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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #119]

What's interesting about this is that as it originally stood, the story of Mark matches Paul's conception of the Church and its gospel; the women didn't have to tell anyone about the resurrection because the risen Christ told the apostles themselves in visions. Matthew, Luke, and Maurice Casey knew that this is implausible as history, so each felt it necessary to change Mark. Matthew and Luke added a new ending, while Casey just imagines that Mark would have added his own in a later draft. If we read Paul and Mark as they are, though, we can see the gospel as Paul did: delivered to Paul and "the apostles that went before me" by Christ alone. To see it otherwise requires changes to both, even if you pretend they've always been that way.

I love it where Mark stopped originally. And where Mark stopped supports Casey's argument. Mark stopped at the gospel.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Paul's Gospel

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures."

Jesus died and was raised from the dead. That is the gospel, and it always has been.

Why would Paul, a persecutor of the church, believe this gospel message? The fact that Paul persecuted the Church Gal. 1:13 means that the Church was already in existence way before 49, according to your dates for Paul to be a persecutor of the Church. Now you are taking at the very latest the Church was in existence in the 30's for Paul to go to Arabia and meet with the leaders in Jerusalem. Gal. 1.

For the Church to exist, the gospel message had to be established by the thirties.

If Jesus did not exist, then you cannot be sure that anyone in antiquity existed. Many writings say He existed. He is part of the Roman history books.

You can try saying that Paul did not say this or that about Jesus.
Mark stopped at the gospel message, and Paul stopped at the gospel message.
Paul, a persecutor of the church, said that Jesus existed.

These are all very early sources so to say that Jesus did not exist means that you are not using proper historical methodology.

[Difflugia]

I love it where Mark stopped originally. And where Mark stopped supports Casey's argument.

Casey's argument is that Mark wasn't finished, so I guess that tracks.

Mark stopped at the gospel.

Everything before he stopped is the part that's difficult to reconcile with Paul.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

"and they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

Paul's Gospel

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures."

"and that he appeared to Kephas, then the twelve, then more than five hundred brothers at the same time, of whom most are now still alive, but some are dead, then he appeared to James, then to all of the apostles, and last of all, as to the untimely born, he appeared to me, too."

According to Paul's gospel, Kephas and James were apparently not members of the twelve, and neither they nor the twelve were whatever Paul thought of as an apostle.

Jesus died and was raised from the dead. That is the gospel, and it always has been.

Yes, that's what you've asserted without evidence.

Why would Paul, a persecutor of the church, believe this gospel message?

According to Paul, it's because a heavenly Jesus appeared to him in visions.

For the Church to exist, the gospel message had to be established by the thirties.

I've never claimed otherwise. We've no idea if it was the same gospel, though. Remember that Paul's gospel wasn't taught to him be real people, but by visions of a heavenly Jesus. There were also people that called themselves apostles, but preached a different gospel than Paul. If Paul's gospel was as simple as you assert, then there were members of the Christian community even then that didn't think Christ was crucified, buried, and raised on the third day.

If Jesus did not exist, then you cannot be sure that anyone in antiquity existed.

Show your work.

Many writings say He existed.

A small handful of which are outside of the New Testament and early enough to take somewhat seriously. The two questions are if any of them are unmodified and whether the information about Jesus is just repeating Christian sources. We know that by the second century, Christians thought Jesus was a real guy, so source independence is hard to establish.

He is part of the Roman history books.

Are there any in particular you want to discuss?

You can try saying that Paul did not say this or that about Jesus.

But you won't listen? Color me surprised.

Mark stopped at the gospel message, and Paul stopped at the gospel message.

If either of these were true, Mark would only have one chapter and Paul would have only written one epistle.

Paul, a persecutor of the church, said that Jesus existed.

Yes. Where and when he existed, though, not so much.

These are all very early sources so to say that Jesus did not exist means that you are not using proper historical methodology.

And when you're done waving your hands around, feel free to bring up something specific.

[Haven]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #119
Jesus died and was raised from the dead. That is the gospel, and it always has been.

(emphasis mine)

Just to be clear, I’m not a mythicist and agree that Jesus was likely a historical figure. With that said, I disagree with your theistic standpoint and want to respond to a few things that I think are unjustified assumptions on your part.

———

The “it always has been” part is dubious and requires outside evidence. Even if your timeline is correct (and it’s doubtful that it goes back into the 30s as you suggested, since there is no record of that, aside from Q and early Christian community tradition). There may well have been other groups who saw the resurrection as spiritual (rather than physical), as even the later gospels suggest. Mark makes no statement on the nature of the resurrection, ending only with “he is risen,” with the detailed accounts coming much later with the synoptic gospels.

Besides, I’m not sure why you believe 10-20 years isn’t enough for legendary accretion to occur. As I mentioned in my previous post here, legendary accretion has been shown to occur very quickly (essentially instantaneously) among new religious movements. My example of Sahajanand Swami (who absolutely existed historically, as backed up by his own statements, those of his followers and those from the hostile British colonial government of the time) shows this to be the case.

Legendary accretion in the form of supernatural stories and even a post-death resurrection to a higher plane of existence were widely circulating within his community of followers during and shortly after his lifetime (re: what happened to him after his death), and they only became more elaborate following his death. There’s no reason to believe this couldn’t have been the case with Jesus as well, especially considering the variations in the early gospel accounts (including Mark and Paul’s early writings).

(I could also bring up the case of Mahesh Varma, who died in 2008. He started a new religious movement called Transcendental Meditation, and he has a number of supernatural claims surrounding him…and his movement began in 20th/21st century America, where we have cameras, computers, photographs and so on. Varma still has thousands of followers worldwide, especially in Iowa, and there are still-living people who met him in person less than 20 years ago who insist he was divine. Does that mean he really was God, or a messenger of God?).

Why would Paul, a persecutor of the church, believe this gospel message?

We don’t have any evidence that Paul was a major persecutor of the church. All we have is Paul’s own word, and converts to faiths often describe themselves as hostile or persecutors before their conversion. Think about how many Christian apologists claim to be former atheists or even Satanists, or how many Muslim converts from Christianity (like Aminah Assilmi) were hostile to Islam beforehand.

The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference.

The fact that Paul persecuted the Church Gal. 1:13 means that the Church was already in existence way before 49

(emphasis mine)

Again, not necessarily. New religious movements can spring up very quickly, especially among marginalized groups within pluralistic societies (as first-century eastern Rome certainly was). It’s also worth noting that the earliest manuscripts we have of Galatians date to 200 CE, 150 years after Paul originally wrote it. There may be some significant variations in the text between Paul’s originals and what we have now.

For the Church to exist, the gospel message had to be established by the thirties.

That isn’t remotely true. Groups like the Gnostics and Nicolaitians were around during the first and second centuries and they were “Christian” while being very far from what we now know as Christian dogma. The whole reason the Council of Nicea was convened was to settle deep doctrinal disagreements in early Christianity and establish an orthodoxy. If “the gospel message had to be established by the thirties,” as you claim, then none of this would exist.

If Jesus did not exist, then you cannot be sure that anyone in antiquity existed. Many writings say He existed. He is part of the Roman history books.

I agree that there’s sufficient evidence to conclude he existed (supernatural claims aside). But considering the amount of textual variance and legendary accretion surrounding him, we can’t know much about him aside from the fact that he lived in first-century Roman Judea, he gained a following (some of which believed he was Moshiach, or that he was a messenger from God or was God in human form) and he was crucified by the Romans for sedition (as was common for influential Jewish cult leaders of the day). Accounts of his death and burial, let alone resurrection and appearances, vary widely and

[Haven]

One other thing: ESG’s statement that “if Jesus did not exist then you cannot be sure that anyone in antiquity existed” is dubious.

Let’s use Julius Caesar as an example. We know he existed because of:

1. Artifacts bearing his name.
2. Historical events that make no sense if he were not a real person (like the establishment of the Roman Empire).
3. Widespread contemporaneous attestation, even from his enemies.
4. Exact dates for events in his life, such as his crossing of the Rubicon on January 11, 49 BCE.

We don’t have any of this for Jesus. While I think it’s more likely than not that he existed, I think it’s a bit ambitious to claim that we can’t conclude any ancient person existed without lowering our standards of evidence down to the level evangelicals use for Jesus’ existence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #122]

These are all very early sources so to say that Jesus did not exist means that you are not using proper historical methodology.

And when you're done waving your hands around, feel free to bring up something specific.

What makes you think I was waving my hands? A person cannot write and wave their hands at the same time. That is just silly.


Well, since Haven brought up Julius Caesar and wanted to use him as an example, I can do that.

Julius Caesar supposedly lived from July 100 BC to March 15, 44 BC. The Ides of March. How do we know this?
This was written in 369 AD. by Eutropius, 400 years after Caesar's death, and the earliest manuscript is from the 9th century AD, 1000 years after his death and 500 years after Eutropius wrote it.
The earliest writings are supposed to be from Caesar himself, and they were supposedly written in 44 BC and 51-52 BC.
The earliest manuscripts of these writings are from the 9th century AD. Again, nearly 1000 years after his death, the events that he was supposedly describing.

This means that the earliest writings we have about Julius Caesar are 1000 years after his death.

You said, "Early Christians thought Jesus was real." The argument was over, which is why I laughed. What you said after this statement is simply your made-up belief that is unverifiable. They believed that Jesus was real, and they wrote as if Jesus were a real person. Was Julius Caesar a real person? You have to believe that Eutropius and those who copied these works were being truthful.

There are over 5600 copies of the New Testament and only 10 of Julius Caesar.


If Jesus was not a real person, then we really do not know if Julius Caesar or anyone else was a real person. The disciples thought He was real, and Paul thought He was real.

[Difflugia]

You said, "Early Christians thought Jesus was real." The argument was over, which is why I laughed.

You're equivocating on "real," then. You removed the distinction between earthly and heavenly, which is exactly the distinction that modern Christians make.

What you said after this statement is simply your made-up belief that is unverifiable.

No evidence is no evidence. That's the problem for a historical Jesus. Where the Gospels and Paul overlap, they disagree, so in the places where Paul has no information, you can't justifiably claim that they would agree.

[Haven]

Well, since Haven brought up Julius Caesar and wanted to use him as an example, I can do that…..

Why did you ignore my other central points here? I also pointed out:

1. History that would make no sense of Julius Caesar were not real (such as the founding of the Roman Empire, which wouldn’t have happened if the Rubicon crossing were fictional or if JC didn’t exist…).

2. Contemporaneous artifacts that confirm Caesar’s existence.

3. Exact dates for events in Caesar’s life.


4. Extraneous details that cohere with Julius’ life (like the fact that we call the month of July that; it’s literally named after Caesar). Maybe I wasn’t clear enough on this point?

5. Widespread enemy attestation of Julius Caesar’s existence (like Cicero’s writings; he lived at the exact same time as JC and was a political opponent).

6. Writings about Caesar do not contain nearly as many supernatural elements and fantastical tales as the gospel accounts. They also aren’t meant specifically to bring about belief in Caesar, unlike the gospels, which are explicitly evangelistic sales documents written “so that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, and have life in his name.”

While the time gap between the contemporaneous writings and the earliest extant manuscripts can indeed mean that many things were changed, the mere existence of Julius Caesar isn’t in doubt at all. And there is still more evidence for his existence than for that of Jesus.

With that said, I do think mythicism is kind of a desperate position from people who want to be, for lack of a better term, fundamentalist about their atheism. I think Jesus was likely a real human being, but that there’s no evidence for the supernatural claims around him and very few verifiable details about his life. What is written is widely contradictory (what was his line of descent? was he from Bethlehem [unlikely]? Nazareth? Did he have siblings? What was his relationship with John? What was his overall message?), and that’s not even getting into the supernatural claims and resurrection myths.

The most parsimonious explanation seems to be that he was an itinerant preacher and new religious movement leader, similar to Husayn Ali, Sahajanand Swami, L. Ron Hubbard or Mahesh Varma.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #126]

You're equivocating on "real," then. You removed the distinction between earthly and heavenly, which is exactly the distinction that modern Christians make.

That is my point; they did not make that distinction in their writings. They believed Jesus was real. Even using your late dates, it is still closer than anything else in antiquity. Therefore, if Jesus was not real, then no one in antiquity is real.

No evidence is no evidence. That's the problem for a historical Jesus. Where the Gospels and Paul overlap, they disagree, so in the places where Paul has no information, you can't justifiably claim that they would agree.

What are you talking about? They have the same gospel message. And you said that Paul did not talk about the earthly life of Jesus. The other apostles did, and their writings are still much closer to the original accounts than anything else in antiquity, and they describe the earthly life of Christ. You cannot know what the disciples were thinking you were not in their heads. You are trying to put thoughts in their heads they they never had, according to their own writings.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #127]

Why did you ignore my other central points here?

They do not mean anything because the sources are so far away from the actual event. Because of how close the documents are to Jesus and the fact that we have so many manuscripts, Jesus' existence is on much surer footing than Julius Caesar.

[Difflugia]

That is my point; they did not make that distinction in their writings. They believed Jesus was real.

Who's "they?" Paul believed in a Jesus of visions. The Gospels wrote about a different Jesus, but they got everything else wrong, too. There's nobody you can trust to tell you about an earthly Jesus.

Even using your late dates, it is still closer than anything else in antiquity. Therefore, if Jesus was not real, then no one in antiquity is real.

Yes. The earthly, but allegorical Jesus was written within a few decades of Paul's heavenly Jesus. What was your argument again?

What are you talking about? They have the same gospel message.

Only if you reduce it to the broadest, sweeping outline. Jaws and Finding Nemo are both about the journey of a fish.

And you said that Paul did not talk about the earthly life of Jesus.

That's right.

The other apostles did,

We don't have writings from Andronicus, Junia, Apollos, or Kephas. It's plausible that James is authentic, but James didn't mention the earthly Christ. Those are the only apostles mentioned by Paul.

and their writings are still much closer to the original accounts than anything else in antiquity, and they describe the earthly life of Christ.

If you're talking about the Gospels, those contradict the accounts of Jesus and the Church that Paul wrote. The only way that the Gospels are trustworthy is if Paul's not.

You cannot know what the disciples were thinking you were not in their heads.

Exacty. We don't have the writings of any disciples, either. If we want to know anything about them, we have to have narratives we can trust. We don't.

You are trying to put thoughts in their heads they they never had, according to their own writings.

You have me confused for an orthodox apologist.