Jesus Myth Theory

[d.thomas]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

[meshak]

BigRed,

There are many Muslims in that forum. Are you one of them?

Can you be completely being honest about yourself?

there are tons of members are not Christians here itching to slander Christianity, you dont have to worry about it if you are worried about the persecution in this forum.

[BigRed]

BigRed,

There are many Muslims in that forum. Are you one of them?

Can you be completely being honest about yourself?

there are tons of members are not Christians here itching to slander Christianity, you dont have to worry about it if you are worried about the persecution in this forum.

I am not a Muslim.
I am a very religious person.
My view of the Bible is different from yours.
I can't answer PMs as it is not yet permitted under the Forum rules.
If you have questions about Jesus ...start a thread...I will answer as appropriate.
BigRed

[Student]

It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

This is incorrect. We have manuscripts from John older than that, and John is generally considered the (canonical) gospel that was written last. Internal dating places the books much earlier. And the gospels are cited by authors in the late first century.

Uh.. well, we have a tiny fragment of John (p52) Twhose suggested date is about 135, but because of the difficulties dating vis style, could be as early as 100, or as late as 200 C.E. There is a good possibility that 'late part of the second century' would be a proper analysis.

Actually, Rylands Papyrus 457 (P52) could be a century younger than that.

Brent Nongbri (The Use and Abuse of P52:Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel; HTR 98:1 [2005] 23 – 48) has demonstrated that “the same features that Roberts* notes in his parallels (the oddly formed alpha, the looping epsilon, the mu dipping to the bottom of the line) are all present here�, here being P.Oxy 52.3694, an invitation to a strategus that dates either between 218 and 225 C.E. or to 278 C.E.

So there is nothing in P52 that could, of necessity, preclude it being from the second to third quarter of the third century C.E.

* An Unpublished Fragment of the Fourth Gospel in the John Rylands Library; C.H.Roberts; Manchester: The University Press, 1935.

[Student]

It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

This is incorrect. We have manuscripts from John older than that, and John is generally considered the (canonical) gospel that was written last. Internal dating places the books much earlier. And the gospels are cited by authors in the late first century.

Uh.. well, we have a tiny fragment of John (p52) Twhose suggested date is about 135, but because of the difficulties dating vis style, could be as early as 100, or as late as 200 C.E. There is a good possibility that 'late part of the second century' would be a proper analysis.

And, just because something was written, doesn't mean it was widely distributed.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

There is no certain evidence of the Gospel of John prior to Irenaeus “Adversus Haereses� c. 180C.E.

Justin does not “quote� from John; Justin's text is so different to John's that it hardly qualifies as an allusion let alone a quotation.

[A Troubled Man]

there are tons of members are not Christians here itching to slander Christianity, you dont have to worry about it if you are worried about the persecution in this forum.

Dude, do you even know the meaning of the word, 'persecution'?

Cruel and inhumane treatment, physical abuse, torture... etc.

Do you actually believe you're being persecuted here?

[catalyst]

It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

This is incorrect. We have manuscripts from John older than that, and John is generally considered the (canonical) gospel that was written last. Internal dating places the books much earlier. And the gospels are cited by authors in the late first century.

Uh.. well, we have a tiny fragment of John (p52) Twhose suggested date is about 135, but because of the difficulties dating vis style, could be as early as 100, or as late as 200 C.E. There is a good possibility that 'late part of the second century' would be a proper analysis.

And, just because something was written, doesn't mean it was widely distributed.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

There is no certain evidence of the Gospel of John prior to Irenaeus “Adversus Haereses� c. 180C.E.

Justin does not “quote� from John; Justin's text is so different to John's that it hardly qualifies as an allusion let alone a quotation.

THANK YOU! This is something I have been saying for YEARS now on assorted threads. In fact, Justin never quoted ANY NT writings...period.

Catalyst

[Mithrae]

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

There is no certain evidence of the Gospel of John prior to Irenaeus “Adversus Haereses� c. 180C.E.

Justin does not “quote� from John; Justin's text is so different to John's that it hardly qualifies as an allusion let alone a quotation.

I've posted my opinions before, but just in case anyone reading has been unfortunate enough to miss some of our past discussions...

In the mid 2nd century Marcion the bishop of Sinope raised a serious threat to the proto-orthodox views, teaching that Jesus' views had no association with the Jewish religion and that Jesus himself had not even had a flesh and blood body (docetism). Marcion formed the first known Christian canon, consisting of Paul's epistles and the gospel of Luke, and specifically denouncing some of the other gospels which existed in his day. It's not at all surprising that emphasis on which Christian writings were to be considered sacred became much more commonplace after Marcion's canon, with Irenaeus in Lyons, Clement in Alexandria and Tertullian in Carthage all endorsing the four-gospel canon in the late 2nd century ( http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml ).

We have every reason to suppose that those four gospels were not written a mere decade or two before those fellows wrote; acceptance in such diverse corners of the empire suggests a longer history of distribution and use. In fact Ignatius in the early 2nd century quotes from the gospel of Luke; both he and Polycarp (early/mid 2nd century) quote from Matthew; and Irenaeus (c 180CE) quotes the earlier work of the gnostic Ptolemaeus regarding the gospel of John.

From that background, it's easy to see that Justin Martyr did in fact use material from each of the four gospels which were later more formally established as the canon:

• For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;â€� and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;â€� and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. ~ 1 Apology 66
  
  Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Matthew 2:1)
  
  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder ~ Dialogue 106 (cf Mark 3:16-17)
  
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass:’ ~ Dialogue 103 (cf Luke 22:42, 44)
  
  For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,’ as I have learned also from the memoirs. For He exhorted His disciples to surpass the pharisaic way of living, with the warning, that if they did not, they might be sure they could not be saved; and these words are recorded in the memoirs: ‘Unless your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ~ Dialogue 105 (cf Luke 23:46, Matthew 5:20)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)
  
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.� ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5 and Matthew 18:3)

Only by John (four times, five if you count 1 John also) is Jesus called the 'only-begotten' of the Father, and only by John is he called the Word. So it's very clear that Justin Martyr used John along with the other three gospels. The last comment is a little less clear, as Student has noted, because 'kingdom of heaven' is from Matthew's gospel and there is a vaguely similar comment there also. But since we already know that Justin alluded to John's gospel the comment about being 'born again' traces back to John more easily than to Matthew:

Matthew 18:3 - unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.�
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?�
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

[TheTruth101]

BigRed,

I dont understand why you quote the Scripture, you dont trust Jesus' word. What gives?

If we are discussing religion, the Bible is the authority on the story of Jesus.
BigRed

Whats your religion if its not Christianity?

[Student]

I am not disputing that Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian all refer to the Gospel of John. To this list we can add Tatian who compiled the Diatessaron c. 170 to 175 CE.

My argument is with the idea that Justin Martyr explicitly “quotes� from John. In my opinion the evidence shows that Justin does not.

This is not an extreme or outlandish view; it is supported by several main-stream [conservative?] commentators. For example, in his commentary on John, J. Marsh writes:

“The letters [of Ignatius] certainly contain something of the same ideas as the fourth gospel. But this does not necessarily imply that about A.D. 115 there was extant a copy of John which Ignatius knew, and which alone could have given him his ‘Johannine’ ideas. If the letters contained an explicit reference to John’s gospel, or some clearly recognizable quotation from it, such an inference might be made. But since the similarity is only in the realm of ideas and not of textual identity, all that can be claimed is that the similarity of ideas is consistent with both Ignatius and John drawing upon the ideas in their contemporary world as well as with the dependency of Ignatius upon John. To be able to affirm the latter as the more likely alternative requires reference or quotation in Ignatius which is simply not there. The same comments apply to the again undoubted similarities between the writings of Justin Martyr (who was martyred about A.D. 165) and the fourth gospel. Justin may have read John and so got his indubitably ‘Johannine’ ideas; but in the absence of any specific reference to or clear quotation from the fourth gospel, no evidence is available to show more than the sharing of both authors in certain common ideas.� [The Gospel of Saint John, Pelican New Testament Commentaries, p.26]

In his commentary on John's gospel, D. Moody Smith writes the following about John:
“For a time, particularly in the early part of the twentieth century, the possibility that John was not written, or at least not published, until [the] mid-second century was a viable one. At that time Justin Martyr espoused a logos Christology, without citing the Fourth Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation.� [John (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1999) pp. 41-42]

Why would Marsh and Moody make these statements if Justin’s use of John were as clear as claimed by Mithrae?

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (John and Matthew/Luke)

Only by John (four times, five if you count 1 John also) is Jesus called the 'only-begotten' of the Father, and only by John is he called the Word. So it's very clear that Justin Martyr used John along with the other three gospels.

Firstly, John calls Jesus “the only begotten of the Father� only once, not four or five times. [only begotten god once; only begotten son three times]

Why should we suppose that simply because John and Justin both happen to use the same two words Logos and Monogenēs [three if we include patēr] to/of Jesus, that it should be very clear that Justin used John?

Does Justin explicitly quote a verse from John containing all of these words? Absolutely not.

For example, John all three words in 1:14 [the one occasion where he terms the Logos the only begotten of/from the Father]
“And the Word became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory as of [the] only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.�
Καὶ � λόγος σὰ�ξ �γένετο καὶ �σκήνωσεν �ν ἡμῖν, καὶ �θεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν α�τοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς πα�ὰ πατ�ός, πλή�ης χά�ιτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
Compare this with Justin, in Dialogue, 105.1

“Only-begotten of the Father of the universe, having been properly begotten from Him as his word and power, and afterwards becoming man by a virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs of the apostles.�
Μονογενὴς γὰ� ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατ�ὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος ἰδίως �ξ α�τῦ λόγος καί δ�ναμις γεγενημένος καί ὔστε�ον ἄνθ�ωπος διά πα�θένου γενόμενος ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων �μάθομεν π�οεδήλωσα

Some similarities, [logos, monogenēs, partros] but not a quotation of John by Justin; hardly even an allusion.

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.� ~ 1 Apology 61 (cf John 3:3&5 and Matthew 18:3)

The last comment is a little less clear, as Student has noted, because 'kingdom of heaven' is from Matthew's gospel and there is a vaguely similar comment there also. But since we already know that Justin alluded to John's gospel the comment about being 'born again' traces back to John more easily than to Matthew:

Matthew 18:3 - unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.�
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?�
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I have demonstrated, on more than one occasion, that the relative verses only bare comparison in English. All comparisons fail when we examine the relative Greek texts of 1 Apology 61.4 and John 3:3

Justin – “Unless you are born again you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.�
αν μή αναγεννηθητε ο� μή εισελθητε εις τὴν βασιλειαν των ου�ανων

John – “If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God�
�ὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, ο� δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

While we might choose to ignore the difference between “entering the kingdom of heaven� and “seeing the kingdom of God�, we cannot ignore how differently each author expresses the idea of being born again. Justin uses the word αναγεννηθητε “be born again�, whereas John uses the more unusual phrase γεννηθη ανωθεν “be born from above�. If Justin was quoting John, why doesn’t he adopt John’s more peculiar idiom?

Put simply the only conclusion that can be safely drawn is, as Marsh and Moody suggest, that while Justin and the author of John shared certain ideas in common, Justin did not explicitly refer to or quote from the gospel of John.

[GADARENE]

"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."


how did he know what was inside those pigs? why did they plot to murder him if he was way off base? got under their skin, it seems. like all outwardly religious hot shots. they forgot what true religion is.


iow, anything to avoid the truths for which he stood. anything! did they have any justification for pursuing the gnats, the little things, the things that don't represent the important matters, like love and mercy? you betcha. and for those pursuits, they justified rejecting and then murdering the one who was blameless. those gnats become monsters when we run from the one with whom we have to do.

demons can't bear the light. they always hang where it is dark, shadowy, hard to see. always seeking to drag into endless arguments those who are slipping away into the light.

lord, my bro died. I'll be right back. let the dead bury their dead. jesus myth conspiracy theorists holler, see, jesus don't give a crap about nothing but forcing you into worshipping his big fat ego.

in reality, he was saying, son, you don't have to join me, but don't lie and make excuses

nothing knew under that big yellow sun