The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #51

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Willum :)
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 46 by Kapyong]
WELCOME BACK.
Thanks :)
Willum wrote: No it isn't my idea. The alteration of the word anointed one of the biggest arguments against the reference.
Pardon ?
Willum wrote: Though since you say it, I re-investigated the change of Chresos to Chrestos, and indeed it does look like I got a bum steer, I could not find the article again.
Your argument was about Chrysos to Christos - not Chresos to Chrestos - what sort of intregrity is that ?
I'm glad you have admitted your mistake anyway :)
Willum wrote: Implying I made it up however, impugns my integrity.
I didn't imply it - I stated it directly.
I don't think you have much integrity - e.g. I've shown you many times that the Council of Nicea did NOT fix the books of the bible, but you keep repeating that false claim.

Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #52

Post by Kapyong »

Gday historia and all :)
Kapyong wrote: Paul does not say Jesus was a historical person.
historia wrote: Sure he does, as Mithrae has already begun to elaborate above.
Nope.
Mithrae gave no references which MUST be historical at all.
Just AMBIGUOUS statements which faithful believers faithfully believe.
Nor did you give any clearly historical references.
Kapyong wrote: History means times, dates and places and people.
  • Paul never once gives any times or date for Jesus life and death,
  • he never mentions Mary or Joseph etc.,
  • he never connects Jesus to a place on earth (not even Jerusalem when he visits)
historia wrote: Paul didn't write a biography of Jesus. He wrote occasional letters to churches about various theological disputes. It is not surprising, then, that he doesn't regale his readers with superfluous biographical details about Jesus life, but instead focuses on the theological significance of Jesus' life.
Thanks for agreeing with me -
Paul did NOT place Jesus Christ in history.
Kapyong wrote: Paul does make many statements about Jesus Christ which can only be about a heavenly being - e.g. 'son of God'.
historia wrote: David and Israel are called God's son in the Jewish scriptures. This is why Jesus, who Christians consider to be the Davidic messiah, is also given that title. But, that aside, it's abundantly clear that Paul thinks that Jesus was a divine being. But it's also abundantly clear he also believed that Jesus was sent to earth and became a man.
No it isn't.
It is vague and ambiguous - you cannot produce even ONE clear reference that it certainly happened on earth. No time, no date, no place, no parents, nothing.

Just faithful claims and beliefs.
historia wrote: That is the clear meaning of Galatians 4:4-5. To save the Jewish people, Paul asserts that Jesus had to become a Jew, born as a mere human, born under the Law. Angels are not subject to the Mosaic Law, only living and breathing Jews here on the earth.
Not clear at all -
that is just your faithful belief, but Paul does NOT say that.

Enoch is a Jewish man in heaven - he is still subject to Mosaic Law, isn't he ?
Kapyong wrote: Paul makes some statements which are ambiguous as to whether they occurred on earth or in heaven.
But Paul makes no statements about Jesus Christ which can only take place on earth.
historia wrote: Paul says Jesus was born, died, and buried. He says he was killed by the Judeans. He also says Jesus had brothers, one of whom Paul himself personally met. These statements are best understood in their normal way. There is no justification for twisting them to mean something else.
So ?
The Gods did all that in heaven too.

You use the word 'normal' to mean your own faithful beliefs - as if your beliefs are 'normal', and facts which disagree are abnormal.

OMG -
Paul did NOT say Jesus had brothers - that is a FALSE STATEMENT.
Paul called someone the 'brother of the Lord' - that is NOT the same at all !
You deliberately made a false claim to support your faithful beliefs.
You lied.
Shame on you.
Kapyong wrote: In those times people believed in gods and various heavenly beings who did all sorts of things in heaven - argue, fight, have banquets, have sex, torture even - all the sorts of things that people did on earth.
. . .
Even the gods had bodies made of 'flesh', just different flesh (said Cicero.)
historia wrote: Your examples here are drawn from pagan Roman religion. Obviously, Paul was a Jew, so this pagan background information is irrelevant to understanding his thinking here.
WTF ?
Paul was writing to pagans - to Romans !
Kapyong wrote: So the idea that when Paul refers to Jesus being 'buried' e.g. that that can only mean a physical burial is obviously wrong. Indeed a book from Paul's time The Life of Adam and Eve has a burial in the third heaven (albeit confusedly.)
historia wrote: This is simply mistaken. The Greek Revelation of Moses (= Life of Adam) repeatedly mentions that there is a Paradise in the third heaven and a Paradise on earth.
It is not clear at all, but it certainly shows that a burial could be believed to be in heaven.

Summary -
You have failed to provide even a SINGLE claim about Jesus Christ in Paul's writings that is certainly placed on earth.

Just faithful claims based on faithful beliefs.


Kapyong

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #53

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Kapyong]

Well, considering that isn’t my ‘Counsel of Nicea’ objection, I think you are insulting the wrong person.
Then you try to get me on English spellings of Greek words, as an integrity question? Sorry brother, Chresos, Chrysos, and ad imagination, are valid ways of spelling Greek. If you go into older, or English works it becomes more diverse. I am no Doctor of Religious Philosophy, nor do I claim to be, therefore those kind of accusations are unwarranted.
I won’t say I can’t be fooled, and I do admit it upon discovery, as I did.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #54

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 51 by Kapyong]

Well, not exactly what I thought I'd read, but is does lend credence to the alteration.

partial agreement

Which does leave us the question, of why chresos would be changed to chrestos.

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #55

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Willum and all :)
Willum wrote: [Replying to Kapyong]

Well, considering that isn’t my ‘Counsel of Nicea’ objection, I think you are insulting the wrong person.
Hmmm ... you wrote 'counsel' instead of Council. That's an example of what I mean - you don't seem to pay attention properly, or check your work - or something.

After being shown numerous times that the CoN did NOT choose the books of the bible you STILL keep repeating that false claim. Why ?

It appears you are unable to admit error, a common trait around here - e.g. historia falsified the words of Paul then ran away when I pointed out his error.

Willfully falsifying the data is the worst crime a historian can commit.
historia - are you able to admit your error and apologise for it ?
Or not ?
Willum wrote: Then you try to get me on English spellings of Greek words, as an integrity question? Sorry brother, Chresos, Chrysos, and ad imagination, are valid ways of spelling Greek.
Spelling Greek what ?
The Greek word for gold is 'chrysos', NOT 'chresos' - once again you don't pay attention to the details. You mixed up 'chrysos' for 'Christos', then falsely claimed it as 'chresos' for 'chrestos'.

Spelling how ever you like 'ad imagination' is NOT a valid way of spelling Greek.
Willum wrote: If you go into older, or English works it becomes more diverse. I am no Doctor of Religious Philosophy, nor do I claim to be, therefore those kind of accusations are unwarranted.
Pardon ?
If you make errors, then you can expect to be criticised for them. Do you think otherwise ? Do you think your faithful beliefs are above criticism ?
Willum wrote: I won’t say I can’t be fooled, and I do admit it upon discovery, as I did.
Really ?

Can you admit that the Council of Nicea did not choose the books of the bible ?

Can you admit that 'Christos' (oiled) has nothing to do with 'chrysos' (gold) ?

Can you admit that 'Iesous' has nothing to do with 'Hail Zeus' ?

Can you admit that Pilate existed ?
(You are literally the first and only person I have ever heard to doubt the historical existence of Pilate - he was mentioned by contemporary Philo, and then Josephus, and Tacitus and dozens of other early writers.)

Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #56

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Willum and all :)
Willum wrote: [Replying to post 51 by Kapyong]

Well, not exactly what I thought I'd read, but is does lend credence to the alteration.
Pardon ?
How and what lends credence to the alteration ?
Do you have any early EVIDENCE of an alteration ?
When was the first mention of such an alteration ?

Do you still support this 'bum steer' or not ?
Wow.
That article says NOTHING about 'chrysos' (gold) at all !
It discusses 'Chrestos' - a name for an initiate meaning 'good', and ONCE mentions it being rendered 'chresos'. No mention of 'chrysos' or 'gold' at all.

Willum - you don't seem able to read and comprehend properly. It appears you made up the 'chrysos' (gold) connection entirely in your own head - because the article you cited does NOT support your claims.
Willum wrote: Which does leave us the question, of why chresos would be changed to chrestos.
There is no question.
There is no evidence that 'chresos' or 'chrysos' was changed into 'chrestos' or 'christos'. Just recent speculation by un-informed amateurs.

Kapyong

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #57

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 56 by Kapyong]

You made your point, I examined my favorite pet example, the insertion of a 't,' and was not able to find it again. No, you made that point paragraphs ago, and I agreed. THEN MOVED ON.
And despite admitting that, you say I made it up. AGAIN? Isn't it just as likely whilst perusing strange websites I came across an odd theory that stuck with me? It does have a certain simplicity, doesn't it, the insertion of a 't,' is simple.

But, despite the flawed example, the premise is that there aren't any 'independent' writings that the Church doesn't look like it corrupted, OR, there is at least a reason to believe it did.
Last edited by Willum on Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #58

Post by Mithrae »

Kapyong wrote: It appears you are unable to admit error, a common trait around here - e.g. historia falsified the words of Paul then ran away when I pointed out his error.
Don't start beating your chest just yet. It's been 24 hours, and some people have real lives to attend to :roll: You haven't even coherently addressed my initial off-the-cuff remarks yet, besides expressing your vague hope that maybe, just maybe there is some kind of 'ambiguity' which allows Paul's words to mean something they clearly don't; that "made himself nothing... in human likeness" and "made of a woman" of the "seed of David" somehow refers to a heavenly being created from a celestial sperm bank and, presumably, gestated in some kind of astral uterus.

...which still wouldn't explain 'made under the law'!

I always find myself learning new things from Historia's greater depth of knowledge, but we don't need to wait for her response to see that your personal attacks seem to be a case of protesting too much, trying to compensate with vehemence more than anything else ;)



PS: One thing I will comment on because it's been bugging me... if you think that Enoch was a Jewish man, it just goes to show how much you've got to learn.
Last edited by Mithrae on Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post #59

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,

Let's recap the main argument -

Historia and Mithrae and others insist that Paul refers to a historical Jesus, and cite phrases like 'seed of David' and 'born of woman' and 'the Lord's brother' (often falsified as 'brothers of Jesus'.)

As if such things can ONLY refer to an earthly Jesus.

But that belief is clearly and obviously wrong -

In ancient times the Gods in heaven were believed to do all sorts of things - included marriage, sex and children. Heaven was a fantastic place with stories and myths and legends about many gods and their activities.

Anything that could happen on Earth could happen in Heaven,
AND
even things impossible on Earth can happen in Heaven.

Heaven is a place with NO LIMITS as to what can happen there.
But Earth is limited by the laws of physics and biology etc.
E.g. - a resurrection can happen in Heaven, it cannot happen on Earth.

Heaven is UN- limited, but Earth is limited.

So historia's and Mithrae's argument is obviously false - when they claim Paul's cites can ONLY refer to earth - anything that can happen on Earth, and then some, can happen in Heaven.

Consider the woman who gave birth among the stars while a dragon hunted her child - a story from the New Testament itself ! Did that birth have to happen on Earth ?

Enoch is a Jewish man who lives in Heaven now - presumably he is from the 'Seed of David' (or at least the seed of Abraham or Adam.) That does not mean he must live on Earth.

It is obvious that phrases like 'seed of David' or 'born of woman' can easily refer to a heavenly man, because heaven has everything that Earth does, and more.

Sure, these references CAN mean an earthly man,
and
they CAN mean a heavenly man.

But not one single reference in Paul can only mean an earthly Jesus.


Finally historia -
as I have pointed out to you many times :

HISTORY means dates, and places, and specific people like parents.

But Paul never once gives a DATE for Jesus' birth or death or any event in his life,
Paul never once mentions any PLACE for Jesus birth etc.
Paul never once mentions any PERSON in connection with meeting Jesus.

So why do you keep insisting that Paul describes a 'historical Jesus' ?
Do you not know what 'history' means, historia ?


Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Myth of Jesus? Or the Myth of the Mythical Jesus?

Post #60

Post by Kapyong »

Gday Mithrae and all,
Mithrae wrote: ...which still wouldn't explain 'made under the law'!
Nonsense.

Can YOU explain why YOU believe a heavenly being cannot be 'made under the law' ?

Enoch is a heavenly Jewish man - is it impossible for him to be 'made under the law' ?

Is it impossible for the Arch-angels to be 'made under the law' ?

Please explain why YOU believe 'made under the law' can ONLY refer to an earthly being.

See -
that's the central problem that you repeatedly fail to answer Mithrae. Please stop abusing Dr Carrier (he isn't here) and answer the question.

Stop beating around the bush and answer the question :

Please explain why YOU believe 'made under the law' or 'born of woman' or 'seed of David' can ONLY refer to an earthly being.

As I pointed out above -
anything that can happen on Earth can happen in Heaven and MORE because Heaven has no limits.

Your argument that they can ONLY refer to an earthly man is based only on your beliefs, not on any facts and evidence.
Mithrae wrote: I always find myself learning new things from Historia's greater depth of knowledge,
Oh,
so you were not concerned that she falsified the historical data ?
Mithrae wrote: but we don't need to wait for her response to see that your personal attacks seem to be a case of protesting too much, trying to compensate with vehemence more than anything else ;)
Pardon ?
She lied about the data, and I called her on it.
Do you support lying about the data Mithrae ?
Yes or no please.

Does Paul say 'brothers of Jesus' or not, Mithrae ?
Can you admit historia made a grave error ?
Yes or no please.

Or is this place more like a football game ? everything your side does is good, and everything your opponents do is bad ?


Kapyong

Post Reply