Jesus is a Myth!

[POI]

The Gospels are fiction and the Jesus character is a myth. There may have been a Jesus upon whom the character is based, but I doubt it.

Loosely, there was a church already in existence when Paul became an apostle (Galatians 2). I don't think we know anything about it, because that church was effectively destroyed by the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul's Asian churches were effectively unmoored and they absorbed a sort of second- or third-hand tradition left over from the Jerusalem church. That tradition was allegorically retold in the Synoptics. Acts is a sort of theological textbook, allegorically describing the fusion of the Pauline churches and what little remained of the Jerusalem church through the conflict between its Peter and Paul characters and the resoliution of that conflict.

For debate: Was Jesus a real character from antiquity? If so, how do we know?

The stakes are very high for the Orthodox believer. Why? If Jesus never existed, it's completely game over. Christianity is dead before we ever get to ask if Jesus ever rose. If Jesus did exist, then we can still question his claimed actions(s) all the way up to him rising again....

**************************************

At the moment, I'm personally agnostic to this topic position. But I would sure love to see how this topic fleshes out among all the smarties who exchange within this arena

[POI]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #99]

If I wanted a Wiki response, I would not have created this topic. Please re-read my OP.

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #52]

Just curious... Why are you not devoting your time to this topic? I'm still awaiting a robust and educated exchange between a) asserters of Jesus's existence, <verses> b) asserters of Jesus's non-existence. But you dropped off of the grid here, in post 64, with the opposing positioner's statement that "Jesus never existed"... Why?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to POI in post #100]

Oh, that's right, even Bible authors thought the world was a flat disk

It was the Greeks who proposed that the Earth was flat. I do not think the ancient Greeks were Christians.

The idea that Jesus was a myth has been rejected by scholars who consider themselves atheists.

historia said it very well,
"I can only begin to answer that question in the short space and time we have here."

It would be easier for you to pick one of the proposed myths. The other way is doing way too much.

[POI]

It was the Greeks who proposed that the Earth was flat. I do not think the ancient Greeks were Christians.

No. I'm saying even passages from the Bible itself point to the author's thinking that the world is a flat round disk.

The idea that Jesus was a myth has been rejected by scholars who consider themselves atheists.

This argument is just as pointless as me mentioning that some believing Bible scholars reject the idea that Genesis is to be taken literally. We already know many atheists are not mythicists. This is not debatable. I'm instead asking HOW we know Jesus was a real person? Do you have anything worthy to add? Or, am I limited to easy-search lookups on Wiki and elsewhere? Please re-read my OP.

In the OP, an interlocutor asserts that "Jesus is a myth". Others assert that "he existed". I'm not sure in either direction anymore.?.?.? I want to see why they assert what they assert? And then watch, as they duke it out back and forth. Maybe my stance/position will change there-after?

[Difflugia]

Let's see if we can turn this into something interesting. Historia's right in that it's difficult to know where to start.

The earliest source about Jesus we have is Paul and I'll be considering the seven epistles that are least-contested as genuine. Dates are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Fifth Edition:

• Galatians (50-58)
• First Thessalonians (49-51)
• First Corinthians (mid 50s)
• Second Corinthians (54-57)
• Romans (52-58)
• Philippians (61-63)
• Philemon (during imprisonment)

For Paul, Jesus is essentially unimportant before his resurrection. There are a few references to Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being:

• Galatians 4:4""God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law"
  
  This is taken to mean that if Jesus was born of a woman, he wasn't an otherworldly or spiritual being. Considering the adoptionist and mystical language of 4:5-4:8, I don't think that's a strong conclusion.
  
  
• Romans 1:3""concerning his Son, who was born the seed of David according to the flesh"
  
  This verse contradicts Mark 12:35-37. If the verse is genuine and not a later interpolation, then it represents a tradition that the earlier Paul knew, but that Mark didn't later. I think the "seed of David" clause is a later, anti-Marcionite interpolation.

Paul apparently knew of only three people named in the canonical Gospels: John, James, and Kephas. Neither they nor any others are described as having experienced Jesus prior to his resurrection. James convinced Kephas to not eat with gentiles, yet Kephas was presumably present during Mark 2:15-17. For Paul, apostles were those that had experienced the risen Christ and were akin to (and often spoken of in the same breath as) prophets. If Mark represents a genuine memory of a real Jesus in any capacity, then it's radically different than the tradition that Paul knew. If the Markan tradition was genuine and preserved within Christendom from the 30s until the 70s, then it somehow passed Paul by. Since the Markan and later traditions seem to share concepts and language with Paul, but use them in ways alien to Paul, then somebody changed them. I think it's just as reasonable that the later evangelists did so instead of Paul.

That should be enough to start an argument with, anyway.

[Difflugia]

If anyone's curious, there was another discussion of this topic that I was involved in a few years ago, linked here. My position hasn't changed significantly since then and there are a number of topics that were brought up during the exchange that I didn't adequately respond to. If anyone wants bring any topics from that thread and revisit them in this one, I'm up for that, too.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #105]

The earliest source about Jesus we have is Paul and I'll be considering the seven epistles that are least-contested as genuine. Dates are from The New Oxford Annotated Bible: Fifth Edition:

Galatians (50-58)
First Thessalonians (49-51)
First Corinthians (mid 50s)
Second Corinthians (54-57)
Romans (52-58)
Philippians (61-63)
Philemon (during imprisonment)

Do those books offer any unique insights into Jesus that aren't covered in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John? If so, what are they, and how do they contribute to our understanding

[Difflugia]

Do those books offer any unique insights into Jesus that aren't covered in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John? If so, what are they, and how do they contribute to our understanding

Absolutely. I think the Pauline epistles give us the most historical view into the state of the Church and its Jesus tradition prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Church in AD 70. I think the Jesus tradition of the Gospels is a theological one rather than historical and is primarily adapted from the Pauline tradition itself.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #105]

So, why are pretty much all scholars wrong and you're right about Jesus being a myth? If your really want to defend this belief you really should start here.

[Difflugia]

So, why are pretty much all scholars wrong and you're right about Jesus being a myth?

Consider anything I've said in this or the linked thread to be my answer to that question.

If your really want to defend this belief you really should start here.

Thanks for the advice.