-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To The Jesus Myth Theorist
- Thread starter CynthiaCypher
- Start date
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Yes. Sometimes scholars come up with some really weird stuff that can only be construed as conspiracy theories.
arcanum
Active Member
Perhaps but I wouldn't say he's in that category.
He's an expert in hebrew and near-eastern culture. And there he's published some respected work. But his popular work? That's not scholarship, nor is it respected by scholars.
outhouse
Atheistically
this thread is based on ignorance to what the real history is and how the biblical authors wrote.
Eisenman has some ideas you wont grasp because you wont give it a chance.
Imagination is used by all scholars trying to reconstruct historical jesus because its all they have to go on.
Theres alot of his material thats very useful as he has gone in and put a magnifying glass on areas others have not.
Like all scholars including these jesus myth historians, they have valid points and they have put a spotlight in areas that havnt been investigated by mainstream scholarships.
Its not a conspiracy as the OP puts it [facepalm] there was alot going on and we have only myths to pull this lost history from.
Its all a matter of perspective. devote christians look at historical jesus as a conspiracy theory
Atheist look at biblical jesus as a conspiracy theroy
agnostics have another view.
uising the term conspiracy here is a sign of ignorance on the subject as a whole.
Especially when OP views historiacal jesus as a cult leader like David koresh, thats a conspiracy theory and makes OP, hypocritical.
Eisenman has some ideas you wont grasp because you wont give it a chance.
Imagination is used by all scholars trying to reconstruct historical jesus because its all they have to go on.
Theres alot of his material thats very useful as he has gone in and put a magnifying glass on areas others have not.
Like all scholars including these jesus myth historians, they have valid points and they have put a spotlight in areas that havnt been investigated by mainstream scholarships.
Its not a conspiracy as the OP puts it [facepalm] there was alot going on and we have only myths to pull this lost history from.
Its all a matter of perspective. devote christians look at historical jesus as a conspiracy theory
Atheist look at biblical jesus as a conspiracy theroy
agnostics have another view.
uising the term conspiracy here is a sign of ignorance on the subject as a whole.
Especially when OP views historiacal jesus as a cult leader like David koresh, thats a conspiracy theory and makes OP, hypocritical.
outhouse
Atheistically
exactly.
were talking about someone who has limited knowledge, knocking a expert over a difference of opinion.
I like your view, it honest and open so that one can respect a expert "when its due".
Like all scholars and historians, you have to take what you can with a grain of salt
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
If you read what he wrote on James, Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls you would perhaps change your mind.
can you stop with your assertions maybe add some links with synopsis
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
The Illuminati; conspiracy theory. Nibiru and the Annunaki combing back to take us over; conspiracy theory. JFK was shot and killed by the mob/mafia/CIA; conspiracy theory. Denying the existence of Jesus hardly falls into this category. It's legitimate skepticism. But I won't say anymore on it.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
And what would a hyperlink to Wikipedia prove? Here's a link...your local library.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
To assume that a few 1st century Jews plotted to create a mythological figure and then build up an elaborate religion around this person they made up smacks of conspiracy theory.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Why? And how? It's a little out there to consider it a conspiracy theory, especially compared to those I listed. But we do it with other religions all the time: i.e., the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, NRM's, etc., etc. No one is saying people plotted to do this, with the goal of purposely deceiving people. It could have been nothing more than myths added on top of one another over time, and the stories grew and grew. No deception, no conspiracies, just the way history works sometimes. And, these myths could have been based on an actual rabbai or teacher from that time period who happened to have had the same name, Yeshua. Or they just could have been created over time. Without first hand knowledge or material evidence, all anyone can really do is speculate. And, whether he existed or not, if it doesn't change anyone's religious perspectives, it's even more of a pointless debate. And to say he did exist, even if that's true, doesn't make the Bible accounts of him any more truthful.
outhouse
Atheistically
No it doesnt
judaism was crumbling at that time due to corruption, without jesus a new religion could have cropped up, no problem at all.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Judaism wasn't crumbling at all. If it was crumbling, there is no reason to think that it would have survived the Temple destruction.
More so, a new religion wasn't created until long after Jesus died. Jesus wasn't used to create a new religion at all.
So yes, maybe a new religion could have cropped up without Jesus, but it would not have been Christianity, or something similar.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So please with sources give me the hows and whys this Jesus myth developed. Shouldn't be to hard if Jesus was just a myth, but take into account every detail the sources give us. Was James a myth too? How about Capernaum or Pilate and etc. and etc.
I am Missouri, now show me.
outhouse
Atheistically
No wthats all a matter of perspective isnt it.
the jewish government in place fell, and was never seen again.
A new government had taken over with its own form of worship and theology thats stil in place today based on the Pharisees.
It was in fact crumbling in jesus time, and fell during the temple and rebuilt by the Pharisees.
The split started in jesus time though and that is the real point. A sect of judaism started traveling away from judaism due to roman corruption.
Exactly
False
Paul started christianity, not jesus
jesus started a division in judaism, Paul is the one who started mythical christ.
Paul didnt know jesus or the early church at all !!!! when he made his conversion.
For some reason a head hunter for the Sadducees while on a quest to murder more of this radical sect, MAGICALLY gains all of this knowledge on jesus and becomes a follower by the time he hits Damascus and is awaiting new directions from the lord's followers.
Paul created christianity not based on teachings from jesus or disciples but by imagination from his own accounts.
outhouse
Atheistically
the ONLY version of jesus you know was drempt up by paul while on the road to Damascus.
at that time he had no teaching from jesus or his followers.
You have the enemy of jesus giving you his version of what he wantes you to believe of a man he didnt know or learn from.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
First, I've already posted my sources here. I've discussed the topic. I have no intention of changing my mind. I don't believe he existed. I don't believe there is enough evidence. This is a personal belief of mine, and one that I've discussed here, and elsewhere, and have grown weary of doing so. I don't really care one way or another if a person believes in him or not. Like I stated in my last post, if he did exist, this doesn't vindicate the Bible. If he did exist, he was nothing more than a Jewish teacher, of whom myths, gathered as the gospels, have been built around him. Whether he existed or not, doesn't change my religious views. Even if he existed, I'm still remaining a Buddhist. So, like I've said before, in this post and others, I'm done debating the topic. It's getting me, and my debate partners, no where, except headaches.
As for your other assumption, that the existence of Pilate, and James, and cities and towns and other things mentioned in the Bible, seems to prove Jesus' existence, is just speculation, at best. Many religious texts mention historical persons and places, and yet their gods and religious peoples are given no more than mythological status. I see no difference between Jesus, Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Herucles, Apollonius, etc ad infinitum. The historical existence of Jesus does not vindicate the Bible. The only thing proving the historical existence of Jesus does is prove he existed. This doesn't say anything about him as a person. But like I said, I believe what I believe, and that's not likely to change, and I'm not likely to change the minds of those who do believe, and since I could care less either way, I'm done debating the topic.
EDIT: and this doesn't excuse your labeling of those who do not believe he existed as conspiracy theorists. It's absurd. Leave the ranting for fundamentalists.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Not only that
the fact biblical jesus is so different from historical jesus, speaks volumes of the mythical content we have to work with