.

This actually makes sense to me. Authors who are attempting to make up rumors would be wise to incorporated as many "popular rumors" as they can attribute to their character. All the better to give the stories some appearance of credibility.

If a rumor is "popular", it would be "popularly known" in a form that didn't refer to Jesus. Thus, substituting Jesus would be a harder sell.

So this method of verification could backfire. This method assumes the honesty of the New Testament stories. But if honest of the stories is going to be assumed, then why even bother to try to verify them?

It does not assume the honesty of the stories. The method, as applied by many, actually suggests that much of the NT isn't historical.

So there's a bit of circular thing going on there.

Nope.

If any part of the New Testament stories are made up rumors, that brings into question the whole entire testament.

Then by similar logic, if any step of your argument is flawed, we must reject every part?

And that brings us to the very important question, "Did God speak from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his Son?"

If God did this, then why didn't he do this when Jesus was actively being accused of blaspheme?

Why would God speak from a cloud to announce that Jesus was his son when it was totally unimportant to do so, and remain totally silent when it really matters whether or not people believe Jesus is the Son of God?

It seems to me that these rumors can easily be dismissed as being clearly false just from basic inconsistencies like these.

(1) An event like this is outside of historical verification
(2) Theologically, the Father affirmed Jesus at the baptism to demonstrate his identity, but let Jesus die at the trial and did not affirm him so that he could live into his identity by fulfilling his mission.
(3) Theological inconsistencies do not disprove a historical kernel behind them. Likewise for political: Republicans view Obama's second term as a tragedy. Democrats as a victory. Behind both subjective opinions is the historical reality of the election that Obama won.

Why would a God speak from a cloud announcing Jesus to be his son when no independent historical sources are around to acknowledge this, yet remain totally silent when Jesus is being accused of blaspheme?

Actually, the story is contained in several independent sources. However, it is rejected as historical (or historically verifiable) because it is miraculous.

Not only would the existence of this man Jesus need to be historically verified, but before I would even remotely consider the outrageous supernatural events they claim those too would need to be shown to have independent historical evidence.

This is a fallacy. Jesus could have historically existed in some form, even if not identical to every tiny detail of the Bible.

As far as I can see the lack of historical evidence for the supernatural claims is quite vivid.

According to modern historiography, there is no historical evidence which would be sufficient for miraculous claims. Therefore, this statement is rather circular.

Also, Jesus was supposedly this popular, yet when the Roman soldiers were seeking to arrest him they had to have Jesus pointed out to them because they had no clue who he was?

This was in a day without media. Most people wouldn't have known what the emperor looked like apart from recognizing his purple robes. For that reason, purple was outlawed as a color that the plebes could wear.

These stories aren't even consistent in their own claims.

Possibly, but I submit that the academic work behind these criteria is superior to your own.

[GADARENE]

The one thing about historical Jesus studies that is valid is that the various quests have spent significant amounts of time trying to develop and understand what criteria would show the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of various parts of the Bible. The criteria that have been proposed are:

(1) Multiple attestation: If several independent sources make the same or very similar claims, it is more likely that the historical event described is true. The key phrase here is more likely. There are only single accounts of some things that historically do happen, and there are multiple accounts of some things that do not. However, if two accounts are independent, that is, if they do not depend upon one another, and especially if they are opponents of one another, it is less likely that both (or all three or four or five...) are all colluding together to create a falsehood. We have multiple independent attestations of the historical existence of Jesus. Several of his sayings are multiply attested, as are several of his acts. These sources range widely from Roman historians to the synoptic gospels (usually only counted as one because they are literarily related) to non-canonical gospels like the Gospel of Thomas.

(2) Historical Plausibility: Does something historically fit in the context it was claimed to occur in? This is a major way of discrediting the historical accuracy of a claim. For example, if in discussing Louis XIV, King of France, I discuss how he once made fun of peasants from his automobile, you can easily tell that a story is a hoax. This is mostly a tool for discrediting, but in some fewer instances it can provide minimal support for a historical event. For example: what can plausibly historically explain the development of a new variety of Judaism which claimed (contra the claims of most every other kind of Judaism) that the messiah had died? A historically plausible explanation is the death of a messiah figure from among the group.

(3) Archaeological support: This is a very rare tool. In some instances you get lucky. For example, we have found ancient inscriptions that mention "the house of David" and "the house of Omri", thus attesting to two nations (Israel and Judah?) that claim their kingly lineage is traced to these two important figures. However, often what you uncover archaeologically is purely luck. Most historical figures leave no archaeological trace. Therefore, archaeology rarely allows us to disprove a historical claim unless it is quite large. On the other hand, it is also rare that archaeology will support a historical claim unless it is quite large. So the best we have for Jesus is a discovery that there was, in fact, a Pontius Pilate in Judea at the time.

(4) The criterion of embarrassment: If a historical event is recorded that would embarrass the person who tells it, then we can suspect that it is unlikely that the person would invent the story. Thus, for example, when early Christianity claims that Jesus was the messiah and that he was killed, that is an embarrassing claim. Messiahs were thought to be strong, not the sort to be killed on a cross. Likewise, when women (who lacked the cultural value to be considered valid witnesses) discovered the empty tomb, that would be embarrassing. The only witnesses in some of the gospels wouldn't even count as witnesses. Thus, some apologists say that the women really discovered an empty tomb. The problem with this should be clear: embarrassment isn't a strong basis for historicity. Many historical things happen that aren't embarrassing. Thus, other factors should always be considered first, with embarrassment an "added bonus" so to speak. Thus, in the case of the empty tomb, a naturalist would have a strong philosophical reason to reject the claim, but a weak historical reason to accept it. To a naturalist, the women as witnesses doesn't prove the historicity of the resurrection.

(5) Sociological explanation: Certain sociological phenomena were clearly documented for the early church. For example, martyrdom was highly valued. Most Christians celebrated a new variety of the passover meal where the bread and wine were said to be the flesh and blood of Jesus. (We know both of these things from Roman description of the early Christians, from archaeological discoveries, and from Christian documents themselves). Why would martyrdom be valued? maybe the founder was killed. Why would the passover be distorted so that it now referred to the death of a human? Maybe his historical death was considered a new sacrifice given to God.

(6) The criterion of dissimilarity: This is a bit like the criterion of embarassment. Some historical claims were so dissimilar to the early theology of the church that they are more likely to be true. The problem with this occurs when we consider that there were many kinds of theology in the early church. Thus, the saying "no one knows the day nor hour, not even the son" is often taken as historically accurate because it would be embarrassing for the early Church to admit that the unique Son of God (whom some even considered divine, but all considered unique) didn't know when the parousia would occur. In order to defend this claim, the scholar would need to show: a) that the gospel that contains this statement has a theology that otherwise would exclude it; b) that the statement was textually consistent across extant manuscripts.

There are additional criteria related to textual studies, theology, history, and so forth. But this gives you an idea of the types of discussion that are part of historical Jesus studies.

So on to the question: Was Jesus a myth? Perhaps, but we have strong historical reason to believe that he was a historical figure who was believed to be the messiah by his followers, but was killed. First, we have independent multiple attestation of his death. It is found in almost every canonical and non-canonical gospel, in Paul's epistles, in Peter's, in John's, and in the book of Revelation. It is mentioned in Acts, in the writings of the early church, in the writings of many Roman historians (attested to as something that early Christians believed, not as something witnessed), and possibly in Josephus (though either part or all of what we have is a later forgery). We have historical plausibility, both because it would explain why a religious movement devoted to a crucified messiah would emerge, and because it is likely that anyone who was leader of a messianic movement (often politically construed) would be executed by the Romans. We have minimal archaeological support - Pilate, the main claimed to have crucified Jesus, did exist. And we know that Romans actually crucified because of the skeletons of crucified criminals that we have uncovered. We have the criterion of embarrassment, because it would be contrary to every expectation for a Jewish group to claim that the messiah had died and not freed Israel from the Romans. We have the sociological explanation of later Christian emphasis on martyrdom because their leader had been killed, and on the reinvention of the passover meal, reconstrued as remembering the sacrifice of Jesus the messiah after he was executed. Finally, we have the the criterion of dissimilarity in a very minimal sense. Many early Christians believed that Jesus only appeared to be human but was actually a phantasm (these were called docetists). But, since even the docetists claim that Jesus was crucified, this is a disimilarity with their theology, which struggled to explain crufixion and death of a phantasm.

Thus, by every major criteria, we can defend that Jesus was a historical figure who was executed by the Romans and was believed to be the messiah by his followers. After this almost universally accepted claim, there are other statements and works that we could then apply the same criteria to in order to debate what plausibly happened. But it is nearly unanimous that Jesus existed.

dig it.

you know what? we can ask him, too. he was human. he knows us. he can and does communicate very effectively. I don't want to know what he has to say, either, a bunch of the time!

he's god. it is not like he's an impossibility. he's cool. he hung with scum. and he loves us.

[Clownboat]

dig it.

you know what? we can ask him, too. he was human. he knows us. he can and does communicate very effectively. I don't want to know what he has to say, either, a bunch of the time!

he's god. it is not like he's an impossibility. he's cool. he hung with scum. and he loves us.

Please explain this method of communication that you bring up and show us how it is communicated and how it is very effective.

I'll leave the, "he's god" unchallenged for now, because I am not interested in that claim. The communicating claim has me very interested though.

Thanks,