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

[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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by rikuoamero]

Sorry, evidence is for extraordinary claims, I am not here as a teacher, that is where I draw a line. Having taught people on this site, even including math, results in denial anyway. So, if you are unable or unwilling to access common knowledgeable, I’ll just regard it as insincerity, and an unwillingness to expand ones own horizons. If you are unwilling that examine language, you are not receptive to anything else, by my experience on DCR.

[historia]

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.

Tart, why do you expect this if it were the case that Jesus never existed?

If I may: There are, I think, two reasons why this silence is significant.

First, according to the mythicist hypothesis, the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was just a divine being and not an historical person. It wasn't until the late-first or early-second century that Christians supposedly developed the myth that Jesus was an historical person.

If that is true, then we should expect to see this earlier divine-being-only belief in our earliest Christian sources. And yet, the earliest Christian sources all say Jesus was an historical person. This is implausible on the mythicist hypothesis.

Second, many early Christian authors were quite keen to combat heretical ideas and pagan and Jewish criticisms of Christianity. We actually know a fair amount about what early critics of Christianity had to say from contemporary and later Christian apologists.

Had the earliest Christians believed Jesus was not an historical person, that fact would have been widely known. This would have provided a powerful Jewish argument against the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah, and would have been equally useful in Gnostic arguments.

Therefore, if the mythicist hypothesis is true, we should expect to find early Christian authors defending the historicity of Jesus from Jewish and Gnostic claims to the contrary. But we don't. This is implausible on the mythicist hypothesis.

It's only after his supposed lifetime and death, that Jesus becomes influential. Given that situation, I find it perfectly understandable that no-one actually asked if Jesus even existed. How would they have been able to find out?

I understand the point you're trying to make here. But, what you're missing, I think, is the fact that the mythicist hypothesis holds that, for the better part of the first century, Christians believed Jesus was not an historical person.

The issue here, then, is not simply whether people living 2,000 years ago would have remembered Jesus of Nazareth or been able to somehow verify his historical existence. But also the fact that no one -- pagan, Jewish, Christian, or otherwise -- seems aware of this early group of Christians who supposedly didn't believe Jesus was an historical figure. That silence is much harder to explain.

I invite you to ask what were conditions in late 18th century France, such that there then arose a formal denial of the existence of Jesus?

. . .

I am not surprised that the denial of Jesus arose then and there. To address the power imbalance, questions would have been asked, answers furiously demanded, and certain people would have become skeptical of any and all justifications provided by the clergy for their position in society.
Up to and including questioning whether or not Jesus Christ, the central figure of the religion, ever existed at all.

Indeed, the animus for challenging the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, both in the French Revolution and today, appears to be driven by anti-Christian sentiments.

More dispassionate, scholarly inquiry into this question in the late-19th and early-20th century found the mythicist hypothesis wanting, which remains the prevailing consensus to this day.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by Willum]

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.

After all that, I am surprised to find you agreeing with me.
Why are names so important that their obvious use is clouded, unless of course there is something that requires wool being pulled over our eyes.

Despite this, I need to fall back on my claim:
You've been attacking the word games as if disproving word-games offers proof of Jesus.
Word games definitely prove word-games, assuming they are correct.

However, disproving word games, does not show that Jesus existed.

So, even though you keep claiming I never provide this site, and direct readers to look at it supporting references:

http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html

Disproving this or even that Deus is Zeus, does not provide any proof of Jesus or God.

So, since my proofs prove word games, which proves Jesus was a myth, even if you discount them, you still have not shown anything that demos Jesus was real and not a myth.

So, as we stand, Jesus is still a myth.

Your move.

[Mithrae]

http://www.hiddenbible.com/jesuszeus/jesuszeus.html

Obviously this is the site I originally came across from Googling this "Iesous = hail Zeus" stuff back in post #7, and hence noted that I can't find any credible source to back it up. I thought that surely everyone, even most Christians, would take the name 'hiddenbible.com,' the sensationalist claims about the "true name of God" and the convoluted, excessively-formatted, quote-mining structure of the page as huge red flags that we're dealing with conspiracy theory nonsense here. Apparently I overestimated Willum, who is seemingly happy to accept the word of religious fringe groups on faith as long as they support his biases

But in the spirit of enquiry, I figured I should look a little further into the sources of this claim that 'Iesous' = 'Hail Zeus.' The whole page depends entirely on dubious appeals to authority of course. Besides the general claim itself, there is only one other scrap of relevant 'information' which can be independently examined, which I did and found to be wildly mistaken, but have also highlighted in blue below. Beyond that, here is what I was able to discover about the credentials of these 'authorities' for the claim:

A. B. Traina (1889-1971) - an Elder in the 'sacred name movement' of the Church of God (7th day). The only information about formal education I can find is that he learned to read in 1936 at the age of 47. Traina's claim that "Ie sous" means "hail Zeus" - the earliest occasion I have seen this claim being made - is wildly incorrect because, as explained many times above, the Greek word for 'hail' is chair�.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Traina
http://www.yaim.org/web/literatureside/elder-a-b-traina
https://www.blueletterbible.org/nkjv/ma ... onc_956029
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/g ... a7faf.html


Henry Clifford Kinley (1896-1976) - the founder and dean Emeritus of the Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research for forty-four years. On some sites he is called "Dr. Henry Clifford Kinley, D.D., Ph.D," though I have found no information about him obtaining a doctorate from an independent accredited teaching institution (let alone one in ancient languages). His Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research apparently taught that the world would end in 1996.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Clifford_Kinley
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-12/ ... l-research


J. C. J. Metford - "John Callan James Metford (born January 29, 1916 in Rhondda, † March 29, 2007 in Bristol) was a British Romanist and Hispanist. . . . Metford studied Spanish in Liverpool with Edgar Allison Peers, as well as a scholarship holder in Yale and Berkeley. During the Second World War he served in Bermuda and South America. He taught from 1946 as a lecturer in Spanish at the University of Glasgow. In 1956 he went to the University of Bristol and headed the Spanish department, first as Senior Lecturer, from 1960 to 1981 as the first Spanish professor of his university." At least he actually does have academic credentials, even if they're in the wrong field. However the claims by this professor of Spanish about the etymology of Greek -sus words (eg. that Tarsus means 'sweat of Zeus' and Dionysus means 'son of Zeus') are wildly incorrect.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Callan_James_Metford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarsus,_Mersin#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysus#Etymology


Les Aron Gosling - A Messianic Jewish Rebbe in some places called a doctor, though again I have found no information regarding where and in what field his doctorate was obtained, including from his personal history on his organization's own website:

• The founder and Director of the BRI has a background rich in Jewish studies, and in the history and writings of the intertestamental period, accompanied by a Talmudic understanding (the Talmud is the oral law or traditions of the Jews finally codified after Yeshua) relative to interpretation of the Tanach (the so-called "Old Testament" Scriptures) including the Torah (the first five books of the Bible written by Moses). After his own personal "Damascus Road" experience in 1981 the Rebbe ministered with the world's largest international missionary telecommunications organisation in taking "Christ to the World by Radio" through the Far East Broadcasting Company (FEBC). From the mid '70s he has preached for almost 40 years in hundreds of churches and denominations around Australasia emphasising the imperative need for authentic discipleship and also warning believers of the soon to emerge world federal state -- WORLD GOVERNMENT -- which will lay the foundation for the coming of the eschatological Antichrist.

http://www.biblicalresearchinstitute.co ... ut-us.html
https://www.google.com.au/search?q="les ... sling"+PhD


Jon Thompson - Author of some articles for Winds of Praise Broadcasting, "Jon Thompson leads the House of Yeshua fellowhsip in Lincoln City, Oregon. Feel free to contact him with your comments at jont_isme@yahoo.com"
http://www.windsofpraise.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=36084


Professor J.C.J Melfurd - I think this is supposed to be the professor of Spanish mentioned above, J. C. J. Metford.


C. J. Koster - I've discovered that he lived from 1926 to 1995 and the cited book was published in 1996. Also his full name. Hopefully others will have some more success.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q="Chr ... bus+Koster"

[Kapyong]

Gday

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.

Really?
How do we know all that ?

Paul never once uses the word 'disciple'.
Paul never once mentions anyone being a physical follower of a historical Jesus.
Paul never once describes anyone as an eye-witness to a historical Jesus.
Paul never once mentions a historical Jesus in connection with any person at all.

Furthermore -
Paul never defers to anyone who allegedly met Jesus, or was related;
in fact -
Paul claims he is just as much an apostle as James and Peter etc.,
because he too 'has seen the Lord' (in a vision);
and -
Paul claims he received his gospel about Jesus 'from no man'.

There is no evidence anywhere in the writings of Paul of anyone who ever even met a historical Jesus, let alone was a disciple who physically followed him. Paul, and the others, have merely had visions of a heavenly Jesus Christ.

(Paul does use the phrase 'brother of the Lord' about James, but he uses similar phrases for other people too, not to mention a 'sister-wife'. These are forms of Christian titles used to this day, NOT a reference to a blood relationship.)

So Tart, what you described above as 'what we know' - is actually just the story from later decades, from the 'comic book'. Not from Paul.

Nor any early epistles. Not one single Christian book, in the New Testament or outside, was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus - or Mary, or Joseph, or Joseph of Arimathea (the word 'arimathea' means Good-Disciple-Town in Greek - what an amazing co-incidence eh ?)

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Mithrae and all

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.

Just thought I would mention -

I've been reading forums and books about Christian history etc. from many sources for a couple of decades now,
but this is the very first time I have ever heard of such a connection between Christos (oiled) and chrysos (gold).

It appears that this idea is original to Willum.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday historia and all

If that is true, then we should expect to see this earlier divine-being-only belief in our earliest Christian sources. And yet, the earliest Christian sources all say Jesus was an historical person.

That is not correct.

Our earliest source is Paul.
But,
Paul does not say Jesus was a historical person.

History means times, dates and places and people.

• Paul never once gives any times or date for Jesus life and death,
• he never mentions Mary or Joseph etc.,
• he never connects Jesus to a place on earth (not even Jerusalem when he visits)

Paul does make many statements about Jesus Christ which can only be about a heavenly being - e.g. 'son of God'.

Paul makes some statements which are ambiguous as to whether they occurred on earth or in heaven.

But Paul makes no statements about Jesus Christ which can only take place on earth.

Note -
In those times people believed in gods and various heavenly beings who did all sorts of things in heaven - argue, fight, have banquets, have sex, torture even - all the sorts of things that people did on earth.

So the idea that when Paul refers to Jesus being 'buried' e.g. that that can only mean a physical burial is obviously wrong. Indeed a book from Paul's time The Life of Adam and Eve has a burial in the third heaven (albeit confusedly.)

Even the gods had bodies made of 'flesh', just different flesh (said Cicero.)

There are several ambiguous reference, like 'body' or 'man' or 'die' or 'crucified' or 'buried' which might mean on earth (or not.)

But there is nothing in Paul's writings which conclusively puts Jesus Christ in history on earth.

(Treating the single dubious Pilate reference as a later insertion.)

Kapyong

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 47 by Kapyong]

Let's start reading Paul's letters and see how long this theory holds up:

• Epistle to the Roman church, Chapter 1:
  1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
  2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
  3 concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

...darn.



On this forum I think it's mostly been Alwayson who has tried to champion these views. And while he has done all the twisting and turning trying to make Jesus' brothers mean anything but the obvious, what he has never done is come to terms with the fact that a human Jesus is not simply some trivial aside, but is seemingly critical for Paul's theology. Not what the earthly Jesus actually said and did - which Paul understandably mostly avoids as putting him at a disadvantage relative to those who'd personally known Jesus (a silence much harder to explain if he believed in a heavenly Jesus) - but merely the fact that Jesus did live and die in an earthly, human body to redeem the world of Adam's transgression:

• Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
  
  Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, 5 so that he might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
  
  Philippians 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 46 by Kapyong]

WELCOME BACK.

No it isn't my idea. The alteration of the word anointed one of the biggest arguments against the reference.
Though since you say it, I re-investigated the change of Chresos to Chrestos, and indeed it does look like I got a bum steer, I could not find the article again.
Implying I made it up however, impugns my integrity.

Here is a good discussion, for other references of Jesus referential fraudulence and forgery.
http://nlp.cs.nyu.edu/meyers/controvers ... _0323.html
Which was the point - there isn't a single historical reference that it seems the Church didn't meddle with.

[Replying to post 44 by Mithrae]

Waah, waah waah - Someone defeated your argument so you call their dog ugly. You lose.
The Bible has no credible authors, or scribes, at all.

[historia]

Paul does not say Jesus was a historical person.

Sure he does, as Mithrae has already begun to elaborate above.

History means times, dates and places and people.

• Paul never once gives any times or date for Jesus life and death,
• he never mentions Mary or Joseph etc.,
• he never connects Jesus to a place on earth (not even Jerusalem when he visits)

Paul didn't write a biography of Jesus. He wrote occasional letters to churches about various theological disputes. It is not surprising, then, that he doesn't regale his readers with superfluous biographical details about Jesus life, but instead focuses on the theological significance of Jesus' life.

Paul does make many statements about Jesus Christ which can only be about a heavenly being - e.g. 'son of God'.

David and Israel are called God's son in the Jewish scriptures. This is why Jesus, who Christians consider to be the Davidic messiah, is also given that title. But, that aside, it's abundantly clear that Paul thinks that Jesus was a divine being. But it's also abundantly clear he also believed that Jesus was sent to earth and became a man.

That is the clear meaning of Galatians 4:4-5. To save the Jewish people, Paul asserts that Jesus had to become a Jew, born as a mere human, born under the Law. Angels are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only living and breathing Jews here on the earth.

Paul makes some statements which are ambiguous as to whether they occurred on earth or in heaven.

But Paul makes no statements about Jesus Christ which can only take place on earth.

Paul says Jesus was born, died, and buried. He says he was killed by the Judeans. He also says Jesus had brothers, one of whom Paul himself personally met. These statements are best understood in their normal way. There is no justification for twisting them to mean something else.

In those times people believed in gods and various heavenly beings who did all sorts of things in heaven - argue, fight, have banquets, have sex, torture even - all the sorts of things that people did on earth.

. . .

Even the gods had bodies made of 'flesh', just different flesh (said Cicero.)

Your examples here are drawn from pagan Roman religion. Obviously, Paul was a Jew, so this pagan background information is irrelevant to understanding his thinking here.

So the idea that when Paul refers to Jesus being 'buried' e.g. that that can only mean a physical burial is obviously wrong. Indeed a book from Paul's time The Life of Adam and Eve has a burial in the third heaven (albeit confusedly.)

This is simply mistaken. The Greek Revelation of Moses (= Life of Adam) repeatedly mentions that there is a Paradise in the third heaven and a Paradise on earth. Adam's soul is taken up to the Paradise in the third heaven (ch. 37), but his body is buried in Paradise on earth.

This is made explicit in chs. 40 and 41:

And both [Adam and Abel] were buried, according to the commandment of God, in the spot where God found the dust, and He caused the place to be dug for two. And God sent seven angels to paradise and they brought many fragrant spices and placed them in the earth, and they took the two bodies and placed them in the spot which they had digged and builded.

And God called and said, 'Adam, Adam.' And the body answered from the earth and said: 'Here am I, Lord.' And God saith to him: 'I told thee (that) earth thou art and to earth shalt thou return. Again I promise to thee the Resurrection; I will raise thee up in the Resurrection with every man who is of thy seed.'

God commands that Adam's body be buried in the earth, on the same spot where it was first created from the dust. The next two chapters (42-43) recount God sealing Adam's tomb so Eve and her sons, who are obviously still alive on the earth, cannot find it. And then Seth helps to bury Eve in the same tomb next to Adam after she dies.

Here, as elsewhere, your analysis is overly reliant on Richard Carrier's idiosyncratic reading of these texts. Carrier's command of the Jewish literature is weak, at best, so his analysis is not reliable. You're much better off looking at standard commentaries in the field from actual experts like James Charlesworth.

There are several ambiguous reference, like 'body' or 'man' or 'die' or 'crucified' or 'buried' which might mean on earth (or not.)

We have no good reason to imagine that such references could be to anything other than events on the earth. Carrier's dubious claim that there was a Jewish belief that a person could be born, killed, and buried in "outer space" where God also keeps a "celestial sperm bank" is unsupported by the primary evidence (as we've seen above) or the relevant scholarly literature.