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?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Historians operate according to criteria. They seek explanations that achieve the highest plausibility, explanatory scope and power, and are guilty of the least ad hoc assumptions.

That there was a Yeshua associated with Nazareth; renown for acts interpreted by spectators to be miraculous, and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, meets the historian's criteria. All other explanations proceed along the erroneous reasoning that, "because I can imagine some alternative being the case, therefore, that alternative is at the very least equal in strength to the any which it challenges, if not in fact stronger.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

Well, language, cognates and homophones are, quite definitively, credible sources. In fact, one can not get any stronger than a definition, or sound. How does the Latinized world pronounce Jesus today? HeySeus, right? If you understood Greek and Latin, what do you hear?

"Hey" is a modern English word which does not derive from Latin or Greek The distinct letter J was not introduced until the 14th century, so appealing to modern Spanish pronunciation of it is utterly and patently absurd, especially since it differs even between the Romance languages: For example in French, Portuguese, Catalan, and Romanian it has been fronted to the postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ (like ⟨s⟩ in English measure).
How to Pronounce Jesus in French

That, and you're understanding of old world languages is atrocious. S and Z indeed!

It certainly is, which is why I don't simply blurt out whatever sounds good in my head at the time - as you seemingly do - but instead look up opinions more informed than mine. The Greek alphabet included both Zeta and Sigma because they express different sounds. Zeus is spelt with a zeta at the beginning, Iesous is spelt with two sigmas.
How to pronounce Iesous (Greek/Greece)

Gold in Greek: Chrysós. Hardly rocket science.

I asked for your source regarding "a people calling themselves, the "Golden People," preached, you guessed it, "Do unto others as you would have done to you."" Judging by your failure to support your claim it looks like this is just another thing thing that you made up because it sounded good in your head.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Mithrae]

Since you need to distract from the proof, arguments against word games, you obviously have nothing.
We've been through all this before, and you haven't learned. If Tart wishes me to go through it for him, so be it.

Word games definitely prove word games.
Disproving word games, still leaves you without Jesus, and that's all you got.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

Historians operate according to criteria. They seek explanations that achieve the highest plausibility, explanatory scope and power, and are guilty of the least ad hoc assumptions.

That there was a Yeshua associated with Nazareth; renown for acts interpreted by spectators to be miraculous, and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, meets the historian's criteria. All other explanations proceed along the erroneous reasoning that, "because I can imagine some alternative being the case, therefore, that alternative is at the very least equal in strength to the any which it challenges, if not in fact stronger.

He says without backing up a single bit of it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 12 by Mithrae]

Since you need to distract from the proof, arguments against word games, you obviously have nothing.
We've been through all this before, and you haven't learned.

I certainly have learned what your approach to 'debate' is like, which is why usually I pass over even your more extreme claims with a discrete silence. If I wanted a proper debate about Jesus' historicity I'd talk to Jagella. But being an optimist who tries to see the best in people, every so often I feel compelled to check up on you in the hopes that you might have something more than private inventions and speculation to offer

Sadly it was not to be. In your single, brief post #3 we found the claims that
- 'Christos' refers to a sect called "golden people," which I think is a new one, but (unsubstantiated and seemingly false)
- Every non-Christian source about Jesus reveals forgery etc. (unsubstantiated and contrary to most scholars' views)
- We "should have" more evidence than we do (wishful thinking and demonstrably false)
- Iesous is equivalent to 'hail Zeus' (conspiracy theory nonsense and demonstrably false)

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by liamconnor]

That there was a Yeshua associated with Nazareth; renown for acts interpreted by spectators to be miraculous, and who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, meets the historian's criteria.

Could you please outline those criteria and demonstrate how Yeshua meets them.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Mithrae]

Since you need to distract from the proof, arguments against word games, you obviously have nothing.
We've been through all this before, and you haven't learned.

I certainly have learned what your approach to 'debate' is like, which is why usually I pass over even your more extreme claims with a discrete silence. If I wanted a proper debate about Jesus' historicity I'd talk to Jagella. But being an optimist who tries to see the best in people, every so often I feel compelled to check up on you in the hopes that you might have something more than private inventions and speculation to offer

Sadly it was not to be. In your single, brief post #3 we found the claims that
- 'Christos' refers to a sect called "golden people," which I think is a new one, but (unsubstantiated and seemingly false)
- Every non-Christian source about Jesus reveals forgery etc. (unsubstantiated and contrary to most scholars' views)
- We "should have" more evidence than we do (wishful thinking and demonstrably false)
- Iesous is equivalent to 'hail Zeus' (conspiracy theory nonsense and demonstrably false)

Wow, insulting and wrong. You must not be familiar with Google, because all my claims ARE a mouse-click away, as I have shown MANY times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_ ... e_passages

This covers "Chresos", Josephus and adds the impossibility of anachronism, something that hadn't occurred to me before.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/History/ ... story.html
Tacitus - mentions Pilate, whom if he did exist, would be chronicled under Roman records, and trumpeted by religious supporters.

Just like the biography of Lazarus...

So, you have insulted me, and discredited yourself, and your next claim will be "that doesn't prove anything..."

Bracing myself.
Surprise me and apologize.

Some other nits. "Hey," has existed since before language, it means the same thing in every language.
Latin and Greek don't have spelling rules. So any derivation is meaningless, except to Apologetics. Joshua, is spelled anyway you like in Greek and Latin, and formally Iesuoeus, so that you capture all the syllables. If we reverse Jesus, we would be left with Io, or Ios, perhaps Eos, all valid names, (alternatively Ie, Ee-es) but sending a completely different message.

So you have focused on the word-games, and ignored any proof. I have mentioned that word games definitely PROVE word games, but they assert no Jesus, and neither have you.
Where is the records of Lazarus and Apostles - nowhere.
Where is a table or chair made by Jesus? With the Ark of the Covenant - nowhere.
Where is a single relic or original writing - allegedly destroyed after the Council of Nicea.

So, my claim was there wasn't an independent reference that didn't look like the Church had corrupted it... and there isn't a case where it doesn't look like the Church corrupted it.

Hail Zeus, my brother.

[Mithrae]

Sadly it was not to be. In your single, brief post #3 we found the claims that
- 'Christos' refers to a sect called "golden people," which I think is a new one, but (unsubstantiated and seemingly false)
- Every non-Christian source about Jesus reveals forgery etc. (unsubstantiated and contrary to most scholars' views)
- We "should have" more evidence than we do (wishful thinking and demonstrably false)
- Iesous is equivalent to 'hail Zeus' (conspiracy theory nonsense and demonstrably false)

Wow, insulting and wrong. You must not be familiar with Google, because all my claims ARE a mouse-click away, as I have shown MANY times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_ ... e_passages

This covers "Chresos", Josephus and adds the impossibility of anachronism, something that hadn't occurred to me before.

'Chresos' doesn't even occur on that page, and as far as I can see (both before and after reading that section) there is no anachronism in Josephus' reference to "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." If instead you're talking about the Testimonium Flavianum then yes, that is the single early non-Christian reference to Jesus in which Christian influence is evident, as I originally stated.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/History/ ... story.html
Tacitus - mentions Pilate...

Obviously refuting your own earlier claim that the only proof of Pilate "is from a piece of scrap stone found underneath a stairwell."

...whom if he did exist, would be chronicled under Roman records, and trumpeted by religious supporters.

No... it's only fringe lunatics who suppose that Pilate must not have existed if Jesus didn't exist. Since there's no evidence or even the slightest reason to believe that someone else had been governor at the time, Pilate's "existence" would never have been given a second thought were it not for those handful of folk hell-bent on trying to poke holes in the fabric of history.

Some other nits. "Hey," has existed since before language, it means the same thing in every language.

What is your source for that claim? I can't find anything to back it up.

Latin and Greek don't have spelling rules. So any derivation is meaningless, except to Apologetics.

Okay... so you're asserting that your own claims are meaningless. Well done.

So you have focused on the word-games, and ignored any proof. I have mentioned that word games definitely PROVE word games, but they assert no Jesus, and neither have you.

You're the one describing your own 'arguments' as word games, not me - not that I disagree with the description.



So out of four points of contention, you have essentially supported my views on two (by dismissing your "word games" as meaningless, and by highlighting further evidence of Pilate's existence), failed on a third (with a Wiki link showing that even the second Josephus reference to Jesus does not "reveal outright forgery" without assuming lot of dubious legwork) and not even attempted to address the fourth (your claim that 'christos' refers to a sect of "golden people" who promoted the golden rule, which I don't think I've seen you say before and post by post is looking more and more as if you said it just because it sounded good in your head at the time).

I am always open to correction and learning new things but, as I said, there are so many occasions on which I just pass by with discreet silence over your far-fetched claims and every so often it seems necessary to remind myself of why I do that


Edit: Come to think of it, I should add that as far as your claims being "a mouse click away" - which they obviously are not, since you have utterly failed to substantiate them (just like last time we went through this) - it's not just incorrect but amazingly hypocritical considering just two days ago you attacked Bluethread demanding a more precise citation, not for some obscure stuff like you're claiming here, but for an incredibly obvious passage about homosexuality in the bible itself which he had already quoted word for word!

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by Mithrae]

Poor, Mithrae, I am obviously upsetting you greatly.
You are upset because they use "Christos?"
Sorry, but there is doubt on every bit of Christian proof.
Is there doubt on any bit of Caesar-proof? Only when Christians say "that doesn't prove anything."

As far as I can tell, I am arguing with someone in denial.
Denial is one of those things one can't fix on a website.

I have proved what I set out to prove. That's it.
You can deny it all you like, and do that "trick," when you deny and say "you can't do it, can you?" but I've shown I can.

Jesus did not exist, and all you can do is dispute the word-games, you are helpless to show anything that shows he did.

Jesus born ~0 CE, died, 2018 CE.

[Tart]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

This would be like arguing that since you can show that Elvis existed, then if anyone claimed later that Elvis was God it must be true.

Surely you can see the fallacy of that line of thinking?

Ya, it is called a false equivalence...

In short, you can't even produce evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed, never mind the Jesus rumored to have existed according to the Gospel rumors.

The evidence I presented is in the Original Post... Which you ignored and said a man name Jesus might have existed, but because they say he walked on water it is unlikely, and this actually proves Jesus didnt exist...

Implying the rest of the evidence, doesnt even need responding to, becuase actual valid historical evidence is nullified becuase people claim he was resurrected...



Jesus might have existed... But he didnt exist...


And this is what Jeff Durdin is said quoting...
"The atheist is satisfied to ignore the need for intellectual justification and explanation. The need to gain consistency with his total beliefs, and the need to demonstrate systematic cogency in his overall perspective on the world, man and values."