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]

You can say that there is no evidence because, in true pseudo-style, you are beginning with your conclusion (that there is no historical Jesus) and 'reasoning' backwards. No doubt you would (actually you did) cite the NT as evidence for the Christ-myth theory. In order to say that the NT can't also be evidence for the existence of Jesus, you would have to prove, in the first place, that he didn't exist, which you have not. It might be that you don't feel that the evidence we have is sufficient or direct enough, but you haven't shown that either.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

What I've been asking all along is WHY should we consider the NT evidence for a historical Jesus?

If anything, the fabrication is the "historical Jesus" that liberals have invented from seperating the miraculous events in the NT from the person they're attributed to.

Simply because a group of people claimed this individual exists doesn't make it so.... no more so than a group of UFO enthusiasts "evidences" UFO's.

[Lotan]

You can say that there is no evidence because, in true pseudo-style, you are beginning with your conclusion (that there is no historical Jesus) and 'reasoning' backwards. No doubt you would (actually you did) cite the NT as evidence for the Christ-myth theory. In order to say that the NT can't also be evidence for the existence of Jesus, you would have to prove, in the first place, that he didn't exist, which you have not. It might be that you don't feel that the evidence we have is sufficient or direct enough, but you haven't shown that either.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I don't know...maybe I got it from statements like...

"What evidence did they study? There is none."
or
"The fact is that there is no evidence suggesting Jesus was real."

Silly me.

What I've been asking all along is WHY should we consider the NT evidence for a historical Jesus?

You haven't asked any such thing. All you've done is to raise what you think are valid objections and imply that the conclusions of scholars who study the NT are based on ulterior motives, rather than the evidence...

"So, all the scholars who are working from tained sources are, well... working from tainted sources." (Post 118)

As if they are not aware of that! The short answer to your question is that we consider the NT evidence for a historical Jesus because that is what it purports to be. The objections that you have made are taken into account as well as many other that you haven't mentioned. If they're not, rival scholars are quick to point that out.

If anything, the fabrication is the "historical Jesus" that liberals have invented from seperating the miraculous events in the NT from the person they're attributed to.

Shouldn't you at least try to back up some of your previous claims before you make new ones? I'm still waiting to hear about those pre 1 ce "Jesus Cults".

Simply because a group of people claimed this individual exists doesn't make it so....no more so than a group of UFO enthusiasts "evidences" UFO's.

That's like saying...

"Simply because a group of people claimed this event didn't happen doesn't make it so....no more so than a group of Holocaust deniers "evidences" that the Holocaust didn't happen."

It's just noise. It adds nothing to the debate.

Now, since you haven't been able to support any of your claims so far (let alone provide any conclusive evidence), I thought it might be fun to see you fail yet again. You wrote...

"Also, nearly all of the alleged life events of Jesus are seen in earlier myths and legends, establishing the back story for Christianity." Post 10

"Josephus tells us about. They fit the bill in deed, myth and action along with the earlier pagan Again, I have to insist that the basis for the gospel Jesus were the Jesuses (Jesii ?) that myths." Post 81

On the basis of these, and similar claims it should be easy for you to identify the sources of the gospel stories. How about the "Little Commision"? (Mark 6:6-13, Matt. 10:7-11, Luke 9:1-6) Where did that come from exactly? Was it Krishna?

If that's too much for you, then just tell us who the "myth makers" were.

[Cathar1950]

I just had a thought.
Maybe Jesus was raised as a new spirit creation and didn’t need his body. They could have buried him or yes dogs could have eaten him, they did others, but I so need for Jesus’ body to be of any importance. It appears Paul and maybe others had visions and the rest is stories trying to explain much of what was unknown to believers later.
Maybe the foot that had the nail in it was the foot of Jesus and now the whole world has looked at the one that was pierced. I could start a new religion; the church of the holy foot. I believe it is the only foot found like that, nail and all.

[Lotan]

I believe it is the only foot found like that, nail and all.

It is the only remains of a crucified individual that's ever been found IIRC. Imagine all those crucifixions and no bodies... They must have all resurrected!

[Cathar1950]

I believe it is the only foot found like that, nail and all.

It is the only remains of a crucified individual that's ever been found IIRC. Imagine all those crucifixions and no bodies... They must have all resurrected!

With all those people popping out of their graves after the crucifixion.

Confused pointed this out that I had not thought of in years.

Matthew 27:51-53 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

I also read that the curtain was torn when the Romans took the temple to cut it down then they took it to Rome for display about the time Mark was writing.
It does seem weird that there is only one body when many thousands were killed in such a fashion. I guess they use to nail them to anything. I remember reading that the word they used for the cross of Jesus was a stake and not a cross.

I just finished this book “Jesus 100 years before Christ” where it is noted that all the early writings of follower talk as if Jesus was a spirit being and not a resurrected body.
I will have to get into it later after breakfast.

[Easyrider]

I remember reading that the word they used for the cross of Jesus was a stake and not a cross.

Right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses handbook. There's a lot of websites around that can clarify that for you.

I just finished this book “Jesus 100 years before Christ” where it is noted that all the early writings of follower talk as if Jesus was a spirit being and not a resurrected body.

Whoever wrote that is deluded. There's a number of references in the Gospels that say otherwise.

Also, if Jesus were just resurrected spiritually, how would the disciples and women (Mary, etc.) have known and exclaimed that he was risen?

[Cathar1950]

I remember reading that the word they used for the cross of Jesus was a stake and not a cross.

Right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses handbook. There's a lot of websites around that can clarify that for you.

I just finished this book “Jesus 100 years before Christ” where it is noted that all the early writings of follower talk as if Jesus was a spirit being and not a resurrected body.

Whoever wrote that is deluded. There's a number of references in the Gospels that say otherwise.

Also, if Jesus were just resurrected spiritually, how would the disciples and women (Mary, etc.) have known and exclaimed that he was risen?

You are confusing the gospel stories with the earlier writings such as Paul.
The reason they made up the stories about the physical resurrection against the spiritual Christ is because of Gnostics.

they nailed them to anything handy trees stakes whatever.

[Easyrider]

I remember reading that the word they used for the cross of Jesus was a stake and not a cross.

Right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses handbook. There's a lot of websites around that can clarify that for you.

I just finished this book “Jesus 100 years before Christ” where it is noted that all the early writings of follower talk as if Jesus was a spirit being and not a resurrected body.

Whoever wrote that is deluded. There's a number of references in the Gospels that say otherwise.

Also, if Jesus were just resurrected spiritually, how would the disciples and women (Mary, etc.) have known and exclaimed that he was risen?

You are confusing the gospel stories with the earlier writings such as Paul.

Nope. Even if the Gospel writers wrote after Paul it doesn't mean that (1) they used any of his material or ideas, and (2) it doesn't mean that the events they experienced and wrote about didn't occur before Paul's conversion, etc.

The idea that just because someone else wrote something earlier than someone (say, Matthew) who was actually involved with Christ; therefore Matthew must have copied Paul, is disingenuous and lacks foundation / evidence.

[Cathar1950]

Nope. Even if the Gospel writers wrote after Paul it doesn't mean that (1) they used any of his material or ideas, and (2) it doesn't mean that the events they experienced and wrote about didn't occur before Paul's conversion, etc.

The idea that just because someone else wrote something earlier than someone (say, Matthew) who was actually involved with Christ; therefore Matthew must have copied Paul, is disingenuous and lacks foundation / evidence.

I think they used some of his ideas but ignored others. Matthew didn’t copy Paul he copied Mark with embellishments there is no reason to think any gospels were written by any witnesses or before Paul to suggest they were “is disingenuous and lacks foundation / evidence”. Not one gospel writer experienced anything before Paul’ s conversion. Even the most conservative scholar do not believe Paul had any of the gospels at his disposal and given Paul does not get his gospel from men then I guess your above comments are worse then the JW’s ideas.

[The Duke of Vandals]

Lotan, I'm not sure what caused you to go from being a fan to an apologist, but the problem with your argument (as I've pointed out numerous times) is right here:

The short answer to your question is that we consider the NT evidence for a historical Jesus because that is what it purports to be.

You're argument, as I understand it, is that we have no reason to believe the gospels aren't accurate accounts of individual eyewitnesses that happen to be embelished.

There's simply no evidence for this. Neither Tacitus nor Josephus mentions the man behind the godman in any meaningful way. Yes, there are a lot of scholars who have looked at the NT and concluded it all matches up, but really, what do we have?

What do we have that evidences Jesus, Lotan?