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

[The Duke of Vandals]

Lotan:

Again, I have to insist that the basis for the gospel Jesus were the Jesuses (Jesii ?) that Josephus tells us about. They fit the bill in deed, myth and action along with the earlier pagan myths. A lot of liberal theists and atheists assume there was a person named Jesus born circa 1 ce and died at the hands of the Romans about 33 years later... his story embelished by later writers to become the basis of Christianity.

There's simply no evidence to support this. Look back at each and every post by Meta; You'll see that all of his "evidence" is a house of cards. So and so claimed to have seen so and so do such and such. People were talking about this or that. There was an "oral tradition". He's worked very hard to downplay the supernatural claims of the bible... as though people writing about magic events should be taken as seriously as people writing about mundane events.

No one is claiming there weren't Christians or myths about Jesus. The fact is that there is no evidence suggesting Jesus was real. Also, you've presented no evidence that he exists because there is none. Everyone who mentions Jesus is either living too late in history to be getting alleged eyewitness information or has a clear doctrinal axe to grind.

Nor is there any merit in calling on popular belief / authority. Remember that for centuries, people were "sure" the Earth was flat... a spherical planet orbiting a sun completely counter-intuitive to them. Also, it's an argument that is devoid of honesty. Any scholar who comes forward to challenge the existence of Jesus is met with animosity on the part of Christians... (much like the animosity apologists in this thread have exhibited). So, if apologists want to be honest, they should say, "Most historians believe Jesus existed because Christians have (traditionally) tortured / imprisoned / murdered / persecuted / ridiculed / caused trouble for people who say otherwise." I'm reminded of Stalinist Russians claiming that all Russians love communism (at gunpoint).

Paradigms and worldviews are slow to change due to the memetic attachment people have to religion. I couldn't help but notice, Meta, that you didn't read the Memes thread I started. If you had, you'd know that memes are definable, nor are all ideas memes.

Knowing that the disciples were fictional, knowing that Jesus was based on earlier rabbis and pagan mythology, knowing that everyone who wrote about Jesus and invented mythologies around him had a clear doctrinal axe to grind, knowing that there's a complete void in the early first century where we should see fireworks of excitement, knowing that second century Christians were blithely unconcerned with Jesus' personhood, knowing that appealing to popular opnion / authority (at gunpoint) are both fallacies... knowing all that, how can you conclude that Jesus existed?

[Lotan]

Again, I have to insist that the basis for the gospel Jesus were the Jesuses (Jesii ?) that Josephus tells us about.

Based on what?

They fit the bill in deed, myth and action along with the earlier pagan myths.

Wasn't it Theudas who was killed while leading his followers into the desert so that they could cross the Jordan (recreating the Exodus story) into the 'promised land'? How does that fit 'pagan myths". Jesus was similar to these others in some ways, and also unique in other ways.

A lot of liberal theists and atheists assume there was a person named Jesus born circa 1 ce and died at the hands of the Romans about 33 years later...

What evidence do you have that they "assume" this? What evidence do you have that their opinion of the existence of Jesus isn't a conclusion drawn from an examination of the evidence? Please leave the polemics to the apologists and creationists and stick to facts and argument.

There's simply no evidence to support this.

There is plenty of evidence to support this. I think you're trying to say that in your opinion there is not enough. Is that correct?

Look back at each and every post by Meta; You'll see that all of his "evidence" is a house of cards.

That is obvious and beside the point. No decent scholar relies on that sort of evidence.

The fact is that there is no evidence suggesting Jesus was real.

Again, there is. You just don't think it's enough.

Also, you've presented no evidence that he exists because there is none.

That's the 3rd time (this post) that you've made essentially the same assertion.

Everyone who mentions Jesus is either living too late in history to be getting alleged eyewitness information or has a clear doctrinal axe to grind.

Except Josephus.
Even Paul (who admittedly had an ax) gives us the impression that Jesus actually existed. His meagre testimony is all the more convincing because he isn't interested in Jesus during his lifetime.

Also, it's an argument that is devoid of honesty.

More polemic.

Any scholar who comes forward to challenge the existence of Jesus is met with animosity on the part of Christians...

So is Crossan. So what?

So, if apologists want to be honest, they should say, "Most historians believe Jesus existed because Christians have (traditionally) tortured / imprisoned / murdered / persecuted / ridiculed / caused trouble for people who say otherwise."

Are you serious? Is that what you really think?

I'm reminded of Stalinist Russians claiming that all Russians love communism (at gunpoint).

At least you're not obviously biased!

Paradigms and worldviews are slow to change due to the memetic attachment people have to religion.

Especially scholars who disagree with you?

Knowing that the disciples were fictional, knowing that Jesus was based on earlier rabbis and pagan mythology, knowing that everyone who wrote about Jesus and invented mythologies around him had a clear doctrinal axe to grind, knowing that there's a complete void in the early first century where we should see fireworks of excitement, knowing that second century Christians were blithely unconcerned with Jesus' personhood, knowing that appealing to popular opnion / authority (at gunpoint) are both fallacies... knowing all that, how can you conclude that Jesus existed?

I think you might have made (at least) one assumption too many there. To put it mildly.

I'm a bit pressed for time, so please excuse the hasty nature of this post. I'll be back to address these issues more fully in a little while.

[Metacrock]

Lotan:

Again, I have to insist that the basis for the gospel Jesus were the Jesuses (Jesii ?) that Josephus tells us about. They fit the bill in deed, myth and action along with the earlier pagan myths. A lot of liberal theists and atheists assume there was a person named Jesus born circa 1 ce and died at the hands of the Romans about 33 years later... his story embelished by later writers to become the basis of Christianity.

The problem is you are hyped up on what you want to believe you are ignoring evidence good valid evdience that totally blows away your position. You are hypocrical in the way you evolate evdience, totally so. Becuase there is no evidence whatsoever to link any other use fo Jesus to the guy in Christainity. They were not suppossed to be that guy and Jo doesn't say they were and his use of that name does not mean they were.

there isn o evidence for Jesu before 1 BC but you carp about evidence that dose exist from Ploycarp and Papias because its not good enough. they did write that they knew John. deny it if you will they wrote it n on one anywhere ever wrote about a Jesus of Naz beorre 1 bc no one did ever.

I have proven that none o th pagan god figuresa re anything like Jesus and you can't any link to the gospel authors. those figures were not popular in palestine and all of that can be found in the OT. your postion is a total sham and you know it is!

There's simply no evidence to support this. Look back at each and every post by Meta; You'll see that all of his "evidence" is a house of cards. So and so claimed to have seen so and so do such and such. People were talking about this or that. There was an "oral tradition". He's worked very hard to downplay the supernatural claims of the bible... as though people writing about magic events should be taken as seriously as people writing about mundane events.

my evdience exists in writting. Papias said he herd the Elder John on many occasions. Polycarp said he sat at the Apostle's feet time and time agan. No one every anywhere said anything about a Jesus of Naz from before 1 BC. your standard for examining evidence are totally hypocrtical.

the only reaon you come up with to believe that Jesus X and Jesus y are suppossed to be the same is the common name Jesus which is like saying John Wyne and John Dillinger must be the same guy.

I've showen at every turn why the evdience is good. youc an make names to call it, you have not made it go away. you don't know good evidence in the first place. you dust it off in genral terms without even touching the speicifics.

you have not make Clemmnt of Rome go away by haulting a bs opinion an ignroatn opinion. far more schoolars assume the validity of his work than would assume the validity of your argument.

No one is claiming there weren't Christians or myths about Jesus. The fact is that there is no evidence suggesting Jesus was real.

John Dominic Crosson says the gospels themsevlves are reason enough.

Paul knew peole who knwe him. what do you suppoe he talked about with Peter. you thik peter told him "O yea, you I didn't really know Jesus, no one did never heard of him" and Paul said "O that's ok I'll make it up."

taht's absurd!
clement knew peter, Paul knew peter

papias knew several eye witnesses who saw Jesus.
Polycarp
ignatians
the daguhters of philip.

Nothing you can do about it. you can remian ignorant and pretend you know something when you dont'. but you are just ignoring the truth in font of your face and taking on a lie and keeping your head in the sand.

Also, you've presented no evidence that he exists because there is none. Everyone who mentions Jesus is either living too late in history to be getting alleged eyewitness information or has a clear doctrinal axe to grind.

can you count? do you know enough math to count?


If John was 20 in 30. he was probably younger maybe 15 or so, but say he was 20. So in AD95 he would be 85. Cicero lived to 80. That would be possible. We know that Polycarp was 83 when he died. most people place his death close to 150. So he was 30 at the turn of the century so he would have been 20 in AD 90. he could have known John. He could have talked with im.

Papis wrote in 110-120. He could even more easily have known eye witnesses.


let me give you an analogy. my father was born in 1909. He died in 2000. the last day of 2000. So if some young man had known him in about 1990 he would have found his mind in good enouh shape to hold a coherent conversation. then that guy if he was 20 in 1990 he would be 50 in 2020. So he could say "I knew a guy who was born just a couple of years after the Wright brothes invetned the air plane and who was a young man in the great depression." My father was youn in the 1930s. So let's put this backin Jesus' day. Sy it was the AD30's. Say John or Elder John knew Papias in 90 AD. Papias lives to 120.

the math works, it s very possible.

Nor is there any merit in calling on popular belief / authority. Remember that for centuries, people were "sure" the Earth was flat... a spherical planet orbiting a sun completely counter-intuitive to them. Also, it's an argument that is devoid of honesty. Any scholar who comes forward to challenge the existence of Jesus is met with animosity on the part of Christians... (much like the animosity apologists in this thread have exhibited). So, if apologists want to be honest, they should say, "Most historians believe Jesus existed because Christians have (traditionally) tortured / imprisoned / murdered / persecuted / ridiculed / caused trouble for people who say otherwise." I'm reminded of Stalinist Russians claiming that all Russians love communism (at gunpoint).

you have no concept of argument. conesus in a fhild of schoarsh is not equal to popuarity. Exet opinion is never a fallacy. you wrong, you in error you maknig a classically ignaornt mistake. you need m ore traiing in formal and informal fallacies. you haven idea what you are talking about.

Paradigms and worldviews are slow to change due to the memetic attachment people have to religion. I couldn't help but notice, Meta, that you didn't read the Memes thread I started. If you had, you'd know that memes are definable, nor are all ideas memes.

gobadi goop. Trendy buzz word dsinged to dismiss real thought.

Knowing that the disciples were fictional, knowing that Jesus was based on earlier rabbis and pagan mythology, knowing that everyone who wrote about Jesus and invented mythologies around him had a clear doctrinal axe to grind, knowing that there's a complete void in the early first century where we should see fireworks of excitement, knowing that second century Christians were blithely unconcerned with Jesus' personhood, knowing that appealing to popular opnion / authority (at gunpoint) are both fallacies... knowing all that, how can you conclude that Jesus existed?

Ignorant hypocrite. the evidence for Jesus is 10 times better than any of the bs conjecure that Dhorty and lying bsers come up with. you have no evidence at all. The stuff I'm saying is written by people they said it. they made the claim. "I knew a man who Knew Jesus." no person on this earth ever made the calim "this guy ilving before 1 bc is the prototypes confussed for Jesus of Naz." no one anywhere says that.

everythnig dohrty says is a lie and is disproven. from the alledged similarities of god men who do not seem to be like Jesus to the bs lies aobut the strata in ; Q to the lies tha the chruch fathers dont' talk about a felsh and blood Jesus or the don't talk atonement it's all lie. I have disproven every single aspect of his lying satanic swill.

[Metacrock]

The Duke of Vandals wrote:
So, if apologists want to be honest, they should say, "Most historians believe Jesus existed because Christians have (traditionally) tortured / imprisoned / murdered / persecuted / ridiculed / caused trouble for people who say otherwise."

that is totally ridiculous. ever been in modern secular history class? they are not afarid of the chruch I promise you. maybe you could argue that bout 17th century historians, Certainly not 21st centruy one's totally absurd. I have hsitorians who lambast every aspect of Christianty and have no fear of anyone because they have tenior.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Lotan:

What evidence do you have that they "assume" this? What evidence do you have that their opinion of the existence of Jesus isn't a conclusion drawn from an examination of the evidence? Please leave the polemics to the apologists and creationists and stick to facts and argument.

Well, that's a good question. Let's take a look at the evidence we have for Jesus' existence beyond the gospels and the early church fathers who clearly had a doctrinal axe to grind:



























... and there you have it.

The ONLY place we hear about Jesus in any meaningful way is from either the gospels (which are fictional) and from early Christians (who wanted the myth to be true / were biased / had motivation to mythologize). There is no treasure trove of Jesus artifacts being analyzed by the church.

Add into this 1000 years or more where stating "Jesus never existed" was, at best, grounds for persecution and at worst an offense punishable by murder. Popular opinion is hard to overcome especially when millions of individuals take personal offense at the investigation.

Thus, most everyone works from the assumption that the Christan's godman existed.

As for the rest of your post, you're not seeing the big picture. Let's steer away from Jesus for a moment and look at Alexander the great or other historical figures.

If we see writings about Alexander the great that state, "He conquered nation after nation" we can accept this as a piece of the puzzle to understanding who Alexander was.

If we see writings about Alexander the great that state, "He conquered nation after nation with his magic flaming sword and legion of minotaurs", we know this is embelishment because minotaurs and magic flaming swords aren't real.

This is where I believe you are in this argument: The gospel Jesus = Alexander with his minotaur army & magic flaming sword. Cut away the embelishment and you find a man who conquered nations (in the case of Alexander) and a man who said some things and got owned by the Romans (in the case of Jesus).

That's simply not the case.

If the gospel claims had been true, we'd expect to see a LOT more writing and activity from Judea in the third and fourth centuries. Instead, we see nothing. There is a complete vacuum of information and actions. No one writing from that era has anything to say about this rock-star-level-famous godman. Furthermore, the actual personhood of Jesus isn't at all agreed on by early Christians.

Remember: no one is claiming there weren't Christians or STORIES of Jesus. The claim is that the gospel JEsus remains unevidenced.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Meta:

As I've pointed out numerous times, your so-called "evidence" of Jesus is nothing more than a collection of writings that boil down to little more than "I knew Jesus" or worse "I knew someone who knew Jesus". All of these writers are involved in the early Church and have a clear bias towards inventing this godman. That's all. Nothing more.

[Metacrock]

Lotan:

What evidence do you have that they "assume" this? What evidence do you have that their opinion of the existence of Jesus isn't a conclusion drawn from an examination of the evidence? Please leave the polemics to the apologists and creationists and stick to facts and argument.

Well, that's a good question. Let's take a look at the evidence we have for Jesus' existence beyond the gospels and the early church fathers who clearly had a doctrinal axe to grind:


Church sources

.Paul
B.Clement of Rome
C.Philip of Hireopolis
D.Papias
E.Polycarp


Ancient Secular and Jewish Historians.

One of many pages discussing historians of the first two centuries, not Christian, who speak of Jesus.


A.Josephus (3 pages)
B.Tacitus
C-D. Thallus and Phelgon
E. Lucian
F-H. Suetonius, Galen, Celsus,
I.Talmud (2 pages)








why would papias no tbe evidence?

why would clement not be evidence?

why is Jo not evidence? Josephus is proven twice to have spoken of Jesus of Nazerath and James the Just his brother. two different passages, the second is not even questioned.



A List of Scholar who accept at least some core passage.



John P. Meier
Raymond Brown
Graham Stanton
N.T. Wright
Paula Fredrickson
John D. Crossan
E.P. Sanders
Geza Vermes
Louis Feldman
John Thackeray
Andre Pelletier
Paul Winter
A. Dubarle
Ernst Bammel
Otto Betz
Paul Mier
Ben Witherington
F.F. Bruce
Luke T. Johnson
Craig Blomberg
J. Carleton Paget
Alice Whealey
J. Spencer Kennard
R. Eisler
R.T. France
Gary Habermas
Robert Van Voorst
Shlomo Pines
Edwin M. Yamuchi
James Tabor
John O'Connor-Murphy



Alice Whealy, Berkely Cal.

The TF controversy from antiquity to present



Twentieth century controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum can be distinguished from controversy over the text in the early modern period insofar as it seems generally more academic and less sectarian. While the challenge to the authenticity of the Testimonium in the early modern period was orchestrated almost entirely by Protestant scholars and while in the same period Jews outside the church uniformly denounced the text's authenticity, the twentieth century controversies over the text have been marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question. In general, the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together, with a greater tendency among scholars of all religious backgrounds to see the text as largely authentic. On the one hand this can be interpreted as the result of an increasing trend towards secularism, which is usually seen as product of modernity. On the other hand it can be interpreted as a sort of post-modern disillusionment with the verities of modern skepticism, and an attempt to recapture the sensibility of the ancient world, when it apparently was still possible for a first-century Jew to have written a text as favorable towards Jesus of Nazareth as the Testimonium Flavianum.


Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Michael Gleghorn

"Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D."



Josephus'Testimony to Jesus: by Dr. James D. Tabor

Testimonium Flavianum)
Josephus, Antiquities
18. 63-64



"We have only three Greek manuscripts of this section of Josephus, all from the 11th century. These phrases, added rather clumsily, appear to be rather obvious additions even to the modern reader in English. Once restored to its more original reading Josephus offers us a most fascinating reference to Jesus. Indeed, it is the earliest reference to Jesus outside the New Testament, and its rather matter of fact, neutral reporting, makes it all the more valuable to the historian. It is worth noting that in his earlier work, The Jewish War, written shortly after the revolt under the auspices of the Emperor Vespasian, he mentioned neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor James, while in the Antiquities, written in the early 90s C.E., he mentions all three. For an excellent discussion of this text see John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus(Doubleday, 1991), Vol I, pp. 57-88.


Tabor's Version of Josephus' account without the emmendations.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [...,] for he was a doer of wonders[....] When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him,[ ...,] and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities 18:63-64





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(James D. Tabor is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte where he has taught since 1989. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame (1979-85) and the College of William and Mary (1985-89). His Ph.D. is from the University of Chicago in the area of Christian Origins and ancient Judaism with a specialty in apocalyptic systems of thought, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus and Paul, and related ancient Mediterranean religious movements.)

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

Similarity with Luke's Emmaus Narrative Disproves Idea of Forgery

Mystery of Testamonium Flavian

summarizing a quotation from Josephus Homepage: (1995)G. J. Goldberg correspondences between the TF and the Emmaus narrative of Luke. His conclusion is that these are the reult of a common source which is lost to postterity..

These correspondences are not indicative of what we would expect form a forger, and any latter addtions would destroyi the relationship between the two tests. This means the TF can't be a forgery, but must have been a reliance upon common source..


"The significant variations between the two texts is that the Luke texts have neither the phrase "if indeed he can be called a man" nor "he was the Messiah" at appropriate locations, in accordance with the Arabic version published by Pines (1971) and verifying the speculations of Winter.

However, both texts contain the resurrection and the prophecy in parallel locations and with unusual overlapping vocabulary, again in accordance with the Arabic version, but in disagreement with the speculations of Winter, Meier, and others."

This quotation comes form the author of the Josephus Homepage, who wishes his works not to be quoted, I have to respect his wishes. But I can link to his pages. He summarizes an article in a scholarly Journal which uses computer analysis to back up this proposal about the paralells of Luke and Jo disproving forgery. What they prove is that Josephus used a common source with Luke, the "L" soruce perhaps."A version of this discussion was originally published in The Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), pp. 59-77."














Clesus said he had sectret info form the Jews on Jesus life. Jesus had to be a real for him to have hat. why is that not evdience?


you dnot' know evidence when it bites you in the nose.

... and there you have it.

Yes, there it is. You dont' know evidence when you see it.

The ONLY place we hear about Jesus in any meaningful way is from either the gospels (which are fictional) and from early Christians (who wanted the myth to be true / were biased / had motivation to mythologize). There is no treasure trove of Jesus artifacts being analyzed by the church.

yup yyuop yup that's the only cause the mythers so so so we have to believe it if they say so.

so papias doesn't exist they just made him up. Celsus didn't quote the Talmud they just made it up.

you haven ot right to sayt he gsopels are ficitional. you are just arguing truth by stuipulation.

I stipulate that you are wrong. young man your are stipulated wrong!

Add into this 1000 years or more where stating "Jesus never existed" was, at best, grounds for persecution and at worst an offense punishable by murder. Popular opinion is hard to overcome especially when millions of individuals take personal offense at the investigation.

No one ever said it. that is argument from silence. you know you have to answer that fact, so to answer it make up that "well they tried to say it but there were silenced." You no evidence becasue no one ever did. there are so many ways we would have some indication if somenoe said that.

It's totally impossible that they could have taken up every single copy and everysnigle fragment. that's so sutpid. We have 34 lost gospels. the didn't get them. IF someone had said Jesus didn't exisdt we find some trace of it. that's an argument made to get around the fact that you are the one with no evidece! you have the gaul to say we don't have any!


Thus, most everyone works from the assumption that the Christan's godman existed.

As for the rest of your post, you're not seeing the big picture. Let's steer away from Jesus for a moment and look at Alexander the great or other historical figures.

If we see writings about Alexander the great that state, "He conquered nation after nation" we can accept this as a piece of the puzzle to understanding who Alexander was.

If we see writings about Alexander the great that state, "He conquered nation after nation with his magic flaming sword and legion of minotaurs", we know this is embelishment because minotaurs and magic flaming swords aren't real.

we have real satments from history about Alexander. why don'tyou quote them? Btw they did say he was a son of Zeus. they also said that he had honrs and that he had magic powers. But he existed didn't he? So what do we learn? Saying that someone has majgic powers doesn't mean they didn't exist.

how do you know Jesus didn't heal people? Because you don't want ot believe in it.

but here is modern sicfenctific proof that God heals people:


http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html


you are begging the question

[Metacrock]

here's another peice of evidence I put up in the fist post I made and you never answered it. You can say that the oroal tradition is here say and all but it is evdience that people were speaking of Jesus before the Gosples.

we have 34 lost gosples. many of them are first century. they all portray Jesus as a flesh and blood guy. Not one of them protrays him as s cosmoic figure who didn't exist no earth as a man.


http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html

[Metacrock]

Meta:

As I've pointed out numerous times, your so-called "evidence" of Jesus is nothing more than a collection of writings that boil down to little more than "I knew Jesus" or worse "I knew someone who knew Jesus". All of these writers are involved in the early Church and have a clear bias towards inventing this godman. That's all. Nothing more.

tht is the most foolish thing I've ever heard. "I knew Jesus" Is obviously evience? I first hand account of one who knew him is the best you can get, you can't get better evdience than that. don't forget the 34 Gospels. We have 34 not 4.

Your assertion that they have "bias toward inventing a Godman' Is lunacy.


Lun-a-cy. if they knew they were inventing it they would not die for it as a belief system. Htey no motive to invent smoething none at all!

they wanted reall, they want "I invented this?" That's nuts.

we proof of his brother existing, we have proof of his family, we have the farm where he grew up, we have manger we have the tomb. tons of evidence.

tons of evidence and I haven't even brought out the best aruments. yet. I haven't given the "no other version argument." but I'm about to.




what historians say about evidence for Jesus and Jesus existence.

historians are the keepers of history, they make the rules.




B. How Historians Look at Historicity

Histirans do not dismiss the historicity of a figure just because supernatural claims are invovled. They dismiss the cliams of the supernatual as a matter of ideological bias (ideological in the non-pajorative sense). But, they do not dismiss out of hand the existence of any particular individual just because he is bound up with superntural claims. Most ancient world figures in early history were bound up with such claims. Gilgamesh is the star of an ancient flood narrative which history takes to be mythical, but historians see Gilgamesh himself as an historical figure, probably king of ancient Sumer. Now in all fairness, most histoirans do not place much stock in Pliny the younger's account as proof of Jesus' historicity, most of them do not accept Thallas account at all, or Sarapion, but they accept without question that Jesus existed based upon the Gospels, and the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, San Francisco: Harper, 1996,p.121



"...Non narrative New Testament writtings datable with some degree of probability before the year 70 testify to traditions circulating within the Chrsitian movement concerning Jesus that corrospond to important points within the Gospel narratives. Such traditions do not, by themselves, demonstrate historicity. But they demonstrate that memoires about Jesus were in fairly wide circulation. This makes it less likely that the corrosponding points within the Gospels were the invention of a single author. If that were the case than such invention would have to be early enough and authoritative enough to have been distributed and unchallenged across the diverse communities with which Paul delt. Such an hypothosis of course would work agaisnt the premise that Paul's form of christiantiy had little to do with those shaping the memory of Jesus." "As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying reconstruction of Jesus ministry. Nevertheless certain fundamental points when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outside testimony and non-narrative New Testament evidence, can be regarded as historical with a high degree of probability.Even the most cirtical historian can confiently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was exicuted by crucifiction under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. These assertions are not mathematically or metaphysically certain, for certainty is not within the reach of history. But they enjoy a very high level of proability."


The level of probablity is slightly less secure wtih the resurrection, but that is one of those points of convergence which meet steming form these three different points of origin (Gospels, epistles, and secular sources). It must be remebered that the epistles were written before the Gospels, except perhaps for Mark. So they do count as independent sources.



C. How Historians Look at the Historicity of Jesus

John Dominic Crossan

QUESTION 62

The full review is at:



If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me.

There was one other point where I think Earl Doherty simply misstated what I did. In BofC, after the initial sections on materials and methods (1-235), I spent about equal time in Galilee (237-406) , or at least to the north, and in Jerusalem with pre-Pauline materials (407-573). I agree that if we had a totally different and irreconcilable vision/program between Paul and Q (just to take an example), it would require some very good explaining. Part of what I was doing, for example, in talking about the Common Meal Tradition was showing how even such utterly distinct eucharistic scenarios as Didache 9-10 and I Cor 11-12 have rather fascinating common elements behind and between them. It is a very different thing, in summary, for Paul to say that he is not interested in the historical Jesus (Jesus in the flesh) than to say that "no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul."M

QUESTION 71

Crosson's Asnwer:I am not certain, Neil, that I have much to add to my previous post. I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition. My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a bastard and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. There is, however, a fourth point that I touched on in BofC 403-406. It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing (not in his name, but as part of the Kingdom of God). The most basic continuity that I see between Jesus and those companions was, as I put it, not in mnemonics, but in mimetics. In other words, they were imitating his lifestyle and not just remembering his words. I find that emphasized in the Q Gospel’s indictment of those who talk, but do not do, and in the Didache’s emphasis on the ways (tropoi) of the Lord (not just words/logoi). When, therefore, I look at a phrase such as "blessed are the destitute," and am quite willing to argue that it comes from the historical Jesus, I am always at least as sure that it represents the accurate summary of an attitude as the accurate recall of a saying. For analogy: If Gandhi had developed a large movement after his death of people who are living in non-violent resistance to oppression, and one of them cited an aphorism of Gandhi, namely "if you do not stand on a small bug, why would you stand on a Big Bug," I would be more secure on the continuity in lifestyle than in memory and could work on that as basis.



From J.P. Holding


"Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus thanthere is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one woulddare to argue their non-existence. Meier notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no onedoubts that Alexander existed. [Meier, John P. - A Marginal Jew: Rethinkingthe Historical Jesus. New York: Doubleday, 1991, p. 23]Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, JamesH. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]The well-respected Jewish New Testament scholar, E.P. Sanders, echoes Grant,saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whosenames we have from approximately the same date and place."[ Sanders, E.P. -The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York: Penguin Press, 1993., xiv.]

On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harvey, A. E. Jesus and the Constraintsof History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982., 11] The main proponent of the view that Jesus never existed has been the German Professor G.A. Wells (NOT an NT scholar). Referring to Wells' thesis, Dunnwrites:

"The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such acoherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figuresuch as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. Itinvolves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to themuch simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more orless what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact ofChristianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition issuch that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing theexistence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity'sbeginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably comeout very like Jesus!"[ Dunn, James G. D. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville:Westminster, 1985., 29]


Morton Smith, a hardened skeptic of Orthodox Christianity and an Emeritusv Professor of History, wrote of Wells' work:"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I findincredible beyond anything in theGospels."[Hoffmann, R. J. and Larue, Gerald, eds. Jesus in History and Myth. Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986, 47-48.]

Encyclopedia. Britannica says, in its discussion of the multipleextra-biblical witnesses (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.):"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponentsof Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."(Article on "Jesus", 1990)

As F.F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at theUniversity of Manchester, has stated:


"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not doso on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is asaxiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. Itis not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."[Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? ..5th revised edition, Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972.]Otto Betz concludes: "NO SERIOUS scholar has ventured to postulate thenon-historicity of Jesus (emphasis mine)."[Otto Betz, What do We Know about Jesus?, SCM Press, 1968, page 9]

J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOSTsurprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:



"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack ofreferences. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if theywere at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would bemore aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putativefounder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirectcontact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the ChristChristians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jewleading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire.The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred tohim at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A MarginalJew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]


The Historicity of Jesus In his recent work on extra-biblical references to Jesus, Robert E. Van Voorst comments on the thesis that Christ was not a historical figure:


"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 16.]

The authors of two of the most influential histories of New Testament interpretation sum up the scholarly opinion of the Christ-myth thesis in their day. Werner G. Kummel writes in a footnote that "the denial of the existence of Jesus.[is] arbitrary and ill-founded."[The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) p. 447, n. 367.]

And according to Gunter Bornkamm, "to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all.was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here."[Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Harper & Row, 1959) p. 28.]

Likewise, Van Voorst, referring to the mythicists, states that "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 6.]

The arche liberal Rudolf Bultmann, who doubted the authenticity of much of the Gospel traditions, concluded: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."[Jesus and the Word (2nd ed.; New York: Scribners, 1958).p.13]

Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Charlesworth, James H. - Jesus Within Judaism. New York: Doubleday, 1988., 168-9]

Van Voorst Wrote of Wells:

"Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." [Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, (Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), p. 14.]

To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [See G.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]

Of the historicity of Jesus, Glenn Miller writes the following:



"Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). "Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below). If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

"In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus)."


In his book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders explains that Jesus would not have been well-known by historians in his day: "Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman Empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world" (1993, p. 49, parenthetical comment in orig.).

J.P. Meier, in his authoritative work on Jesus, points out that what is MOST surprising is that we have ANY reference to Jesus at all:


"When we look for statements about Jesus from non canonical writings of the 1st or 2nd century A.D., we are at first disappointed by the lack of references. We have to remember that Jews and pagans of this period, if they were at all aware of a new religious phenomenon on the horizon, would be more aware of the nascent group called Christianity than of its putative founder Jesus. Some of these writers, at least, had direct or indirect contact with Christians; none of them had had contact with the Christ Christians worshiped. This simply reminds us that Jesus was a marginal Jew leading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire. The wonder is that any learned Jew or pagan would have known or referred to him at all in the 1st or early 2nd century." ."[John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994)]


Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:


"Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century." (1995, p. 222)


As J.P. Holding writes: "None of these scholars, we emphasize, is a friendof fundamentalism or evangelical Christianity. Contrary to the protestationsof the "Jesus-myth" consortium, they make their statements based onevidence, not ideology. Conspiracy and bias exist only in their ownimagination."

To his credit, G.A. Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis andhas accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document. [SeeG.A. Wells, The Jesus Myth (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1999).]

"The Historicity of Jesus Christ"

Wayne Jackson

The Christian Courier

December, 7 1998

"More careful scholars, however, have been forced to acknowledge the historicity of the Lord. German historian, Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), declared that Jesus was so imposing that He was "far beyond the power of men to invent" and that those who treat Him as a myth are bereft of "the capacity to distinguish between fiction and the documentary evidence..." (as quoted by Harrison, p. 3). Joseph Klausner, the famous Jewish scholar of Hebrew University (who did not accept Christ as the Son of God) conceded that Jesus lived and exerted a powerful influence, both in the first century and subsequent thereto (1989, pp. 17-62)."

[Metacrock]

1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.


a) eye witnesses keep it stairght


b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better.


c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.

5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.

6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.


a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.


b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.



The main thing that myths do is change. Given enough time, a myth will transmography until the names of the heroes are different, how they died is forgotten and retold so many times, there came to be multiple versions of their death. Myths change over time, but history does not. People remember a basic event they know its real, they don't forget it. Herclues has two deaths, in one he's poisaned, in another shot with an arrow. There are about 14 versions of the Tamuz myth. But there is only one way for the guys at the Alamo to die, there is only one death for Arthur, and there is only one way that Jesus Christ is ver portrayed as dying, that's by the cross. Why? Because that's how he really died. No one could deny it, so no one ever propossed another method.


I have made the argument, on message boards, that there are no alternate versions of the basic Gospel story. The point being, there are many versions of most myths. The fact that with tons of "other Gospels" not a one of them before the fourth century gives an alternate account of Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection is a good indication that everyone knew the basic facts, they were public knowledge because they were history; these things happened before the community of Jerusalem, the whole community was a witness and no one could deny it.Now skeptics have responded that certain alternate Gospels deny the resurrection. They name the Apochraphon of James. This is not true. As will be seen from what I quote below James does mention the resurrection. Some of the latter Gnostics denied the theology of the Virginal conception, but they still allude to the story. They denied that Jesus' death was real, but they do not deny that it happened, only that he was not a flesh and blood being and so could not die. What they accept is that the illusion of a flesh and blood man lived on the earth and was taken for a real person why all who saw him.


That is a fundamental mistake of Dohrtey (the champion of the "Christ-myth" theory), he thinks all the action originally was set in a heavily realm, that is not the case. The Gnostics generally accepted that the illusion of a man was seen on earth and seemed to be living among men. So they just spiritualized the history of Jesus.Below I will quote from several "other Gospels" to show that they affirm the deity of Christ, the resurrection, that they include references to many of the stories and periscopes in the canonical Gospels, and that they assume the general outline of the story that we call "fact."

Of course this in and of itself is not "proof" of the Jesus story, but taken together with the other evidence, it makes a compelling case.

Myths have Multiple Versions



Wikipedia: the Free Encyclopedia



Some myths descended originally as part of an oral tradition and were only later written down, and many of them exist in multiple versions. All cultures have developed over time their own mythology, consisting of legends of their history, their religions, and their heros. The myths that make up a culture's mythology are stories with deep explanatory or symbolic resonance for a culture, which is the usual explanation for why they remain with the culture sometimes for thousands of years. Myths are therefore to be distinguished from fables, folktales, fairy tales, anecdotes, or simple fiction.


Parallel Myths


Friedman presents a fascinating phrase-by-phrase analysis of the two versions of the flood story which appear side by side in Genesis, although rarely noticed by most bible readers. Most bible readers also do not notice two contradictory versions of creation in the first three chapters of Genesis. If you read Gilgamesh, the world's oldest myth which we know of, from 3rd millenium BC clay tablets, you'll find the exact same story as appears in the 1st millenium BC Genesis. Gilgamesh's ark captain Utanapishtim has become Noah in the ensuing two thousand years.



Examples and documentation of
Multiple versions of myth


Mithra

Mithra comes from Persia and is part of Zoroastrian myth, but this cult was transplanted to Rome near the end of the pre-Chrsitian era. Actually the figure of Mithra is very ancient. He began in the Hindu pantheon and is mentioned in the Vedas. He latter spread to Persia where he took the guise of a sheep protecting deity. But his guise as a shepard was rather minor. He is associated with the Sun as well. Yet most of our evidence about his cult (which apparently didn't exist in the Hindu or Persian forms) comes from Post-Pauline times. Mitrha changed over time from Hindu patheon to persian sun god, to mystery cult savior.

(Marvin W. Meyer, ed. The Ancient Mysteries :a Sourcebook. San Francisco: Harper, 1987,, p. 201).

Dionysus

The Greek god Dionysos is said to be the god of wine, actually he began as a fertility god in Phrygian and in Macedonia, Thrace, and other outlying regions. The origin of the cult is probably in Asia. (Charles Seltman, The Twelve Olympians, New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 1960.)

In some stories Dionysos is torn apart by the Titans. IN other stories it is Hera's orders that he be torn apart. (Edith Hamilton, Mythology, Mentor edition, original copywriter 1940, pp. 61-62).

Tamuz

Easter: Myth, Hallucination or History by Edwin M. Yamauchi Leadership u.
Updated 22 March 1997
(prof. of History at Miami University, Osford Ohio)



"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N. Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld, Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister take his place for half the year "(cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31). "Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis, the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth centuries A.D". ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).


The "Great" Cybele

"Cybele, also known as the Great Mother, was worshiped through much of the Hellenistic world. She undoubtedly began as a goddess of nature. Her early worship included orgiastic ceremonies in which her frenzied male worshipers were led to castrate themselves, following which they became "Galli" or eunuch-priests of the goddess. Cybele eventually came to be viewed as the Mother of all gods and the mistress of all life." (Ronald Nash,"Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" The Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, p.8) [CRJ:http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/tex ... o169a.html

In some versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being changed into an evergreen tree.(Ibid)

The cult changes over time and the story changes:Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 1 50. ( "Les Fetes 'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70).

Osiris

The Cult (Osiris) moved to Rome where it was at first rejected, but finally was allowed into the city between 37 and 41. Only after the next two centuries did it become a rival of Christianity. Its eventual popularity came from its elaborate ritual and hope of immortality, although this was a latter development which post dates Christian origins and does not include Osiris. During the Osiris phase the immortality aspects were very minimal. 3) Early phase of cult no savior, in period of clash with Christianity, no Osiris! Thus, during the early part of the cult they had no great savior figure and no salvation aspects to speak of, and in the phase where they competed with Christianity (two or more centuries after the Gospels) they had no dying or rising savior figure. (Ronald Nash, "Was The New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?" the Christian Research Journal, Winter 19994, p 8 )

Global phenomena

It seems to be a universal law of mthology that myths transmutate over time. Here is a report about mythology of the Northwestern United States and it's native people. It states that they have multiple versions of the same myths.

DRAFT: CASCADIA MEGATHRUST EARTHQUAKES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST INDIAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS

by Ruth Ludwin, University of Washington Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences 12/29/99 DRAFT



"Incomplete as the preserved oral history of Cascadia is, many stories are repeated in multiple versions, with some "mixing and matching" of story elements, and some of the stories are geographically wide-spread."


Here are (not all) basic points
of agreement between all Jesus sources
from before the fourth century.

all The most basic details about these mythological figures changes and froms mutltiple myths. Who they were, what they stood for, their function, how they lived, how they died, even their country of origin all change. A god like Mirthra begins as an unimportant figure in Indian pantheon and winds up the sun God, the God of shepards in Persian and then something else in Rome. All of these mythical figures change over time, but not Jesus. There is basically one Jesus story and it's always the same.


1) Jesus lived on earth as a man from the beginning of the first century to AD 33.

2) That his mother was supposed to be a Virgin named "Mary"

3) Same principle players, Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdeline.

4) That Jesus was knows as a miracles worker.

5) he claimed to be the son of God and Messiah.

6) he was crucified under Pilate.

7) Around the time of the Passover.

8) at noon.

9) rose from the dead leaving an empty tomb.

10) several woman with MM discovered the empty tomb.

11) That this was in Jerusalem.


There were hundreds of sources, different books and Gospels and Acts, that never made it into the New Testament. The Jesus story is re-told countrless times from early days (around AD50 first written) to the fourth century, before there was ever a major alternatiion in any of these basic details. Even after that time, no one ever disagreed with these points listed avove. Here is just a partial list of source from this era, all of them agree on the points listed above. This list comes from a website,(Gospel of Thomas Home page)