Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[outhouse]

I dispute any claims as to authenticity of Jesus as a divine entity.

As do I.

Divine? son of god? that was the living Emperor first before the Galilean was attributed in that same context.

There is no such thing as divine, for me outside imagination.

Perhaps the vehicle you drive offers differing mileage upon the offerings of religious faith versus atheism.. Just a thought

Could care less. There is no real battle there. Just confused people that lack historical knowledge, in both camps.

I have a passion for truth in what happened, and fighting ignorance.

I am as strong an atheist as one gets, but I don't let that influence a perversion of history or even plausibility.



Why would an atheist make a theist mistake, of showing bias towards his beliefs, or lack of ???

 

[outhouse]

Create an imaginary first century poverty stricken Nazareth. Place a peasant teacher and healer there, with about 200 others who hate Hellenist and how they pervert Judaism, as well as work hand in hand using Roman muscle to make their lives a living hell. Death always present.

Imagine making a trip to gods house, only to find its a roman ran freak show where you cant worship without money, and the money in gods house has a pagan deity Melqart on the temple coins required to enter to worship and to buy gifts for god.

It would tick any pious Zealot off. Just having a eagle on the buildings entrance ticked of over 40 who tore it down, and were burned alive for defending their gods house.


Having a Galilean jew martyred for standing up to corruption is 100% in line, and we see layers of mythology over the top of this historical core. And no reason what so ever to create a deity from a peasant Galilean in Hellenistic circles.

 

[Desert Snake]

It would tick any pious Zealot off.

Nice use of the label 'zealot', however we don't see zealotry in many of the Christian teachings, if any. In fact we see a belief system that relates/similar to many modern Jewish beliefs.. so, it wasn't likely zealotry that angered the Romans. You are..still blaming the Romans right?..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I expect a bit less gullibility and a better grasp of basic human nature from you ... history is, in the end, written by the victors.

Which explains the Nag Hammadi library, the information it provides that we already knew from anti-"gnostic" sources, the Qumran findings, and the vast majority of our knowledge of the foundations of Christianity and its religious context which consists almost entirely of "losers" who wrote on or about cults, movements, and other religious developments in and around the first century which didn't just lose but were later actively suppressed.

History, in the end, too frequently doesn't have victors who are victorious enough to ensure their accounts survive and others do not. Even when we do, often we have found that the ways in which the "winners" sought to ensure their "history" survived ensured the survival of the "history" of the losers (as in the case of the so-called church fathers and non-canonical Christianities from Paul, before Christianity was even a religion distinct from a Jewish sect, to the Codex Theodosianus.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sure, he was a contemporary - nobody is arguing that nobody else lived at the same time as Jesus. Really mate, I can't believe you could be that stupid - you must be joking right?

I couldn't believe that you are so quick to jump on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, claiming that Josephus was a Jew...I "can't believe you could be that ignorant", and when you said it, I thought - "you must be joking, right?"

The argument here is that Paul is not contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

So what criteria are you using to judge what is contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus? All you've claimed is that Paul never met Jesus, which is not the criteria that actual historians use to establish history, which they wouldn't be so foolish to use because such a criteria would without a doubt exclude even them from establishing historical events.

NOT that Paul did not live in ancient Palestine

Look, buddy....if someone lived during the time of an event, and in the same region of an event, and that person testifies about the event...that would make that person contemporary. You claimed that Paul's testimony is not contemporary evidence of the historical Jesus, and you are basing this entire irrationale on whether or not Paul actually met Jesus, which is completely idiotic, because no one is claiming that Paul DID met Jesus, and you don't have to meet someone in order to know or establish the life of the person.

Then you claimed Jospehus was a Jew, which is further evidence that you shouldn't be speaking on subjects that you know nothing about.

Then you are mistaken.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt it.

Sorry, but it is hard to tell when you are saying something stupid deliberately - or if you actually believe what you are saying.

LOL I don't think that I am the stupid one in the conversation between us.

So please just try to give straught answers.

I will give straight answers once you've thoroughly done research on the subject matter.

No a single reference a generation later is not all you need.

So, you tell me, oh' great historian of religiousforums.com...what is the criteria, and how many references do you need to establish the historicity of a person?

Don't know, don't really care.

I agree, you "don't know". You've made that very clear.

The fact remains that there is no evidence to connect any of the disciples with any of the gospels.

I've already told you why we believe that those specific individuals wrote the books which bears their name...I'd like a direct response to that instead that typical blank statements like the one above, usually given by critics/skeptics that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about in the first place.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I couldn't believe that you are so quick to jump on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, claiming that Josephus was a Jew

Are you stating he wasn't?

So, you tell me, oh' great historian of religiousforums.com...what is the criteria

Criterion (on the off-chance that wasn't the type of accidental error I make so often but a rather common and completely understandable mistaking of the grammatical number of "criteria" and its singular form).

and how many references do you need to establish the historicity of a person?

It isn't a matter of number. It isn't even the quality of the evidence (historians use Aristophanes' Clouds for information on Socrates despite the fact that it is not only fictional but intended to be unrealistic, literary, and is in verse). It is what the best explanation for the evidence we do have is, and how "sure" we can be of that evidence. There is simply no plausible way to explain the sources we have, both in and out of the NT, without there being an historical person of Jesus who served as the origin for the Jesus cult/movement.

I've already told you why we believe that those specific individuals wrote the books which bears their name

"We", don't. For one, the authors of John use the first person plural. For another, Papias refers to "Matthew's" writings as being in Aramaic or Hebrew (there was no common distinction in Greek for the two languages), while the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Finally, ecclesiastical tradition isn't a foundation for an historical position.

 

[Bunyip]

I couldn't believe that you are so quick to jump on a subject that you know absolutely nothing about, claiming that Josephus was a Jew...I "can't believe you could be that ignorant", and when you said it, I thought - "you must be joking, right?"

Well Josephus WAS a Jew mate.

So what criteria are you using to judge what is contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus? All you've claimed is that Paul never met Jesus, which is not the criteria that actual historians use to establish history, which they wouldn't be so foolish to use because such a criteria would without a doubt exclude even them from establishing historical events.

I have no 'criteria', I just used the normal definition,

Look, buddy....if someone lived during the time of an event, and in the same region of an event, and that person testifies about the event...that would make that person contemporary.

Exactly! And you have no such eye witness accounts. Not a single one.

You claimed that Paul's testimony is not contemporary evidence of the historical Jesus, and you are basing this entire irrationale on whether or not Paul actually met Jesus, which is completely idiotic, because no one is claiming that Paul DID met Jesus, and you don't have to meet someone in order to know or establish the life of the person.

Ummm....You need more than dreaming about the dude after he died to make Paul a reliable witness - it is evidence for historicity, but not very strong evidence.

Then you claimed Jospehus was a Jew, which is further evidence that you shouldn't be speaking on subjects that you know nothing about.

Because he was a Jew.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt it.



LOL I don't think that I am the stupid one in the conversation between us.



I will give straight answers once you've thoroughly done research on the subject matter.



So, you tell me, oh' great historian of religiousforums.com...what is the criteria, and how many references do you need to establish the historicity of a person?



I agree, you "don't know". You've made that very clear.



I've already told you why we believe that those specific individuals wrote the books which bears their name...I'd like a direct response to that instead that typical blank statements like the one above, usually given by critics/skeptics that have absolutely no clue what they are talking about in the first place.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well Josephus WAS a Jew mate.

You are right, he was..my bad. I'm human :beach:

Exactly! And you have no such eye witness accounts. Not a single one.

We do have eyewitnesses.

Ummm....You need more than dreaming about the dude after he died to make Paul a reliable witness - it is evidence for historicity, but not very strong evidence.

He wasn't dreaming...he was on his way to persecute the early Christians and Christ appeared to him..plain and simple...that was his testimony...and if what he said is true, that would make him an eye witness as well.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Are you stating he wasn't?

He was a jew..I was wrong.

Criterion (on the off-chance that wasn't the type of accidental error I make so often but a rather common and completely understandable mistaking of the grammatical number of "criteria" and its singular form).

:yes: I think that is what it was.

It isn't a matter of number. It isn't even the quality of the evidence (historians use Aristophanes' Clouds for information on Socrates despite the fact that it is not only fictional but intended to be unrealistic, literary, and is in verse). It is what the best explanation for the evidence we do have is, and how "sure" we can be of that evidence. There is simply no plausible way to explain the sources we have, both in and out of the NT, without there being an historical person of Jesus who served as the origin for the Jesus cult/movement.

Exactly.

"We", don't. For one, the authors of John use the first person plural. For another, Papias refers to "Matthew's" writings as being in Aramaic or Hebrew (there was no common distinction in Greek for the two languages), while the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Finally, ecclesiastical tradition isn't a foundation for an historical position.

Well, in that case, neither are historians that are thousands of years removed from the fact. If I can't accept ecclesiastical tradition, especially when there is no bias on their parts, and they would have nothing to gain from attributing 4 Gospels to two disciples and two friends of the disciples...I have no reason to believe that the ecclesiastical tradition is false or inaccurate.

If I can't accept their tradition, then I also can't accept the view of historians who are drawing conclusions at least 2,000 years after the fact, either.

 

[Bunyip]

You are right, he was..my bad. I'm human :beach:



We do have eyewitnesses.

Then name one.

He wasn't dreaming...he was on his way to persecute the early Christians and Christ appeared to him..plain and simple...that was his testimony...and if what he said is true, that would make him an eye witness as well.

No it doesn't. Paul had a hallucination/vision

 

[nash8]

Then name one.

No it doesn't. Paul had a hallucination/vision

So your saying with 100% certainty that Paul had a vision or a hallucination? And if you're 100% certain, than which was it, a hallucination or a vision?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So your saying with 100% certainty that Paul had a vision or a hallucination? And if you're 100% certain, than which was it, a hallucination or a vision?

It was definitely a hallucination. And it is 100% certain that it was a vision. However, Bayes' theorem proves Paul didn't exist. So we are 300% certain that Paul didn't exist and had both a vision and a hallucination

I love it when those who can't bother to study a subject pretend that they know something of the methods used by those who do in order to make conclusions they can't substantiate. But I'm sure you cant trust the certainty of the individual who knows nothing about history and less about historical Jesus studies, and thus your criticism is misled. And 100% certain.

 

[Bunyip]

So your saying with 100% certainty that Paul had a vision or a hallucination? And if you're 100% certain, than which was it, a hallucination or a vision?

Read Paul, he tells us that it is a spirit he speaks to. Hallucination/vision/dream - call ot what you wish.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't get it. Paul himself claims to have had a vision of someone who logically couldn't be there, and people assume he means a supernatural as opposed to a symbolic vision?

At times it is very hard to avoid the feeling that modern Christians have completely missed it the joke. It feels like someone some 100 years from now might conclude that Stephen Colbert suffers from split personality or major delusions and Comedy Central was in virtual civil war due to its political polarization between the right wing Colbert and the sane Jon Stewart.

 

[outhouse]

I just don't get it. Paul himself claims to have had a vision of someone who logically couldn't be there, and people assume he means a supernatural as opposed to a symbolic vision?

At times it is very hard to avoid the feeling that modern Christians have completely missed it the joke. It feels like someone some 100 years from now might conclude that Stephen Colbert suffers from split personality or major delusions and Comedy Central was in virtual civil war due to its political polarization between the right wing Colbert and the sane Jon Stewart.

What you do not understand about the cultural anthropology from this time, is dreams and visions were real to these people, even day dreams.

They literally thought little people ran around inside you, and that god caused your good thoughts and the devil your bad thoughts.

They lived in death and mythology. It was a very primitive brutal time to live in.


Paul was also trained in the extreme use of rhetorical writing styles, Aristotle's teachings were used at this time. Rhetoric was an art form, and Paul well trained in its use.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I get the gist of what you are saying, that really puts the question to the validity of those people's belief in God.

Or for that matter, to their understanding of what death is.

Even then, it is far less than clear that Paul expected people to have an actual literal belief in the (former) existence of a person named Jesus that appeared to him. He might as well talk about the muse - or for that matter, the devil.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Read Paul

You read Greek?

he tells us that it is a spirit he speaks to.

And that he knows Jesus' brother. The same brother we know of from the gospels and Josephus.

 

[outhouse]

If I get the gist of what you are saying, that really puts the question to the validity of those people's belief in God.

Or for that matter, to their understanding of what death is.

Even then, it is far less than clear that Paul expected people to have an actual literal belief in the (former) existence of a person named Jesus that appeared to him. He might as well talk about the muse - or for that matter, the devil.

But to Paul and everyone he knew, this was an actual man who died.


Rhetoric just expands and promotes what Paul projected, that how we know Paul so well, he never shut up. Paul talked a lot and he talked about himself.


Its not about the vision. Its about Paul hunting down sect members and then having a change of heart and finding value in the mythology surrounding the martyrdom, and then Paul arguing with different houses in the Diaspora.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then name one.

Peter, John, Thomas, Paul, James, Mary.

No it doesn't. Paul had a hallucination/vision

Did Peter, John, Thomas, James, and Mary also have hallucinations/visions?

 

[Bunyip]

You read Greek?

Why would I need to? Any historian will tell you that Paul's interactions occured after the death of Jesus. Call it whatever you like, but it is not direct testimony.

And that he knows Jesus' brother. The same brother we know of from the gospels and Josephus.

Sure. I never claimed that there were ni contemporary records of Jesus brother. Did you think that I had?