Jesus Mythicism
Offline Ok, this is probably the wrong forum, but I'd like to challenge this idea that Jesus didn't exist. Now don't get me wrong, I think thats a possibility, but there is also very strong evidence for Jesus' existence.
For example, Mark contains a lot of information that seems so trivial that it can't have been made up (eg the pillow in The Calming Of The Storm). And not only that, but it contains embarrassing stories that seem unlikely to be made up (eg dieing on a cross, which would be extremely humiliating). I mean, what can a redaction critic really draw from that? He would have been naked on a cross in a busy area.
Theres also the documents backing up the historical Jesus. Going with the 4 source hypothesis, we have Mark plus the hypothetical documents Q, special M, and special L. And even with the two source hypothesis, thats still two document written relatively close to the actual events.
Now, I know that Christianity seems to be copied of the typical mythical religion-making formula. For example, Mithrus died only to be resurrected three days later. However, many of these mythical qualities come straight from what now makes up the OT, and furthermore I don't think Jesus did everything talked about in the Bible so some will be copied directly. But it seems to me like Jesus did physically do some of the things which supposedly happened in a more metaphysical plane in mythical religions of that time.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer
- Login to post comments
Offline Yellow_Number_Five wrote:The Caine Mutiny contains a lot of detailed information about Captain Queeg. Was that hard to make up? What, exactly, makes the Christ story different?I don't know the story. Pick a well known example, or give some more details about this mutiny. It seems to me like information about the captain would be crucial to a stereo-typical mutiny story to give motive to the plot.
The entire gospel story of Jesus is no different then that of the Trogan War discribed in The Illiad or the Odyssey. Mainly of the part played by Achilles. Or what of Hercules? Heck, since we're on allegorical literature, what about Moby Dick?
As an author, things that seem trivial add realism to a story or plot. Sherlock Holmes has lots of trivial points, but all add to make it seem more real - in fact some people really think he was a real character. Same goes for King Arthur.
Just because a story seems real doesn't make it so. You want to speculate on the stories realism, when the only thing you have to base it on is itself, and even the stories themselves conflict! They are already invalidated by their own manner, and cannot be any more accurate unless further evidence can be presenting. As it stands, none has.
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Christ was required to die as per the story's foreshadowing. Just as Queeg was required to face Court Marshall. It's a redemption theme, old as dust.The key word here is, embarrassing. There?s plenty of noble deaths for him to pick from, this is not.
Sure it was. This story was as noble as anything. Sacrifice, especially that of horrible and bloody sacrifices, are so noble they predate the first century by hundreds of years. The greeks portray the battle of Thermopylae as one giant blood-bath for the Spartan soldiers who fought there. Defeat is embarrassing no matter what, but in the end they turned the embarrassment into a sacrifice.
Same with Jesus' story. He went through some embarrassment but kept his dignity...same as the greeks at Thermopylae. And then in the end he continued with his dignity, and won over. There is no difference.
Further, in all the hero-myths that existed during the time of Jesus' supposed life, they all went through some sort of embarrassment. Oedipus slept with his mother for goodness sakes!
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:Not really. There are NO contemporary accounts of Christ's life. People didn't write about him until decades after the fact.I find it amazing that there was a man who raised the dead, performed miraculous healings, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven - and nobody alive when he walked the earth bothered to write about it. NOBODY.
We have to bear in mind the oral tradition here. There are other historical figures with far bigger timeliness as well btw (eg Buddha at over 200 years till the first written account).
Buddha was not a real person... Neither was Lao Tzu. These figures were made up...same as Jesus. Even most buddhists and taoists are well aware of that...
Remember, there were religious preachers just like Jesus on every street corner, and crucifixions were carried out almost every week by the Jewish authorities.
Um, no. Jewish authorities NEVER ordered a single crucifixion. Crucifixions were a ROMAN punishment for people who commited crimes against ROMAN authorities. Jewish authorities stoned people to death. Get your facts straight please.
This is one of the biggest flaws in the jesus myth, and proves that the people who wrote the gospels were not first or second hand accounts. It also proves that they had very little knowledge of jewish culture and tradition. The fact is, the Sanhedrin meeting on passover eve to accuse a man of blaspheming and then ordering Pilate to kill him for it - these are incredulous factual flaws that should not be present in an accurate or even a semi-accurate accounting of a man who just recently lived...
The Sanhedrin would NEVER meet during passover eve, blaspheming was NOT a law punishable by death during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, and the Roman overseer would NEVER need to get permission from a lowly jewish tribal council (which is what the Romans looked at them as). Period. And, jesus would never have been crucified for it. The entire story is bogus.
I don't think any of these miracles happened, but the crucifixion does seem likely.
To somebody who is un-studied, sure. You've been bull-shit-fed these lies about "history." A history which didn't exist.
Quote:Quote:Now, I know that Christianity seems to be copied of the typical mythical religion-making formula. For example, Mithrus died only to be resurrected three days later. However, many of these mythical qualities come straight from what now makes up the OT,You're making the Jesus myther's point.
Indeed I am, for I like to see both sides of the argument. I think mythicism makes a good case, but its just one of those bizarre situations where theres strong evidence on both sides.
There is no evidence for the non-myther side. None. If you have some, I would greatly like to hear it. Because I'm pretty schooled on this subject, and not come across anything that could be deemed evidence-worthy.
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:yet maintain he existed and did metaphysical works?Just the existance part, and I say its probable.
Then I say you're wrong.
MattShizzle - Your right, they do shamelessly contradict each other, but that just shows us that Matthew, Luke, and John had an evangelists agenda. It doesn't discredit historical credibility of the first gospel (Mark),
I would strongly disagree. Mark was not the first gospel ever written. It's just the first synoptic gospel. I suggest you read my time-line of events listed HERE.
or the hypothetical Q document (sayings of Jesus).
Which doesn't exist. Has no extant reference by anybody during the time, and nobody has ever seen. :roll:
And I am fully aware of the Josephus problem, but I should point out that historians are divided over whether the passage in question has been added completely or sustained minor alterations.
I'm working on showing the full problem with Josephus as we speak. I expect to have a rather long commentary on it completed in a few weeks time. From what I uncovered, it didn't exist prior to the TF.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline Just because a story seems real doesn't make it so. You want to speculate on the stories realism, when the only thing you have to base it on is itself, and even the stories themselves conflict! They are already invalidated by their own manner, and cannot be any more accurate unless further evidence can be presenting.
Literature of that length, with that many authors, some of which hadn't read the other books, is bound to contradict itself. This doesn't immediately discredit the gospels. And what I am doing is more than speculative, it is drawing from the work of the greatest theologians.
Sure it was. This story was as noble as anything. Sacrifice, especially that of horrible and bloody sacrifices, are so noble they predate the first century by hundreds of years.
Indeed sacrifice was often noble, but crucifixion was never noble. It was the worst form of humiliation reserved for thieves and murderers.
Defeat in battle is not un-honorable, and neither was incest in many situations.
Buddha was not a real person... Neither was Lao Tzu. These figures were made up...same as Jesus. Even most buddhists and taoists are well aware of that...
Really? What makes you so sure. He certainly had been made to seem more God-like (esp. his birth) but I see no reason to conclusively say he didn't exist.
Um, no. Jewish authorities NEVER ordered a single crucifixion. Crucifixions were a ROMAN punishment for people who commited crimes against ROMAN authorities. Jewish authorities stoned people to death. Get your facts straight please.
It is in fact you who is wrong. The Jewish authorities were helping the Romans sustain power, and in return the Romans frequently crucified people at the request of the Sanhedrin. What?s your source for it being otherwise?
This is one of the biggest flaws in the jesus myth, and proves that the people who wrote the gospels were not first or second hand accounts. It also proves that they had very little knowledge of jewish culture and tradition. The fact is, the Sanhedrin meeting on passover eve to accuse a man of blaspheming
Not passover itself, but remember that Jewish days ended on sun-down. Also, I seem to remember that only one gospel sets it on passover eve. And yes a formal trial with the whole Sanhedrin council wouldn't meet, but a few of them would. Either way, Matthew is indeed very well educated in Jewish tradition, and shows a good knowledge of the OT.
blaspheming was NOT a law punishable by death during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, and the Roman overseer would NEVER need to get permission from a lowly jewish tribal council (which is what the Romans looked at them as).
Again I must ask your sources. The Romans could not keep control without the Sanhedrin helping them, and they knew it. And Jesus was a troublemaker for both the Jewish authorities and the Romans anyway. He had said he would destroy the temple.
To somebody who is un-studied, sure. You've been bull-shit-fed these lies about "history."
As it happens I am quite well studied. I am taught by three theologians at the moment, at least one of which who has an oxford degree.
A history which didn't exist.
Alan wrote:or the hypothetical Q document (sayings of Jesus).Which doesn't exist. Has no extant reference by anybody during the time, and nobody has ever seen. :roll:
How do you solve the synoptic problem then? Mark and Luke share a huge amount of sayings of Jesus that are not in Mark, how do you explain this? Do you have a synoptic btw?
Oh, and we have no copies of gospels that date before Mark that I am aware of. Using the most commonly accepted dates, we put Mark at c. 70, Matthew and Luke at 80-90, and John at 100. The next major gospel is Thomas at c. 150.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer
- Login to post comments
Offline I hope you'll take this very quick refutation with some salt. I am at work on lunch, I have a half an hour left and none of my notes save the volumes stored in my head somewhere, so bear with me.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Just because a story seems real doesn't make it so. You want to speculate on the stories realism, when the only thing you have to base it on is itself, and even the stories themselves conflict! They are already invalidated by their own manner, and cannot be any more accurate unless further evidence can be presenting.Literature of that length, with that many authors, some of which hadn't read the other books, is bound to contradict itself.
This isn't just about contradicting itself, it contradicts everything. History, science, philosophy, geography, and chronology. The Bible is a worthless peice of written literature, which I find little value with.
It's like Fellow Robert Price says, "You like comic books, and you say 'Oh, the Green Lantern is fake, Spiderman is fake, the X-Men are fake, but Superman...he's the real deal.' The fact is, they're ALL comic books. Just accept them for what they are." They aren't historical accounts of anything other then the fact that the authors of the books existed. That's about all the verifiable history you'll get out of it.
Yet this is the book you use to prove the existence of Jesus? And you don't find any red flags going off?
This doesn't immediately discredit the gospels.
When they are being used as historical documents, yes it most certainly does.
And what I am doing is more than speculative, it is drawing from the work of the greatest theologians.
Um...theologians? What about historians and people who actually know what they are talking about? Theologians are worthless when it comes to studying the history of a time period...they can only give the history of the dogma incoprorated with that time period. Not much else.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Sure it was. This story was as noble as anything. Sacrifice, especially that of horrible and bloody sacrifices, are so noble they predate the first century by hundreds of years.Indeed sacrifice was often noble, but crucifixion was never noble. It was the worst form of humiliation reserved for thieves and murderers.
This is where your theologians are flawed, thieves were NEVER EVER punished with crucifixion. Ever. The Roman's were not as vile and ruthless as the Gospels would lead you to believe. Stealing and theft was never punishable by crucifixion. The Gospel, again, fails in this historical reguard.
The authors of the gospels were, at first, writing allogorical literature, in which they may have dispised theives so much they wanted them to be crucified...or maybe they carried some internal guilt having once stolen something, but felt they could and should be redeemed. Who knows, but they definitely were not writing a historical account.
And further, at the time, crucifixion was most certainly a noble death to those who were fighting the Romans. It was a form of Martyrdom for the Jews who were fighting internally against the Roman occupation pre-dating the years before the fall of the temple. Josephus talks of 500 people a day being crucified outside the gates of the city and each of these peoples were fighters in the 'resistance' if you will.
Crucifixion was made noble due to the sacrifices of those who stood against the Roman Empire in Galilee. It's that simple. And since the first Gospel was written after the fall of the temple in 70 CE, probably much later, there is no reason why such a sacrifice at that time would not be considered....a sacrifice. In fact it was.
Defeat in battle is not un-honorable, and neither was incest in many situations.
Non-sequitor.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Um, no. Jewish authorities NEVER ordered a single crucifixion. Crucifixions were a ROMAN punishment for people who commited crimes against ROMAN authorities. Jewish authorities stoned people to death. Get your facts straight please.It is in fact you who is wrong. The Jewish authorities were helping the Romans sustain power, and in return the Romans frequently crucified people at the request of the Sanhedrin. What?s your source for it being otherwise?
Josephus. Voltaire. Roman Law documentation and rules. What do you have? Perhaps you need to do more research, the Sanhedrin would NEVER have ordered a single crucifixion. That was a purely ROMAN punishment. The Jewish authorities were against the use of Crucifixion, they followed their OWN laws, i.e. they would have stoned somebody to death...not crucified anybody. The Sanhedrin followed their own laws, and did not bother the Roman Courts. In fact, the Roman Courts were ruled with respect and decorum, not at all how the gospels present them. You should stop believing what your theologians teach you and start reading things for yourself.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:This is one of the biggest flaws in the jesus myth, and proves that the people who wrote the gospels were not first or second hand accounts. It also proves that they had very little knowledge of jewish culture and tradition. The fact is, the Sanhedrin meeting on passover eve to accuse a man of blasphemingNot passover itself, but remember that Jewish days ended on sun-down. Also, I seem to remember that only one gospel sets it on passover eve.
Which further proves my point about them being unreliable. Thank you.
And yes a formal trial with the whole Sanhedrin council wouldn't meet, but a few of them would. Either way, Matthew is indeed very well educated in Jewish tradition, and shows a good knowledge of the OT.
Don't make me rip this apart when I get home. I would suggest you withdraw that statement.
Rook_Hawkins wrote:blaspheming was NOT a law punishable by death during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, and the Roman overseer would NEVER need to get permission from a lowly jewish tribal council (which is what the Romans looked at them as).Again I must ask your sources.
Josephus. Richard carrier. Who do you have?
The Romans could not keep control without the Sanhedrin helping them, and they knew it.
The Sanhedrin and Roman Courts were two seperate entities. The Roman's only handled cases in which the jewish population commited an act of law breaking against the Roman authorities. I.e. The jew released by the council in stead of Jesus was a known murderer of Romans, this would never have happened. In fact, it just doesn't happen. The Romans would never give back a murderer of Romans for a small unviolent rabble-rouser just because the council says so. The Sanhedrin handled cases that were against the jewish law, and again, even Blasphemy wasn't a crime punishable by death during the time of Tiberius.
And Jesus was a troublemaker for both the Jewish authorities and the Romans anyway. He had said he would destroy the temple.
Come on, the gospels were written after 70 CE! Long after the temple was destroyed, Mark was writing from events he knew had already happened. Every scholar agrees this to be the case, why haven't you agreed with them too? Are you holding on to something just because you want to be right?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:This doesn't immediately discredit the gospels.When they are being used as historical documents, yes it most certainly does.
So they contain errors, exadurations... etc. Just look at Homer, most of it is a bunch of crap but the war still happened.
Um...theologians? What about historians and people who actually know what they are talking about? Theologians are worthless when it comes to studying the history of a time period...they can only give the history of the dogma incoprorated with that time period. Not much else.
Actually theology is a very broad field and they try to encorprate history.
This is where your theologians are flawed, thieves were NEVER EVER punished with crucifixion. Ever. The Roman's were not as vile and ruthless as the Gospels would lead you to believe. Stealing and theft was never punishable by crucifixion. The Gospel, again, fails in this historical reguard.
Perhaps they were just criminals and Mark & thus Luke had assumed thieves?
Quote:It is in fact you who is wrong. The Jewish authorities were helping the Romans sustain power, and in return the Romans frequently crucified people at the request of the Sanhedrin. What?s your source for it being otherwise?Josephus. Voltaire. Roman Law documentation and rules. What do you have? Perhaps you need to do more research, the Sanhedrin would NEVER have ordered a single crucifixion. That was a purely ROMAN punishment. The Jewish authorities were against the use of Crucifixion, they followed their OWN laws, i.e. they would have stoned somebody to death...not crucified anybody. The Sanhedrin followed their own laws, and did not bother the Roman Courts. In fact, the Roman Courts were ruled with respect and decorum, not at all how the gospels present them. You should stop believing what your theologians teach you and start reading things for yourself.
Can you give me a quote from any of these people?
Quote:And yes a formal trial with the whole Sanhedrin council wouldn't meet, but a few of them would. Either way, Matthew is indeed very well educated in Jewish tradition, and shows a good knowledge of the OT.Don't make me rip this apart when I get home. I would suggest you withdraw that statement.
Which part? And go ahead.
Again I must ask your sources.
Josephus. Richard carrier. Who do you have?
Well, Richard Carrier says we should be agnostic on the issue, which I roughly agree with. But again please quote Josephus. Now whatever you say about theologians, one of my teachers gained an oxford degree in theology which must hold some credit. He will be fully aware of the contents of Josephus, and will probably have done quite a few history modules to get his degree. I also have a history teacher who may well out-rank Carrier in his own field anyway.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer
- Login to post comments
, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
Too many people here swallow any rubbish that gets served up. I'm shocked to find Yellow_No_5 among that group.
The Caine Mutiny contains a lot of detailed information about Captain Queeg. Was that hard to make up? What, exactly, makes the Christ story different?
Christ was required to die as per the story's foreshadowing. Just as Queeg was required to face Court Marshall. It's a redemption theme, old as dust.
Not really. There are NO contemporary accounts of Christ's life. People didn't write about him until decades after the fact.
I find it amazing that there was a man who raised the dead, performed miraculous healings, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven - and nobody alive when he walked the earth bothered to write about it. NOBODY.
That is amazing. Wait no, that's un-fucking-believable.
There should be a voluminous record of such a man, not a scant few tidbits written decades after the fact.
For example, we have contemporary accounts of people such as Aristotle, Plato, Alexander the Great, George Washington, Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus, any number of Caesars, Archimedes, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, etc. In fact, most of these people chronicled their own lives via letters and manuscripts.
Think of the problems that would be solved if Jesus had kept a diary or wrote letters! Then again, Jesus if he existed was probably illiterate, as most of the population was back then.
Kind of strikes me as funny to think of an illiterate God in the flesh. How about you?
You're making the Jesus myther's point.
WTF? This is a non-sequitur. You claim the man mythic, question the sources, yet maintain he existed and did metaphysical works?
How, exactly, is Jesus different from any of the god-men of his supposed time? How do you distinguish the the true works of Jesus in the Bible from the stuff added for fluff?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
The different books of the Babble even contradict each other - the accounts of the crucifiction and resurrection do not agree. The most widely claimed source outside of the Babble, Josephus, was fabricated.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I don't know the story. Pick a well known example, or give some more details about this mutiny. It seems to me like information about the captain would be crucial to a stereo-typical mutiny story to give motive to the plot.
The key word here is, embarrassing. There?s plenty of noble deaths for him to pick from, this is not.
We have to bear in mind the oral tradition here. There are other historical figures with far bigger timeliness as well btw (eg Buddha at over 200 years till the first written account). Remember, there were religious preachers just like Jesus on every street corner, and crucifixions were carried out almost every week by the Jewish authorities. I don't think any of these miracles happened, but the crucifixion does seem likely.
Just to let you know, I'm an atheist, and this is off topic.
You're making the Jesus myther's point.
Indeed I am, for I like to see both sides of the argument. I think mythicism makes a good case, but its just one of those bizarre situations where theres strong evidence on both sides.
Just the existance part, and I say its probable.
MattShizzle - Your right, they do shamelessly contradict each other, but that just shows us that Matthew, Luke, and John had an evangelists agenda. It doesn't discredit historical credibility of the first gospel (Mark), or the hypothetical Q document (sayings of Jesus). And I am fully aware of the Josephus problem, but I should point out that historians are divided over whether the passage in question has been added completely or sustained minor alterations.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer