Unraveling the Jesus myth

[The Duke of Vandals]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

[Goat]

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

I don't think there's too many credible scholars or historians that believe Jesus didn't exist like Doherty. Even your own source wikipedia, which isn't exactly Christian friendly, says the Jesus-myth is a minority position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

"Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus among the Western scholars."

I'm always curious as to why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the gospels as poor sources. Either written too late, filled with myths, or constructed to propagate a God-man myth.

Most of the NT was in circulation during the lifetime of many of the witnesses (unless you use very Liberal dating which is of course what the sceptic does). If they were lies, someone would have said something or written something substantial to counter the Jesus Christ movement. So counter testimony could have been given by the reported eyewitnesses.

Why would the disciples and followers of Christ mythify a man and story that would put them in harms way. The Jews were very strong monotheists. So they would've been ticked at anyone perverting the Jewish concept of God. The Romans wanted their subjects worshipping the gods of the ancestors, not Jesus. Why would the disciples perpetuate a lie that would put themselves in a position of persecution. For what reason? Money?- no. Power ?- the Christian Church had no power yet, there wasn't even a Christian church in these times. Why would Paul, who openly persecuted Christians and was even involved in Stephen's death, suddenly convert and be subject to the same persecution himself? It makes no sense if one looks at it logically. The sceptics only hope is some incredible conspiracy theory.

Psst...man never actually went to the moon, the FBI had JFK assassinated, Abraham Lincoln never existed, The Royal family had Princess Diana murdered

While the position that Jesus never existed is a minority one, the arguemetns that Earl Doherty has put togather are well thought out, and very well docuemented. The fact is most of the Western Scholars are "believers" , and they have their own personal bias to contend with.

No, sceptics don't need some 'incredible conspiracy theory'. All skeptics need is the standard human inclination to gossip, and exaggerate. It might be different if there was any non-biblical evidence FOR the Jesus that is depicted in the gospels. The famous Antiquities 18 is at least modified, and quite possible a total insertion, and even if genuine (which I don't think it is), would have been written 60 years after the incident.

Much is made of the alleged 500 witnesses. However, except for vague references to them, no one knows who they are, and none of them actually wrote anything down. All we have is claims for those 500 witnesses.. none of the witnesses themselves.

[Goose]

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

I don't think there's too many credible scholars or historians that believe Jesus didn't exist like Doherty. Even your own source wikipedia, which isn't exactly Christian friendly, says the Jesus-myth is a minority position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

"Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus among the Western scholars."

I'm always curious as to why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the gospels as poor sources. Either written too late, filled with myths, or constructed to propagate a God-man myth.

Most of the NT was in circulation during the lifetime of many of the witnesses (unless you use very Liberal dating which is of course what the sceptic does). If they were lies, someone would have said something or written something substantial to counter the Jesus Christ movement. So counter testimony could have been given by the reported eyewitnesses.

Why would the disciples and followers of Christ mythify a man and story that would put them in harms way. The Jews were very strong monotheists. So they would've been ticked at anyone perverting the Jewish concept of God. The Romans wanted their subjects worshipping the gods of the ancestors, not Jesus. Why would the disciples perpetuate a lie that would put themselves in a position of persecution. For what reason? Money?- no. Power ?- the Christian Church had no power yet, there wasn't even a Christian church in these times. Why would Paul, who openly persecuted Christians and was even involved in Stephen's death, suddenly convert and be subject to the same persecution himself? It makes no sense if one looks at it logically. The sceptics only hope is some incredible conspiracy theory.

Psst...man never actually went to the moon, the FBI had JFK assassinated, Abraham Lincoln never existed, The Royal family had Princess Diana murdered

While the position that Jesus never existed is a minority one, the arguemetns that Earl Doherty has put togather are well thought out, and very well docuemented. The fact is most of the Western Scholars are "believers" , and they have their own personal bias to contend with.

Well documented and thought out is almost meaningless. It implies a good theory. The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy is the same. Lots of out of date obscure and liberal documentation that is hard for the average person to find.

No, sceptics don't need some 'incredible conspiracy theory'. All skeptics need is the standard human inclination to gossip, and exaggerate.

I would agree with you if the time frame was longer but it's not long enough for fact to be replaced by myth. And this still does not address the core issue of "why would the disciples subject themselves to this?" I found a quote from A.N. Sherwin-White an Oxford historian who specialized in Roman history during the NT times,

"The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time… than can be the case… Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core." [A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 189-190.]

Two generations would put you into the early second century just about when the the apocryphal gosples started appearing which might be more likely to be myths because most of the eye witnesses would have died by then.

It might be different if there was any non-biblical evidence FOR the Jesus that is depicted in the gospels. The famous Antiquities 18 is at least modified, and quite possible a total insertion, and even if genuine (which I don't think it is), would have been written 60 years after the incident.

Why would there be more writing depicting the Jesus of the NT? Anyone who would have wrote about early Christians would not have been followers. So it's reasonable to assume they would have only written about Jesus and Christians as historical only.

Much is made of the alleged 500 witnesses. However, except for vague references to them, no one knows who they are, and none of them actually wrote anything down. All we have is claims for those 500 witnesses.. none of the witnesses themselves.

This is all too true. It would have been nice of Paul to have recorded more. Names, numbers, addresses, dates of birth SSN's But the writings of the NT were in a high context society. In other words there is much information assumed because of oral traditions circulated amongst the early Christians so they didn't include as much detail. The opposite is low context society. Most of us live in this context. So when we communicate we include more detail because our scope of backgrounds, cultural influences, experiences are much greater than in a high context. In other words, more chance of confusion in a low context society.

However, Paul does basically say go check it out. Anyone investigating his claims could have gone to some of these 500 and enquired for themselves. There are other accounts of witnesses such as the disciples as well as the 500.

It just wouldn't make sense for them to perpetuate such a lie if it potentially put their life in danger. Even Peter denied he knew Christ three times before Christs execution. Something must have happened in the days following the crucifiction of Christ to rally the disciples who had just seen their leader die. They were scared, unorganized, and heart-broken before the reported resurrection. It's hard to believe someone gave them a pep-talk and from there they founded Christianity in the midst of persecution. They must have seen something!

And it wasn't Santa Claus

[Lotan]

I'll leave Duke to fight his own battle, but there are a few gems that I can't resist...

2)New evidence shows that Matt was written before 70.

No it doesn't! From the South Coast Today article...

" An ancient Jewish parody that quotes the New Testament's Gospel of Matthew may refute a major argument by biblical scholars who challenge the credibility of the Bible."

Doesn't sound too conclusive to me...

"But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 AD or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew."

Well, maybe it does. The examples given are both logia. I wonder where "some" scholars went to seminary?

"But if Gamaliel quoted the Gospel of Matthew, then Matthew "had to be before 70 AD," said Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament at Denver Theological Seminary."[/i]

So, we don't know when the story was written or even if it borrowed from gMatthew or not! Looks like conservatives clutching at straws in order to get that early date! And you present it as though it was a done deal! It's not the only argument that you've built on sand...

(3)there is more than one version of mark. The version used by LUke is not the same as that used of Mat.

If you say so. Where is the evidence for this, on your 'Doxa' site?

Peter was an eye witness and he died for his bleief. Why would he die for a lie? IF he knew it was wrong why would he die for it?

You don't have the slightest clue how Peter died, or if he died for anything at all. That goes for the rest of the apostles too. All you have are late 'traditions' from the pens of biased reporters.

Peter attested by clmenet of Rome who was a witness to his death and knew other witnesses.

LOL
Clement never met Peter. You have to put on king sized blinders to get that from 1Clement.

I'm always curious as to why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the gospels as poor sources. Either written too late, filled with myths, or constructed to propagate a God-man myth.

You answered your own question!

[Goat]

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

I don't think there's too many credible scholars or historians that believe Jesus didn't exist like Doherty. Even your own source wikipedia, which isn't exactly Christian friendly, says the Jesus-myth is a minority position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

"Currently, the position that Jesus never existed is a minority position among scholars and Doherty's arguments have not made a very strong impression on the consensus among the Western scholars."

I'm always curious as to why sceptics are so quick to dismiss the gospels as poor sources. Either written too late, filled with myths, or constructed to propagate a God-man myth.

Most of the NT was in circulation during the lifetime of many of the witnesses (unless you use very Liberal dating which is of course what the sceptic does). If they were lies, someone would have said something or written something substantial to counter the Jesus Christ movement. So counter testimony could have been given by the reported eyewitnesses.

Why would the disciples and followers of Christ mythify a man and story that would put them in harms way. The Jews were very strong monotheists. So they would've been ticked at anyone perverting the Jewish concept of God. The Romans wanted their subjects worshipping the gods of the ancestors, not Jesus. Why would the disciples perpetuate a lie that would put themselves in a position of persecution. For what reason? Money?- no. Power ?- the Christian Church had no power yet, there wasn't even a Christian church in these times. Why would Paul, who openly persecuted Christians and was even involved in Stephen's death, suddenly convert and be subject to the same persecution himself? It makes no sense if one looks at it logically. The sceptics only hope is some incredible conspiracy theory.

Psst...man never actually went to the moon, the FBI had JFK assassinated, Abraham Lincoln never existed, The Royal family had Princess Diana murdered

While the position that Jesus never existed is a minority one, the arguemetns that Earl Doherty has put togather are well thought out, and very well docuemented. The fact is most of the Western Scholars are "believers" , and they have their own personal bias to contend with.

Well documented and thought out is almost meaningless. It implies a good theory. The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy is the same. Lots of out of date obscure and liberal documentation that is hard for the average person to find.

No, sceptics don't need some 'incredible conspiracy theory'. All skeptics need is the standard human inclination to gossip, and exaggerate.

I would agree with you if the time frame was longer but it's not long enough for fact to be replaced by myth. And this still does not address the core issue of "why would the disciples subject themselves to this?" I found a quote from A.N. Sherwin-White an Oxford historian who specialized in Roman history during the NT times,

"The agnostic type of form-criticism would be much more credible if the compilation of the Gospels were much later in time… than can be the case… Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making, [showing that] even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core." [A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 189-190.]

Two generations would put you into the early second century just about when the the apocryphal gosples started appearing which might be more likely to be myths because most of the eye witnesses would have died by then.

It might be different if there was any non-biblical evidence FOR the Jesus that is depicted in the gospels. The famous Antiquities 18 is at least modified, and quite possible a total insertion, and even if genuine (which I don't think it is), would have been written 60 years after the incident.

Why would there be more writing depicting the Jesus of the NT? Anyone who would have wrote about early Christians would not have been followers. So it's reasonable to assume they would have only written about Jesus and Christians as historical only.

Much is made of the alleged 500 witnesses. However, except for vague references to them, no one knows who they are, and none of them actually wrote anything down. All we have is claims for those 500 witnesses.. none of the witnesses themselves.

This is all too true. It would have been nice of Paul to have recorded more. Names, numbers, addresses, dates of birth SSN's But the writings of the NT were in a high context society. In other words there is much information assumed because of oral traditions circulated amongst the early Christians so they didn't include as much detail. The opposite is low context society. Most of us live in this context. So when we communicate we include more detail because our scope of backgrounds, cultural influences, experiences are much greater than in a high context. In other words, more chance of confusion in a low context society.

However, Paul does basically say go check it out. Anyone investigating his claims could have gone to some of these 500 and enquired for themselves. There are other accounts of witnesses such as the disciples as well as the 500.

It just wouldn't make sense for them to perpetuate such a lie if it potentially put their life in danger. Even Peter denied he knew Christ three times before Christs execution. Something must have happened in the days following the crucifiction of Christ to rally the disciples who had just seen their leader die. They were scared, unorganized, and heart-broken before the reported resurrection. It's hard to believe someone gave them a pep-talk and from there they founded Christianity in the midst of persecution. They must have seen something!

Well, as for the apostles, we have no writing from them also. We have some writings in their name. And out of the legends of the aposltes, as far as we know, only one was executed , and that appears to be an issue totally seperate from belief or non-belief in Jesus (James).

Mark wrote in the 70's. .. A good case was made that 1st Peter was written by a Native greek speaker, which Peter the apostle was not. It also is dependant on Pauline theology, and Peter the gallian would not have been a follower of Paul.

[The Duke of Vandals]

beging the qeuestion. How do you know they dont' come back without disrpoving every claimed case? Documented examples in modern time prove that they do sometimes come back.

I'm really trying to be on my best behavior here. I have to question the honesty of these statements for several reasons.

First, people don't simply come back from the dead. They're either revived using modern medical technology or they were in a coma. It's a very recent turn of events that humans can tell the difference between a coma and a corpse. So, what exactly is your assertion? That Jesus found dozens of people in comas and happened to be in the right time & place when they woke up? Somehow, I don't think so.

People do not MAGICALLY come back from the dead. What you're doing here is attempting to shift the burden of proof using sketchy thinly related evidence. Christians have the burden of proving Jesus did what it was he did just like a man claiming Invisibly Flying Monkeys (IFM's) are real is burdened with proving their existence. We do not state, "How do you know IFM's are impossible? Have you disproved every case of them?"

Claims require proof and the proof must directly correspond to the claim.

Claims which contradict existing established claims are "false until proven true."

This leaves you in the unfortunate spot of either finding mundane explanations for Jesus' alleged actions or admitting the burden is on yourself.

Finally, we have zero coroborating evidence for these alleged eyewitnesses.

why is that not evidence? Peter was an eye witness and he died for his bleief. Why would he die for a lie? IF he knew it was wrong why would he die for it?

Simply put, evidence of belief does not equate to evidence of reality. The 9/11 hijackers died for what they believe in. By your logic, why aren't you onverting to Islam?

You're also missing the big picture. The Christian sales pitch swaps out evidence and replaces it with emotionally charged tall tales of martyrdom and guilt.

simpley false. First the community itself is the witness and that is solid. It's the people of Bethany who were the 500 and many who were on penticost.

Yes, according to Paul, but overlooked by the gospel writers.

(1) Peter attested by clmenet of Rome who was a witness to his death and knew other witnesses.

You are simply using unsupported claims to evidence other unsupported claims. Clement had a vested interest in the blossoming religion and thus had a motive to perpetuate the myth. When I later challenge you with the multiple accounts of Peter's death you arbitrarily decide that one is better than the others. You miss the point: the only "evidence" we have of the disciples are from people who had a clear motivation for inventing them or from third parties who never explain where their information is coming from (like Josephus).

(2) james' death is chonronicaled by Josephus

Which James? The son of Zedebee who allegedly took a trip to spain before coming back to be martyred or the son of Aphaeus who managed to live to 90 before being thrown down over from the pinnacle of a temple and survived to be stoned to death?

(4) Polycarp and Papias both knew Elder John and Ariston and maybe the Apostle John, but both of them were eye witnesses (Aristion and Elder John).

Was that when Polycarp was arguing with Anicetus in the second century? John really got up there in years...

this is a bait and switch has nothing to do with Jesus exsiting as a real peson in history. so the mther stance is groundless. The JEsus of the Gsopels is well supported, I just just got through showing you that. But evne if the Gospels do embellish, the existed itself of Jesus the guy who calmed to be Messiah is solid.

The Jesus of the gospels isn't the least bit supported. I've included this part in my argument to explain WHY people keep believing he is. It has to do with memes. More on that in another thread.

You are totally misguded. Nazerath is proven beyond question to have existed and been inhabited in Jesus' time. It's been excavated four times by modern archeaologists and they all agree that's the ase. the lattest was in 1996. There is even a profject to restore the city to it's first century form.

No, it hasn't been. We have no evidence it existed what so ever. If it were there, where is the synagogue that was there? Where is it mentioned?

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

No, you aren't.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Goose:

Most scholars raised in a Christian culture either assume Jesus lived or read what's been written by earlier historians (in a chain leading all the way back to Tacitus) and are okay with saying "he probably existed". Scholars are all too aware of the drama that comes up whenever anyone tries to claim Jesus wasn't real.

Also, keep in mind that as recently as 200 years ago, stating "Jesus never existed" is a statement that would have been met with laughter at best and outright MURDER at worst.

If we go further back we have the enlightenment in which theologians began to address the very obvious holes in the story and before that we have the Protestants coming onto the scene and questioning the Pope. Before that, for CENTURIES, onyl the clergy is allowed to actually read Christian texts.

Thus, it's a little dishonest to say "scholars accept Jesus existed". It would be more accurate to say, "Now that saying Jesus never existed won't get you burned to death, most scholars assume Jesus is real, but a brave few have challenged the notion for the last 200 years."

Add to this an intellectual hostility that's always waiting for any "christ-myther" and you have a society that's ready to accept assumption as fact.

Several of you keep coming back to Doherty, but he's not the only scholar to understand the mythological nature of Jesus or question it. From Hermann Samuel Reimarus and the deists of the 1770's to Richard Dawkins, Joseph Atwill, Kenneth Humphreys, Tom Harpur, Frank R. Zindler of today... There really are only three camps on Jesus: Those who have a doctrinal axe to grind, those who've delved and understand the truth of the matter, and the vast majority who assume.

[Goose]

Well, as for the apostles, we have no writing from them also. We have some writings in their name.

You are back onto this eyewitness writings thing again. If the writings regarding Christ and the claims of his resurrection were in circulation during the life of the witnesses, this is what matters. Even today, autobiography's are often written by another person other than the "eyewitness". But we don't call them into question. Most of the eyewitnesses were alive during the circulation of these claims. They could have refuted them if they were a lie. Especially if their reputation was called into question as the result of these writings.

And out of the legends of the aposltes, as far as we know, only one was executed , and that appears to be an issue totally seperate from belief or non-belief in Jesus (James).

Why is it that someone must die for their faith for it to be considered persecution? There are many forms of persecution that do not involve death. But you are correct that most of the accounts of marytytdom are based on Christisn tradition of the early Church. But it's also not far fetched to presume that some of them may have died for what they believe. But again, this isn't the most compelling point.

Mark wrote in the 70's. .. A good case was made that 1st Peter was written by a Native greek speaker, which Peter the apostle was not. It also is dependant on Pauline theology, and Peter the gallian would not have been a follower of Paul.

You are back onto this late dating thing again. Even if you use a somewhat neutral source like Wiki, Mark is said to be dated in the 60'a or early 70's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

See the thread on "Do Christians apply logic consistanlty" Metarock has some good arguements there about earlier dating of Mark. Also, 1Corinthians was written in the 50's (see wiki again). It speaks of Christs resurrection. If they were lieing, that book was in circulation pretty early. Early enough for any witnesses to correct the myth.

[Goose]

Goose:

Most scholars raised in a Christian culture either assume Jesus lived or read what's been written by earlier historians (in a chain leading all the way back to Tacitus) and are okay with saying "he probably existed". Scholars are all too aware of the drama that comes up whenever anyone tries to claim Jesus wasn't real.

Also, keep in mind that as recently as 200 years ago, stating "Jesus never existed" is a statement that would have been met with laughter at best and outright MURDER at worst.

If we go further back we have the enlightenment in which theologians began to address the very obvious holes in the story and before that we have the Protestants coming onto the scene and questioning the Pope. Before that, for CENTURIES, onyl the clergy is allowed to actually read Christian texts.

Thus, it's a little dishonest to say "scholars accept Jesus existed". It would be more accurate to say, "Now that saying Jesus never existed won't get you burned to death, most scholars assume Jesus is real, but a brave few have challenged the notion for the last 200 years."

Add to this an intellectual hostility that's always waiting for any "christ-myther" and you have a society that's ready to accept assumption as fact.

Several of you keep coming back to Doherty, but he's not the only scholar to understand the mythological nature of Jesus or question it. From Hermann Samuel Reimarus and the deists of the 1770's to Richard Dawkins, Joseph Atwill, Kenneth Humphreys, Tom Harpur, Frank R. Zindler of today... There really are only three camps on Jesus: Those who have a doctrinal axe to grind, those who've delved and understand the truth of the matter, and the vast majority who assume.

I completely respect your right to question the existence of Jesus. Some of the arguements put forth by people like Doherty are compelling. But when you boil them right down to the nuts and bolts, unfortunately it amounts to a theory. It's fun to debate. But not of much substance. There's just too much evidence in weight of his existence. You could write all we know about Alexander the Great on two peices of paper, yet few question his existence as a person.

[The Duke of Vandals]

You are back onto this eyewitness writings thing again. If the writings regarding Christ and the claims of his resurrection were in circulation during the life of the witnesses, this is what matters.

No. No it's not.

What matters is EVIDENCE.

Claims in circulation mean very little. I don't know about you, but when someone tells me "I saw (insert impossible thing)" my first instinct is to say, "That's impossible. Where is your evidence?"... not to believe in outright.

As I stated earlier, Christianity doesn't have evidence. It has highly charged emotional appeals that take the place of evidence and unsupported claims "evidencing" other unsupported claims.

I respect your right to believe in Jesus. If believing in Jesus makes you feel like a better person, more power to you. However, if you make a truth claim, then you have to back it up. Christianity is big on truth claims and small on back-up.

[Metacrock]

Regarding the many Jesuses:

Josephus mentions over a DOZEN individuals baring the name Jesus.

Jesus was a common name. the argument at face is silly. Because just menitioning several Jesus in no way means they are the same guy, nor dose it detract from the one mentioned in the TF.

The one you hinted at (who may have been the "teacher of righteousness" the essenes talked about) was Jesus Ben Pandira (or Pantera) who we know lived during the troubled time of Alexander Jannaus.

Nope! sorry there is absolutely no evdience to support that conjectue. It comes from the fact that the Talmud speaks of a Jesus Pandera who was the illigitimate son of a hair dresser named Mary and a Roman Soldier named Pandera. But some think that was Jesus of Nazerath. There's no proof, but he didn't live in the time of the TR. That part is made up by Jesus mythers who are trying to explain why there was a Cosmic Christ before the time of Paul.

No real proof either way. But we do know that pantera or Pandira means panther and was a common family name. In Talmud is says that Yeshua ben Joseph had a Grandfather named Pantria. that's a contradiction to the other mention.

After prophesizing doom & gloom and generally making trouble for those in authority he was hung from a tree on the eve of passover. Sound familiar? He wasn't hundreds of years before Jesus (that's a straw man, by the way). He died somewhere between 79 and 88 bce.

we have no idea who the teacher of reightousness was or what happened to him. The only passage refurring to him in the DSS just says that he was tormented by the wicked preist. All of this other stuff is made up completely and You can see you have no evdience. You offer no proof.

There was Jesus ben Ananias who was arrested & beaten by Romans for alleged prophecies about the end of the world. Living in the sixth decade of the first century he was in an excellent place to influence early Christian myth makers as was the rebellious Jesus ben Saphat who led an uprising in Galilee.

what's the reasont o confusse him with Jesus of nazerath? That's like saying "there was a John Connally who was shot when JFK was assasinated and a John Wayne who plaed in movies in the 1960s so these were the same guy.

Also, nearly all of the alleged life events of Jesus are seen in earlier myths and legends, establishing the back story for Christianity.

no they aer not. I prove this conclusively by quoting real scholars not mythers. Those who just deal with myth and are not out to destroy christianty do not mention any of these alledged seimiarties. The real myths are quite different.


http://www.doxa.ws/Myth/copycat1.html

As for Philo?

I can't help but notice your reply leaves out the fact Philo was a contemporary of the early Essenes who are now considered some of the first Christians.

do what? Pilate was also their contemporay as was everyone else at that time. Does that make eveyone an Essene? What if Jesus was an Essene? I believe his family had ties to teh Essenes so what? that doesn't prove anything.

You're also shooting yourself in the foot. Apologists will often claim that the early religion was spreading like wildfire during the time after Jesus' death and the writing of the first gospels. If that's true, then a scholar of Judaism who's hanging out with believers SHOULD be mentioning this Jesus guy.

No I've already dealt with resons he would not. Don't forget he wasn't even in Alexandria but in Eruope. But during the 30s-50's Christianty primarily just spread within Jersusalm, transJordon, up to Antioch and had not yet penitrated Egypt.

If Philo heard about Jesus, but couldn't be bothered to believe the story / write about it in the first century, why should we believe it now in the 21st?

that has no bearing on wheather or not he existed. Philo was not in the market for a Messiah.

And while there wasn't mass communication there was widespread travel and literacy as well as a claim by Christians of one of the most spectacular events in history. The assertion that no one left town to go write about the coming of the godman simply doesn't hold water. We also have one paragraph in the gospel which alleges multiple individuals being raised from the dead. This is the kind of thing that gets written down & talked about and I don't mean decades after the fact.

we know where it spread in the first decades. Jeruslaem and transjorndon, sameira and Antioch and Damascus. (ie Syria). It did not make to Egypt until the end of the frist century.

The historians you mentioned fall into one of two different categories: individuals who have their knowledge handed to them second-hand and individuals who have a doctrinal axe to grind.

Nearly all of the ones you listed are in the second century, fully a hundred years after the fact. Where are the FIRST century accounts from the individuals who were there? Evidence of Christians does not evidence the gospel Jesus any more than evidence of Flat-earthists evidences a non-spherical planet.

histoirans write about things before their time. It always cracks me up that mythers will say that. it's absurd. that's what a historian is. they not news men they are suppossed to talk about things that happened a hundred years before that's their job. now does that mean they can't know about the. No of course not, not in any way.

Now who in that list is good? Je is the atuhroity for the century. he's the major soruce and beyond reproach. Tacitus is second to him in terms of authrotiy as an ancient historian. They are both giants. Lucian is good and even he wasnt'a historian per se, no one was. the idea of academic history didn't exist then. in those days a hsitoiran was any writer who reserached and wrote about the past. Lucian believed in doing a good job on his historical research. Celsus was fairly good. He went out and found the Talmudic stuff. The Talmudic soruces come fromt he frist century.

As for when the gospels were written, I'm afraid you haven't addressed my point. I pointed out the pitfall of using "internal evidence" to date the gospels. You're rebuttal? Pointing to internal evidence.

it's easy to see you are not a trained hsitorian. It is prefectly valid to use internal evience. it's all the time.all texts are artifacts. The proble mis you still don't undersatnd how it's done. you think it's just a matter of believing what it says on; the surface.

HOW a thing is written and WHAT it says doesn't answer conclusively WHEN it was written... especially when we know the authors had a doctrinal axe to grind.

yes, grow up. it does! you don't get it but tis' the method that establshed all the major critical theory that skptics use. Its' called "textual criticism" and its' the science of underastnding the nature of a text and how it was constructed. We can tell by how the text is written when it was written by compring it to the dates of previous and subsequent texts.

Koester and Crosson place the PMR at AD 50 because the basic rule of thunb in schoarhsip is to allow 10 years for copy time and 10 years for travel time. that means it spent 10 years in redaction and 10 years in being disseminated. So they are working backwards from the base date of 70 which most everyone acceptst for canonical Mark.

Your rebuttal still dictates that my statement about New York was written before 9/11, which it very clearly wasn't. Nor does the link you posted save the Christian argument. We know that the Christian myths were around before the gospels. The burden you're under is to prove they were in CHRISTIAN consciousness before 70 ad. A Talamudic tale that COULD have been from the sermon on the mount doesn't do that for you.

that is a totally spurious argument. There no real text here to compare. you dont' undersatnd how textaul criticism works. So I'm trying to give you an example it's not just a matter of saying "He's talkign about the trade center so it's before 9/11" it would be a matter of saying "they didn'tuse this phraseology at that time, they didn't speak this, the stamtent is obviously copied form this other stamtement or it's an earlier form of it.

you need pay attention to what's being said. when it says "sin no more and obey the law" that's Jewish rather than the gentiels who would drop the "obey the law." So that version is older thant he one that just says "sin no more." That would be an example of how it works. of coruse it would be more compelx becuase they would have a whole text and a lot mroe factors to consider.


you are missing the point that are the major textaul critics in the wrold who say this and its' the basis of most of what sketpics use to argue. It's the basis of how we get the Q source, its' how we know Thoams is older than Mark. it's the basis of a lot of skeptical arguments. You not donig yousrel fany favors by dismissing textual criticism.


here's an example using Egerton 2 and Mark, the parts in read show the differencein the early reading:



Egerton 2: "And behold a leper came to him and said "Master Jesus, wandering with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I therefore became a leper. If you will I shall be clean. Accordingly the Lord said to him "I will, be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.

Mark 1:40: And the leper came to him and beseeching him said '[master?] if you will you can make me clean. And he stretched out his hands and touched him and said "I will be clean" and immediately the leprosy left him.

Egerton 2: "tell us is it permitted to give to Kings what pertains to their rule? Tell us, should we give it? But Jesus knowing their intentions got angry and said "why do you call me teacher with your mouth and do not what I say"?

Mark 12:13-15: Is it permitted to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not? But knowing their hypocrisy he said to them "why do you put me to the test, show me the coin?"



now the read parts could be latter or ealrier. but they have reasosn why they think they are ealier. Koester explains.


Koster:



"There are two solutions that are equally improbable. It is unlikely that the pericope in Egerton 2 is an independent older tradition. It is equally hard to imagine that anyone would have deliberately composed this apophthegma by selecting sentences from three different Gospel writings. There are no analogies to this kind of Gospel composition because this pericope is neither a harmony of parallels from different Gospels, nor is it a florogelium. If one wants to uphold the hypothesis of dependence upon written Gospels one would have to assume that the pericope was written form memory....What is decisive is that there is nothing in the pericope that reveals redactional features of any of the Gospels that parallels appear. The author of Papyrus Egerton 2 uses independent building blocks of sayings for the composition of this dialogue none of the blocks have been formed by the literary activity of any previous Gospel writer. If Papyrus Egerton 2 is not dependent upon the Fourth Gospel it is an important witness to an earlier stage of development of the dialogues of the fourth Gospel....(Koester , 3.2 p.215)

Metacrock (before):that argument is invalid because it naively assumes that the final canoical form of Mark is the original form. It si not and I just demonstrated that. Mreover, there's a pre Markan redaction that includes the empty tomb. So that evolutionary miracles idea is wrong headed.

So, you're admitting that there were multiple versions of Mark which don't match one another, don't mention the virgin birth and this is somehow a problem for me?

they mention the viribin birth. They are not amazingly diferent. The differences are small like the one's above, but the point is that they betray an older reading and that pushes the date back ealier. You cuold find the differences if you make copy of all the saying in Matt and in Luke that are from Mark Of coruse it would be exhausting. You could do it if you bought a Gospel paraell.

I fail to see how that is. Also, calling Clement and Paul in as "evidence" of extra-biblical claims is hardly a valid point as these individuals clearly had doctrinal axes to grind.

that's a false criteria. Everyone in the ancient world had an axe to grind. Real histiorians are not so peranoid that they thing everything is a made up lie. NO scholar seilrosuly thinks Paul made up the meeting with Peter in Galations. It's just absurdly impractical to think he could make up such an thign and no one would notice "the guys in that chuch don't remember that." Clement might embellish his time with Paul and Peter but he woudl not get away with saying he knew them if he didn't. He's writting to the chruch at Corinth where people who had knows Paul would be still living.

They aren't impartial third parties. They're individuals looking to start a religion. If we go by the actual evidence we have of them, we can see that they invented details and were ignorant of others. Paul, for example, never demonstrates knowledge of the alleged virgin birth.

totally silly. poisoning the well. Favor little myther/atheist trick. Anyimte the apolgoist uses evidence of a christain just say "that's a lie because all are evil dishonest liars." so all chrisitian evidence si always wrong, no reaont o think any long. that' s just dumb. you have to prove there's basic reason to think that. Otherwise it'sjut peranoia.

As for Athenagoras, I know there are individuals claiming a flesh & blood Jesus before him. I gave him as an example of someone who clearly didn't buy into that account. Also, all of the sources you listed are early Christians with a doctrinal axe to grind who are living in the early 2nd century; over seventy years after the alleged events.

Athenagoras doesn't deny that Jesus was flesh and blood. Its' stupid to expect him to point it out when ti was never a controversy. there's just no reason for him to say it. That's like aying he doesn't talk about big foot either so that disproves bigfoot.


[quiote]And I really suggest you NOT bring up the non-cannonic gospels. The 4 in the NT have enough contradictions in them as they are.[/quote]

I sugguest you go to seminary and learn somethin LIke I did. It's a facinating thing but you have learn about it before youc an critique it and you a lot to learn.