The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #1

Post by Tart »

This is a big question of our times... Was Jesus a myth? Is it reasonable to believe Jesus never even existed?

You see how often people throw around cliche phrases like "the Bible is proof of Jesus, and comic books are proof of spider man", or "there is the same amount of proof of Jesus as there is for King Arthur."

It seems like a lot of us question if Jesus ever even existed.. This is such an important aspect of Christianity, because if Jesus never even existed, than Jesus was never Resurrected and Christianity is false testimony about God, and even the first disciples confessed that.

There can be a lot said on this subject, but I think all the evidence points to one thing, a historical Jesus... And when I say "all the evidence" I mean it...

Many people point non-biblical sources as to give evidence of a historical Jesus, and certainly there are many of them. But even more so, its not JUST these sources that point to a historical Jesus, it is ALL the sources point to a historical Jesus. There is NO source whatsoever, from any time period from the first century AD, when Jesus existed, all the way up to the 18th century, that will tell us Jesus never existed. The earliest sources we have that question if Jesus was a myth are just a few hundred years old.

"The beginnings of the formal denial of the existence of Jesus can be traced to late 18th-century France" (Wikipedia "Christ myth Theory")

"The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might as well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus"
Bart Ehrman (agnostic Biblical scholar).

Scholars literally turned this idea upside-down and called the "mythical Jesus" a "modern myth". They are saying that if you believe Jesus is a myth, you believe a myth...

So what is the evidence Jesus existed?

I think the best evidence is the Bible itself, and its reliability. Take the biggest critics of a historical Jesus, like Dr. Carrier for example, and we have them confessing certain truths about Christianity. Like the existence of Paul, I have never seen anyone argue that Paul never existed, because we know he existed and we know he wrote the majority of the New Testament. For example we have archaeological evidence of Paul on trial, backing up exactly what is talked about in the Book of Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

No one thinks Paul never existed, not even biggest scholars that argue Jesus never existed, we all agree Paul existed. We also know that Paul knew the Disciples, I have never heard anyone say otherwise. Paul knew Peter, eyewitness and disciple of Jesus. Paul knew James, the brother of Jesus. Paul knew John. Likewise the first disciples are depicted in the book of Acts, and also the Gospels. We have Pauline epistles name dropping, and we have the letters written by Peter, James, and John. So we know that the first disciples were real. The evidence shows us that the people who walked with, talked with, and knew Jesus first hand actually existed. I have never seen anyone give a reasonable case against it, and I see no reason to believe these people didnt exist.

And these people knew others, like Saint Stephen, and Thomas the Apostle, Mark the Evangelist, Philip the Apostle, Jude the Apostle, Luke, etc... These people knew, first hand, the disciples... This is the history of Christianity... And likewise it just continued to spread, to people like Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Ptolemaeus and Lucius, Saint Pothinus, etc... We have the records from the earliest disciples all the way down to the first churches, and beyond. And even the biggest critics of Christianity, and a historical Jesus, has to admit that (at least some) of these people are historical... And there is no reason to believe that any of these people didnt exist...

Jesus was surrounded by historical people.

Even going backwards from Jesus we have historical people... As mentioned in the Gospels, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, etc... In fact, people use to say the same about Pontius Pilate, that he never existed. That didnt last long, as we have found archaeological evidence of him. These people are historical, and even the BIGGEST critics have to admit it. Not to mention, all this was going on when the Jews were smack dab in the middle of written records.

I mean, I have never heard of anyone claime the Old Testament isnt historical, with respect to the nation of Israel. The Old Testament is the written records of the Israelite's. We have archaeological evidence of this kingdom, we even have evidence of Israelite's in Egypt all the way back to 1400BC. Backing up the very first book of the Bible, Genesis. We have verses in Genesis that mention real places, and real people, like the Pharaohs of Egypt for example. We have archaeological evidence of the twelve tribe of Israel going to the land Israel. We have evidence of their wars, the government, their laws, their kings, and their genealogy. It is clear that Israel kept some of the most detailed historical records in all of humanity, personally think if you want to study humanity itself, the best place to go is the Bible. Which isnt surprising because knowledge is said to begin with God. These are the best records of where our laws came from, where our history came from, and the likes.

So all the while, Jesus appears right smack in the middle of historical written record, and was surrounded by real people and places, and we dont have any early sources challenging the existence of Jesus.

It starts historical with the kingdom of Israelite's and there written record, included in the Old Testament, it continues on to the New Testament with people like King Herod, and the genealogy of King David, all the way down to Joseph and Mary. And places like Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Samaria, etc... The story continues with historical people like Nicodemus, and Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, etc.. And places like Corinth, Rome, Galilee, the Jordan River, etc... The disciples, like Peter, James, John, Simon, etc... And Jesus dies a historical death (according to every source we have), and is resurrected.. And the history continues on, to people like Paul, Saint Stephen, Aeneas, Luke, Jude, Mark, etc. And the Christian Church comes into existence.

Everything we know about this is historical, and the biggest critics of a historical Jesus have to admit it...

So given ALL this historical evidence, the people places and events around Jesus Christ, can anyone give an example of anyone of history (or mythology/fiction) who was surrounded by this magnitude of historical evidence who was in fact a myth, or fictional?

And if you believe Jesus never existed, can you give us any reasoning or evidence that led you to believe that? How can you reasonably believe Jesus never existed?

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #31

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]
Amazingly, there is more evidence about Jesus' existence than about Trajan's Parthian campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27 ... gn#Sources
https://www.quora.com/Did-Rome-conquer- ... used-to-be
Much like what Tart did in his OP, you too mischaracterize the very sources you link to. In the Wikipedia link you gave, just by scrolling up, I found photos and mentions of coins mentioning Trajan found in the very regions that his campaign was in.
A question that you and Tart do not ask is what kinds of evidence? If someone actually speculated that Trajan's Parthian campaign never happened, he would have to explain away anything that would indicate that there was a campaign, and not just documents. Coins, inscriptions, battle monuments
Well spotted; I'd come across the Quora page a few days earlier researching the history of Babylon, and didn't look too closely at the Wikipedia page when I linked it for further reading.
  • "This story is, parenthetically, a great example of how spotty our sources for ancient history can be: the most powerful of all Roman emperors conquers one of the most famous parts of the ancient world: what we have is a cut-down summary of Dio’s Book 68, a paragraph Eutropius’ biographical dictionary and some Byzantine crib notes from nearly a millenium later — hardly anything else."
Still it does seem to be the case that the evidence for Trajan's Parthian campaign is arguably weaker than for Jesus' existence, and certainly would be by the criteria applied by critics of the latter. Two of those three literary sources are from more than a quarter of a millennium after Trajan - they would be dismissed out of hand. [Edit: In fact come to think of it, the abridgement of Dio's work was from an 11th century monk, so that would be dismissed too!] Cassius Dio suggests that Trajan falsely reported the extent of his conquests to the Senate, saying that "he would declare that he himself had advanced farther than Alexander, and would so write to the senate, although he was unable to preserve even the territory that he had subdued." (Hence the later Eutropius seems to report as fact that Trajan reached India.) So even the coins issued by the Senate/Trajan to commemorate his victories could be considered suspect.

Either way, it certainly helps put the supposedly 'weak' evidence regarding Jesus in perspective. For a Galilean peasant, it's actually remarkably strong evidence that we have information directly from two sources who knew his brother (Josephus was resident in Jerusalem in the year James was killed there, and of course Paul), in addition to the Mark, Q and John sources about Jesus' own life.



Edit:
rikuoamero wrote:
What is your source for that claim? I can't find any credible source to back it up.
This is why I remain non-committal with what Willum says. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Greek, Latin or Hebrew languages. I can neither prove or disprove what he says regarding Hail Zeus. I will admit though that I always found it odd that he talks about Hail Zeus, since Hail is an English word...
And 'ie' bears not relationship to the Greek or even Latin words for hail, χαί�ω (chaír�) and ave respectively. But that's not even the point really, because it's easily proven (as I linked in post #7) that the Septuagint translated the Hebrew name Yehoshua into Greek Iesous long before Jesus was born; the notion that Iesous was some kind of Roman conspiracy to coax Jews into worshiping a Greek god is patently absurd from start to finish.
Last edited by Mithrae on Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #32

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 23 by Overcomer]

No, you have just believed the spin.
They were indeed trying to lay traps for him, and exposed him as the rascal he was.

What Christians never mention is that Caesar was a god, a man-god empowered by the pagan god Jove.

Imagine you are a Greek in Jerusalem, near the gates of the temple dedicated to the worship of Jove and the Caesars, where they paid the tithes to them, and you heard Jesus say:

"Render to the divine Caesar, those things that are Caesars, and to the divine God, those that are God's."
You and the Greeks are both gentiles. You both see the wisdom of this statement. Even though he placed Caesar before God, and blasphemed.

If you were a Jew, what would you hear?
Well, the tribute penny is a graven image of both Caesar and the goddess Pax. This graven image is the tribute this god desires, as opposed to God, who at the time, liked rams.

You'd see Jesus say, gesturing at the temple to Caesar, "Render to Caesar, what is Caesar's," then gesturing to the run-down temple to God, "and render to God, what is God's."

So as a Jew you would hear this Jesus say that they should give tribute to the god Caesar before God. Quite naturally you would want him killed for blasphemy, and that is what happened.

PS: Io Saturnalia!
Io Zeus!

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #33

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 30 by Willum]
hey, is more sound than word, but, hey, ay, ie, io (yo) ad infinitum, and indeed more formal 'heils" and so on are mean the same things, "Hey Riku..." means "pay attention to me, Riku."
So the sound made by the word "hey" means basically the same thing in every language?
I find this a little bit hard to believe, given how varied human languages are.
No, it is undenialbly true that Iesus is a homophone (in other words it sounds exactly like) Ie Zeus, and if you spoke Greek or Roman, this is what you would hear,
Did you mean to link something?
His "J" argument is specious. If you see any matter to it, I'll need it explained to me, for indeed the sound existed, and Latin and Greek had no spelling rules.
No spelling rules? Since I'm not a student of languages, I don't exactly know what to say to that, but off-handedly, I raise my eyebrow. How can a written language exist and survive if it didn't have rules about how to actually spell things?
Is what you're saying akin to saying that you don't have to spell Rikuo with R, I, K, U, and O, but if you wanted you could use Y, T, E, J, N, M and L?
The French do not pronounce the last letter of a word.
Again, I'm pants at languages, but...I did study French for eight years in school. That...and my best friend is French, and speaks it as a second language. He's living in Paris right now. I'll ask him later to confirm but for now...
I've just gone to French Wikipedia and read their Article of the Day, just something at random really. The French do sometimes at least, pronounce the last letter, most typically when its a consonant but I did see some words ending in vowels where the last letter is pronounced.
He seems to think my understanding of Greek and Latin is an opinion
For what it's worth, you don't cite anything to back you up, whereas Mithrae does and has.
My knowledge isn't extensive, but it is no opinion.
So what is your education in Latin, Greek and Hebrew? What is your level of understanding? Do you speak them? Are you able to read and write in them?
but mithing link didn't bother to show that how you pronounce Joshua in Greek, is Joshua, or Eeyos(h)ua,. Deceptive and ingenuous if you ask me.
Mithing link...?
"Golden people," are practically an identity.
Of who or what? I haven't heard of them. Granted, I'm only an amateur historian, but still...
When Christian over-wrote it,
Christian? Singular? Single person? Overwrote what? What is 'it'?
they over-wrote the word "golden."
In English? :?
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.
I think the problem is that you probably know something...but your hands just aren't actually typing what it is you know. You're not transferring what's in your head to the screen.
So Tacitus, was not referring to Christians, but them, Golden people. Why do you think it is called the Golden Rule, and not the Christian rule?
I don't know...because it would be tautological? Gold has always been a signifier of wealth, class, privilege, so to describe something as golden is to give it more weight in people's minds.
Why is it that the 1st place prize in the Olympics is a gold medal, versus bronze?
All that can be done is to try to attack the word games. Succeed or fail, they can not present any proof.
But you don't actually cite or link to anything! I have no idea if what you're saying about all these languages is actually true.
, they deny it, but can't provide anything but denial OF the words games to prove they exist.
A quick scan of the exchange between yourself and Mithrae reveals nary a citation or link from you, but a few in Mithrae's case.
Surely you know how evidence works in argumentation?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #34

Post by Mithrae »

rikuoamero wrote:
"Golden people," are practically an identity.
Of who or what? I haven't heard of them. Granted, I'm only an amateur historian, but still...
When Christian over-wrote it,
Christian? Singular? Single person? Overwrote what? What is 'it'?
they over-wrote the word "golden."
In English? :?
I honestly don't know what you're talking about here.
I think the problem is that you probably know something...but your hands just aren't actually typing what it is you know. You're not transferring what's in your head to the screen.
The Greek word for 'gold' is χ�υσός (chrysós) - Willum correctly mentioned that earlier - which looks a bit like Χ�ιστός (Christós), and we all know that Jesus was one of the folk who promoted the 'golden rule.'

Since I've never seen the claim before (even from Willum, though I don't read all threads) and can't find anything about it online, and Willum himself has constantly failed to substantiate it, I suspect that he or someone else thought something along the lines of "Hey, Christos -> chrysos -> gold -> 'golden rule' -> let's claim that the references to Christ were really about some 'golden people'!" It sounds about as good as 'hail Zeus' if you don't think about them too much, after all.

But in addition to the absence of evidence for any 'golden people' (so far); and the possibility that the 'golden rule' wasn't even known as such until the 17th century; and the contextual problems which make that view impossible in most if not all references to Jesus in any case... the Greek word for the adjective which would be needed in 'golden people' seems to be χ�υσαφένιος (chrysafénios) which short of some conspiracy would obviously be a lot more difficult to explain as being mistaken for Christos.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=gree ... for+golden
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=koin ... for+golden

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #35

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 33 by rikuoamero]

So, you didn't ask a question I hoped you would, about Ie, or Io.
Io Staurnalia is a common expression celebrating Saturn.
Now Joshua should more likely be Iosua, right? Not Iesua, or Iesus. Continuing the lie, which really becomes convoluted, we should have something like Iosus, right?
and right there we have Io Sus, or Io Zeus, for Jesus.
Yeah, I know it doesn't make sense - but it isn't me not making sense, it is the Septuagint chasing its tale.
By the way, my competition is the derivation, which if you examine it - is specious itself, and again, was written in a religious text, not a grammarian one, so, again, we are fighting a biased reference, not an academic one. We might as well be quoting the Bible.
So the sound made by the word "hey" means basically the same thing in every language?
I find this a little bit hard to believe, given how varied human languages are
Tough to believe, easy to find out.
Did you mean to link something?
OK- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/homophone
No spelling rules?
If you are going to be ingenuous - I'll loose my patience. It means the you could spell 'kick,' kik, kic, or kick. You can utilize human speech and convention to have conventional pronunciations: Like resume.
For what it's worth, you don't cite anything to back you up, whereas Mithrae does and has.
Well a lie needs back-up. There is absolutely NO REASON to have some weird conversion of Joshua to Jesus.
Joshua is perfectly pronounceable in Latin and Greek. In fact many people are named both Joshua (Greek pronunciation: Eeyoshu/Eeosu(a)) and Jesus (Greek pron: HeyZeus).
So what is your education in Latin, Greek and Hebrew? What is your level of understanding? Do you speak them? Are you able to read and write in them?
It is easy to quote a sentence and ask a question about it.
Mithing link...?

It is easy to quote a sentence and ask a question about it.
Of who or what? I haven't heard of them. Granted, I'm only an amateur historian, but still...
Tacitus was not describing Christians when he used the word, he was describing a different people. You haven't heard of them because nobody cares about them, but Christians were desperate enough to find something, anything to create an independent reference. They had slim pickings, because, of course, there was no reality, only coincidence to write over.
Christian? Singular? Single person? Overwrote what? What is 'it'?
Over-wrote Chresos, 'it' is only the topic of conversation. The forgery. Tacitus reference is the word golden, which was altered to make anointed.
(If you honestly don't know what I am talking about here, find out.)
I don't know...because it would be tautological?
No, it is the Golden rule because it was named after its originators.
But you don't actually cite or link to anything!
Riku whines a-characteristically, seemingly unable to "Google," himself.
http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html
Don't regard what this guy says so much as who he links to. What I have said isn't new or revolutionary. What the author says isn't new or revolutionary, he is quoting people who have been quoting people, who were probably quoting others... What I am observing isn't new. It just seems to be buried and ignored. I can think of a few events that did a good job: The Inquisition, and the Dark Ages - you know, where books that said this would be burned, and people who said it killed.


By counter example: The Apostles: Paul does not become Paulus. Peter is not Petreous, Thomas is not Thomastus, you get the idea.

So why does the leader require a Septireligious to be transformed into "Hail Zeus"? to the Greek and Latin world?
There is no reason. Certainly not today. But back when Jesus needed to be promoted to the Roman world, he needed a hook.

Io Zeus, my brother.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #36

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 35 by Willum]
If you are going to be ingenuous - I'll loose my patience. It means the you could spell 'kick,' kik, kic, or kick. You can utilize human speech and convention to have conventional pronunciations: Like resume.
You probably meant to say disingenuous...but I asked it in all honesty. I'm a bit autistic so when you said no spelling rules, I took it literally.
Well a lie needs back-up. There is absolutely NO REASON to have some weird conversion of Joshua to Jesus.
Joshua is perfectly pronounceable in Latin and Greek. In fact many people are named both Joshua (Greek pronunciation: Eeyoshu/Eeosu(a)) and Jesus (Greek pron: HeyZeus).
I'm going agnostic on your claim, Willum, basically because you don't back it up. You don't cite anything or link to anything that would suggest otherwise.
You do give an explanation yes...but with nothing cited, no authority on how these languages work, how do I, the complete outsider to these languages, know that you're telling me the truth?
It is easy to quote a sentence and ask a question about it.
Are you going to answer that question though? I don't know if I should give any credence at all to what you're saying about these languages.
At this point in time, I'm getting the same vibe from you that I get from Jehovah's Witnesses whenever they say the New World Translation is somehow an accurate translation of the Bible. People who are familiar with the NWT know that the people who worked on it by and large had little to no education in Hebrew or Greek. Which is why the Watchtower doesn't like to give out their names, say who it was who worked on the translation.
Over-wrote Chresos, 'it' is only the topic of conversation. The forgery. Tacitus reference is the word golden, which was altered to make anointed.
(If you honestly don't know what I am talking about here, find out.)
I'm starting to get a little ticked off here Willum. This attitude of telling ME to go out and find out what it is YOU are talking about is something I have taken theists to task over a few times.
Burden of evidence Willum. You are making claims, provide the evidence, cite your sources. You know and understand this, so I don't know why you're telling ME to do the legwork.
Riku whines a-characteristically, seemingly unable to "Google," himself.
I will say it again, Willum.
Burden of evidence.
I, the reader, have no burden at all to Google, even though it is easy.
I could be misremembering but in all the times I've seen you talk about this Hail Zeus thing, this is the first time that I can remember you even linking to something else to support it.
What I have said isn't new or revolutionary.
Like ted with his pre conception idea, you are the only person I've seen talk about Hail Zeus.
Now it could be that I simply haven't come across anyone else and they are out there, but that is how it is for me at present.
By counter example: The Apostles: Paul does not become Paulus. Peter is not Petreous, Thomas is not Thomastus, you get the idea.
I'm going to remain non-commital on this part, because again, I have no knowledge of or understanding of Greek, Latin or Hebrew. I have no idea if Paul can really become Paulus or not.
So why does the leader require a septisilly to be transformed into "Hail Zeus"? to the Greek and Latin world?
There is no reason. Certainly not today. But back when Jesus needed to be promoted to the Roman world, he needed a hook.
What is a septisilly? I googled it and Google literally didn't have a clue. No results, thought I had mispelled something else.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #37

Post by Mithrae »

Willum wrote: By counter example: The Apostles: Paul does not become Paulus. Peter is not Petreous, Thomas is not Thomastus, you get the idea.
Petros: "a stone" or "a boulder," Peter, one of the twelve apostles
Original Word: Πέτ�ος
http://biblehub.com/str/greek/4074.htm

Paulos: (Sergius) Paulus (a Roman proconsul), also Paul (an apostle)
Original Word: Παῦλος
http://biblehub.com/str/greek/3972.htm

Ióannés: John, the name of several Israelites
Original Word: Ἰωάννης
http://biblehub.com/greek/2491.htm

Iakóbos: James, the name of several Israelites
Original Word: Ἰάκωβος
http://biblehub.com/str/greek/2385.htm

Iakób: Jacob, the son of Isaac, also the father of Joseph, Mary's husband
Original Word: Ἰακώβ
http://biblehub.com/greek/2384.htm

###
rikuoamero wrote: I'm going to remain non-commital on this part, because again, I have no knowledge of or understanding of Greek, Latin or Hebrew. I have no idea if Paul can really become Paulus or not.
Besides the fact that it defaults to the KJV (that might be changeable, but I've never really bothered to try since I use other sites for English versions), I find blueletterbible.org to be quite useful since it not only has concordance references but also actual Greek and Hebrew text displayed (Textus Receptus and Masoretic, respectively). There's plenty of familiar OT names whose weird and wonderful Greek permutations can be browsed in Matthew 1, for example - just click on 'tools' next to the verse:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/1/1/s_930001

Obviously not the same as actually knowing the languages (which I don't), but it usually seems to be enough to see when someone's trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #38

Post by Willum »

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Well, we are starting to run into problems. I don’t understand why I need to reference Greek and Latin spelling rules. That is so fundamental I don’t feel I should be burdened “proving� it. That’s education.
Second, the references for the canonical “Jesus� is from another religious work.
You,I everyone, and even mith, should ask why Jesus just doesn’t follow simple rules,instead of requiring a PhD thesis eses to get from Josh to Jesus.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #39

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 38 by Willum]
I don’t understand why I need to reference Greek and Latin spelling rules.
The vast majority of people, if not all of them, who come to this site are not knowledgeable in Greek and Latin spelling rules. Thus, when you make a claim that names have been changed, or names are similar or something along those lines, it would behoove you to strengthen your claim by showing that this is indeed how these languages work.
It's the basic concept of burden of evidence. I am a person who reads your claims, I am a person who doesn't know jack about Greek or Latin, thus I don't know if what you claim about these names is true or not.
That is so fundamental I don’t feel I should be burdened “proving� it. That’s education.
You don't think you need to prove it? :-|
I'm not asking you to teach Greek and Latin, how to speak and write in them every time you make this claim about Hail Zeus, but to at least give something to point at.
You,I everyone, and even mith, should ask why Jesus just doesn’t follow simple rules,
Rules of what?
instead of requiring a PhD thesis eses to get from Josh to Jesus.
I'm not asking for a PhD level thesis, nor have I ever done nor will I ever. What I am asking is that you provide something to back up your assertions. In your previous reply, you did indeed do that, that link to hiddenbible and I thank you for that.
It's just that this time around, it looks like I had to drag it out of you, instead of you offering it from the start.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #40

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Willum]

Waxing further... I did provide a link, and more further links to scholars were in that link.
So one thing we should be concerned with is referential “proof� - for thousands of years, the Bible has been used as an authority. There was a resurrection because the Bible said so.. and you must prove there wasn’t.
I think we have moved beyond that, and are exeriencng the same scenario, and in language. For some reason the Septuagint derived the name of Jesus from Joshua, authoritatively. Why?
We have a religious body certifying the spelling of Jesus, in the face of vulgar spelling. Why is it so important Jesus HAVE a spelling derivation at ALL? Why not call him Joshua?
It makes no sense. Unless there is a lie behind it.
And we are still inarguably left with Jesus being a homophone of hey Seus. This only require the proof of LISTENING.

Post Reply