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

[Haven]

[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.

This is highly, highly dubious.

1. You can’t just dismiss my other six points based on temporal proximity alone. Physical artifacts are the strongest possible evidence for a historical figure, and they exist for Caesar and not for Jesus.

2. I could provide sources detailing supernatural miracles from the founder of Transcendental Meditation, Mahesh Varma. These sources are from the last 20 years (literally), are from still-living people and include photographs. Many were written the same week as the alleged “events” occurred. By your own standard (temporal proximity), Varma’s miracles are on ‘much surer footing’ than Jesus’. Or maybe, just maybe temporal proximity isn’t the end all, be all of historical evidence.

3. Cicero lived during the same time as Julius Caesar (as is documented in multiple sources and, again, corroborated by physical artifacts) and attests to his existence. There are no such artifacts for Jesus of Nazareth.


4. Your citations provide very early dates for the attestation of Jesus (seriously, there is no evidence of his existence from the 30s). Most scholars agree the earliest verifiable attestations of Jesus that we have are Paul’s writings (from 49-50) and Q (dating back to the early 40s at the earliest; no known extant copies exist).

Edited for fairness and civility.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #130]

of Paul's heavenly Jesus.

You seem to be set on this fictitious belief that Paul was speaking of a heavenly. But that simply flies in the face of what Paul actually wrote, because he did write about an earthly Jesus.

Galatians 4 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law." So Paul says that Jesus was born.

Phillipians 2 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross! "

He was made and he was in the appearance as a man.
He died like any other human.

1 Cor. 11

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Jesus was betrayed on a particular night. And He shared a meal with others.

Galatians 1:18-19

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

He mentions the other "apostles" twice. And that he went to meet with Cephas who was an apostle but none of the other apostles. Which James did Paul meet with. Oh yea the Lord's brother.

Take your imagination somewhere else. Jesus was a real person The Gospels describe Jesus as a real person and Paul describes Jesus as a real person.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Haven in post #131]

1. You can’t just dismiss my other six points based on temporal proximity alone. Physical artifacts are the strongest possible evidence for a historical figure, and they exist for Caesar and not for Jesus.

The only reason anyone knows about any of your points is because of the writings from the 9th century.

2. I could provide sources detailing supernatural miracles from the founder of Transcendental Meditation, Mahesh Varma. These sources are from the last 20 years (literally), are from still-living people and include photographs. Many were written the same week as the alleged “events” occurred. By your own standard (temporal proximity), Varma’s miracles are on ‘much surer footing’ than Jesus’. Or maybe, just maybe temporal proximity isn’t the end all, be all of historical evidence.

Are you saying they are lying?

3. Cicero lived during the same time as Julius Caesar (as is documented in multiple sources and, again, corroborated by physical artifacts) and attests to his existence. There are no such artifacts for Jesus of Nazareth.

Well, that is a little better; the earliest manuscripts of Cicero are only 400 years after Caesar.

4. Your citations provide very early dates for the attestation of Jesus (seriously, there is no evidence of his existence from the 30s). Most scholars agree that the earliest verifiable attestations of Jesus that we have are Paul’s writings (from 49-50) and Q (dating back to the early 40s at the earliest; no known extant copies exist).

Paul has creeds in his writings like 1 Cor. 15.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

Paul received this creed. Therefore, this creed predates Paul's writings. He wrote 1 Corinthians on his third missionary Journey. He had already passed this creed on to them. In the late forties to very early 50s. His 1st missionary journey was around 45. Therefore, Paul had to receive it before 45.

This creed is of first importance. Therefore, this is what he has been preaching because this is what he had received. Therefore, Paul had to have recieved this way before he went on his first missionary journey. Therefore, we are now in the early thirties to mid thirties.

[Haven]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #133]

First of all, I want to point out that we don’t disagree on any substantive issues in this debate (aside from whether or not a god exists). I’m not a mythicist, and I agree that Paul believed Jesus to be a real person. The most parsimonious explanation is that he was a real human being. We’re on the same side of this discussion, for the most part.

With that said, I want to address a few things that I think you may have overstated.

The only reason anyone knows about any of your points is because of the writings from the 9th century.

Without the 9th century writings, we’d still have earlier fragmentary manuscripts of Caesar’s decrees, Cicero’s writings (earliest manuscripts in the 4th century), and, crucially, the minted coins bearing Caesar’s image, the busts of his likeness, the major construction projects in Rome during the first century BCE, and all of the physical remains of the Roman civil war dated to the time period in which Caesar is stated to exist. I’ll reiterate that we have no physical evidence or contemporaneous enemy attestation of Jesus.

Are you saying they are lying? (in reference to followers of Mahesh Varma)

No, I don’t think they’re lying. I think they’re under the effect of a strong, supernatural, self-reinforcing belief system, and they’re interpreting ordinary events and non-events through a faith-enabled lens. I think it’s very plausible that a similar thing happened with early followers of Jesus.

Edit: I forgot to address the creed (sorry, busy day!). I’ll agree with your more conservative timeline for the creed, dating back to c. 45 CE. This is still more than a decade after Jesus’ crucifixion, and more than enough time for legendary accretion to occur. Remember that such mythologies can appear very quickly (within days or less) in new religious movements, and Christianity was certainly an NRM at the time.

Edited again for fairness and “steelmanning” ESG’s point.

[Difflugia]

You seem to be set on this fictitious belief that Paul was speaking of a heavenly.

From where did Jesus speak to Paul?

Galatians 4 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law." So Paul says that Jesus was born.

Paul literally says that's an allegory (v. 24). We of the flesh are children held in bondage (v. 3) allegorically born of Hagar, the slave woman (v. 23), who is "the Jerusalem that now is" (v. 25). Christ is allegorically born of a woman under the law (v. 4), making Christians the children of a free woman, "Jerusalem above" (v. 26).

Orthodox Christianity papers over the weird, mystical stuff Paul writes by interpreting it through the lens of the canonical Gospels. I know you're just trying to argue against mythicism right now, but if you really want to understand what's going on, re-read the Pauline corpus without trying to read the Gospels back into it. When you run into something weird, actually try to figure out what Paul is saying. Even if the Gospels are completely historical, Paul's theology is entirely different than what's presented and is worth engaging with on its own.

Phillipians 2 "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross! "

He was made and he was in the appearance as a man.

Where? Wherever that happened, Christ was first "existing in the form of God." Then, he took on the "form of a servant," parallel to the "form of God" that he previously had (or inhabited), but merely the semblance of a man.

He died like any other human.

Or at least similarly to the way an earthly human might die.

1 Cor. 11

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."

Jesus was betrayed

The Greek word there doesn't primarily mean "betrayal," but rather being delivered, in the sense of a courier, or someone being "handed over," as to the police. Mark (or Mark's source) read it as "betrayal" when crafting the Judas narrative, but if you're going to read Paul on his own terms (which you must if you hope to effectively rebut any variety of mythicism), you don't get to read the Gospels back into the Pauline epistles.

on a particular night.

When was that, exactly?

And He shared a meal with others.

Or had one by himself. Paul doesn't say.

Whatever this meal was, it was described to Paul by the heavenly Jesus ("... received from the Lord ..."). It's not attached to any particular time, place, or set of companions.

He mentions the other "apostles" twice.

But doesn't tell us who they are.

And that he went to meet with Cephas who was an apostle

Maybe. Paul's pretty ambiguous about who is or isn't an apostle. The "other" here seems like an interpolation, because it makes more nonsense than usual out of Paul's statement. His point is that his gospel came to him directly from the risen Christ and wasn't contaminated by the revelations received by other apostles (v. 17). If Kephas is an apostle, then what's the point of verse 17? Without the "other," Paul spent two weeks with Kephas, who as a non-apostle wouldn't contaminate the gospel that Paul received from heaven, and only briefly saw James, presumably in his capacity as head of the Jerusalem Church.

but none of the other apostles. Which James did Paul meet with. Oh yea the Lord's brother.

For an interesting comparison, find all of Paul's uses of "brother" or "brothers." There are over a hundred of them. The only other verse where Paul might even possibly mean "brother" in a literal sense is 1 Corinthians 9:4. The only time that Paul speaks of "brethren according to the flesh" in Romans 9:3, it's still metaphorical; he's talking about all Israelites. In order to read "brother of the Lord" in a literal way as children of the same parents, you have to assert with no other evidence that Paul means "brother" differently than he does every other time he uses the word.

As an aside, note that Kephas isn't an apostle in 1 Corinthians 9:4.

Take your imagination somewhere else. Jesus was a real person

Christians still think he's a real person, even though he's in heaven.

The Gospels describe Jesus as a real person

Or at least as a character in a story set on Earth.

and Paul describes Jesus as a real person.

That's still the Gospels, but you're carrying that into Paul and pasting it over what Paul actually said.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #135]

Paul literally says that's an allegory

WOW!! No, he really literally does not.

Do you even know the issue that Paul is addressing in the Galatian Church and why he said, "Oh, you foolish Galatians who have bewitched you?"
Why don't you learn that first?

Where? Wherever that happened, Christ was first "existing in the form of God." Then, he took on the "form of a servant," parallel to the "form of God" that he previously had (or inhabited), but merely the semblance of a man.

Yes, He looked like a man.

or at least similarly to the way an earthly human might die.

Yes, He died like a man.

The Greek word there doesn't primarily mean "betrayal," but rather being delivered, in the sense of a courier, or someone being "handed over," as to the police. Mark

Yes, He was handed over to the police.

When was that, exactly?

This is your make-believe story, not mine.

Whatever this meal was, it was described to Paul by the heavenly Jesus ("... received from the Lord ..."). It's not attached to any particular time, place, or set of companions.

Who then?

Paul spent two weeks with Kephas. Who was an apostle because he says none of the other apostles.

Why would Paul spend weeks with Cephas? If he were not an apostle?

This is getting silly. You can have the last word.

[Difflugia]

For some different perspective on Paul, I recommend a few books:

• The Gnostic Paul (ebook) by Elaine Pagels. Pagels discusses Paul's epistles in light of Valentinian commentary. There's a bootleg at archive.org, but I'm not linking to it.
• The Office of Apostle in the Early Church by Walter Schmilthals. Schmithals dissects the Pauline epistles and the Church Fathers (primarily Clement) to determine what "apostle" meant to Christians before the canonical Gospels were written. The link is to archive.org, where it can be checked out and read. It's out of print, but you can find used copies for around $10.
• Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman. The value in this one is that Ehrman contrasts the Paul of the genuine epistles with the Paul of Acts. Since Christian tradition harmonizes these two versions of Paul, it's often hard to mentally separate them and reading Ehrman's chapter on Paul can help with that. it's also available for checkout at archive.org. It's also quite affordable as an ebook.

I don't know of a way to read it for free online, but if you can find the collection of essays, Mark and Paul: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark edited by Eve-Marie Becker, read the essay by Anne Vig Skoven, "Mark as Allegorical Rewriting of Paul: Gustav Volkmar’s Understanding of the Gospel of Mark." In the nineteenth century, Gustav Volkmar wrote a book in German about how the Gospel of Mark was written as a didactic poem to "symbolically" reflect and illustrate Paul's theology of Jesus as reflected in the epistles. If you happen to read German, the Volkmar original is in the public domain and available as a PDF at Internet Archive. While looking up the link, I found reference to a ChatGPT translation that was recently made available as a PDF. I haven't read the translation, so I don't know how good it is.

[Difflugia]

Paul literally says that's an allegory

WOW!! No, he really literally does not.

Read it again. I'm not sure what your difficulty is, but Paul uses a form of the verb allegoreo, whence we get "allegory." Your only other option is that the half-sentence about Jesus was a non-allegorical non sequitur in the midst of allegory, which Paul explains as parallel to the Old Testament allegory of Abraham's wives and children.

Do you even know the issue that Paul is addressing in the Galatian Church

Yes.

and why he said, "Oh, you foolish Galatians who have bewitched you?"

Yes. Some rival Christians didn't think that Christ was crucified and denied the salvific grace brought by that. I think it's funniest if these Christians that were teaching something other than "Christ crucified" were the "certain [ones] from James" and the Jerusalem church didn't preach Christ crucified. I suspect that Paul had enough ideological enemies that there's not necessarily a connection between 2:12 and 3:1, though.

Why don't you learn that first?

I'll see what I can do.

Yes, He looked like a man.

But wasn't one because he couldn't actually become one. In Greek, morphe, "form," is contrasted with homoiomati, "similitude." Even if not mythic, Philippians 2 is docetic.

Yes, He died like a man.

Even though he wasn't one.

Yes, He was handed over to the police.

If you read the Gospels back into Paul.

This is your make-believe story, not mine.

Well, it's either Mark's or Paul's, depending on which end you start with. The key is that they're different enough that important details can't quite be reconciled.

Whatever this meal was, it was described to Paul by the heavenly Jesus ("... received from the Lord ..."). It's not attached to any particular time, place, or set of companions.

Who then?

That's exactly the point: we don't know! The only stories with which we have to fill in Paul's blanks are the Gospels, but those get too many things wrong when compared with what Paul actually wrote for us to trust them.

Paul spent two weeks with Kephas. Who was an apostle because he says none of the other apostles.

Why would Paul spend weeks with Cephas? If he were not an apostle?

This is your make-believe story, not mine.

This is getting silly. You can have the last word.

Are you sure? You were doing so well.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #138]

Ok, I lied. But this was pretty good.

Read it again. I'm not sure what your difficulty is, but Paul uses a form of the verb allegoreo, whence we get "allegory." Your only other option is that the half-sentence about Jesus was a non-allegorical non sequitur in the midst of allegory, which Paul explains as parallel to the Old Testament allegory of Abraham's wives and children.

I did, and Paul said that "The women represent two covenants." These women, the slave and free, are allegorically like the two covenants. The law was given at Mount Sinai, and the new covenant in Jerusalem. The question being debated in the early church was whether Christians were required to obey the Jewish law, specifically the law of circumcision.

Paul even tells you the questions he is answering in v21. "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?"

Yes. Some rival Christians didn't think that Christ was crucified and denied the salvific grace brought by that. I think it's funniest if these Christians that were teaching something other than "Christ crucified" were the "certain [ones] from James" and the Jerusalem church didn't preach Christ crucified. I suspect that Paul had enough ideological enemies that there's not necessarily a connection between 2:12 and 3:1, though.

No, you do not.

But wasn't one because he couldn't actually become one. In Greek, morphe, "form," is contrasted with homoiomati, "similitude." Even if not mythic, Philippians 2 is docetic.

Yes, Jesus was God in the flesh. And He humbled Himself to have human characteristics, even to the point of death.

Yes, He died like a man.
Even though he wasn't one.

Exactly, He was God made flesh for us, and He humbled Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Yes, He was handed over to the police.
If you read the Gospels back into Paul.

That is what betrayal means. Now, it does not mean that?
If you do not want to use the gospels, that is your belief, not mine.

Whatever this meal was, it was described to Paul by the heavenly Jesus ("... received from the Lord ..."). It's not attached to any particular time, place, or set of companions.

Paul did attach it to a time and place, the night that Jesus was betrayed. The night that Jesus was handed over to the Jewish authorities.

Paul spent two weeks with Kephas. Who was an apostle because he says none of the other apostles.
Why would Paul spend weeks with Cephas? If he were not an apostle?
This is your make-believe story, not mine.

According to Paul in Galatians 2, he visited Peter and James twice. Fourteen years after the first meeting. This is written as history, and according to your date, Galatians was written between 50 and 58. That means that the first meeting with Peter, a pillar of the church, took place in the 30's.

You were doing so well

Yes, I know I was. Thank you

[Difflugia]

I did, and Paul said that "The women represent two covenants." These women, the slave and free, are allegorically like the two covenants. The law was given at Mount Sinai, and the new covenant in Jerusalem. The question being debated in the early church was whether Christians were required to obey the Jewish law, specifically the law of circumcision.

Paul even tells you the questions he is answering in v21. "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?"

I'm not sure what you think that argument means, but I'll address it because you seem to think you're disagreeing with me. In Galatians 4, Paul is explaining the old and new covenants with metaphor. "We" as flesh are of the old covenant, born in bondage as to a slave. Christ is of the new covenant, born free as to a Jewish woman, under the law. The women he's metaphorically referring to are Hagar and Sarah.

All four references to birth and women are allegorical. You're trying to argue that the "woman under the law" to whom Jesus was born in verse 4 is a literal woman. I don't know how your explanation above makes that point.

Do you even know the issue

Yes. Some rival Christians didn't think that Christ was crucified and denied the salvific grace brought by that.

No, you do not.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of your well-reasoned response.

For Paul, "Christ crucified" is the alternative and counter to salvation under the law. "Foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly shown crucified?"

Yes, Jesus was God in the flesh. And He humbled Himself to have human characteristics, even to the point of death.

As a theological statement, this no longer has any bearing of whether this was part of any earthly ministry of Jesus.

Exactly, He was God made flesh for us, and He humbled Himself to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Which, again, no longer supports your argument once it's abstracted like this.

If you do not want to use the gospels, that is your belief, not mine.

The part of the mythicist claim that you're arguing about right now is whether the canonical Gospels were written as allegory of Paul's christology. Trying to argue that it's not allegory by reading that narrative back into Paul as literal, historical detail makes your argument circular.

Paul did attach it to a time and place, the night that Jesus was betrayed.

Which, according to Paul, was when?

The night that Jesus was handed over to the Jewish authorities.

... makes your argument circular.

According to Paul in Galatians 2, he visited Peter and James twice. Fourteen years after the first meeting. This is written as history, and according to your date, Galatians was written between 50 and 58. That means that the first meeting with Peter, a pillar of the church, took place in the 30's.

Sure. How does that impact your argument?