• 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


Cute!

In his recent interview with NPR (April 1, 2012), Did Jesus Exist? author Bart Ehrman comments:
"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible... According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.... Most importantly...these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again.... The mythicists have some right things to say... The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Since John the apostle was with Jesus then John saw 'the man'
Since Matthew the apostle was with Jesus then Matthew saw 'the man'
Since Mark is the certain young man of Mark [14 v 51] then Mark saw Jesus.
Since Luke used eyewitnesses then those eyewitnesses saw 'the man' -Luke 1 v 2

Gospel is singular. Four gospel writers of one gospel.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Cute!

In his recent interview with NPR (April 1, 2012), Did Jesus Exist? author Bart Ehrman comments:
"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible

He doesn't, actually. That section isn't in quotations, and for good reason. The interview and article concern the release of his book, which was Ehrman's attempt to provide a easily accessible non-academic work for those who accept the mythicists position based on popular works like The Jesus Puzzle or The Jesus Mysteries or just online information. His whole point is that these arguments have nothing to them, and virtually all of them are not just made by people who aren't historians, but are filled blatant, factual errors (not just poor reasoning). He says, for example (p. 21) "...I think Wells--and Price, and several other mythicists--do deserve to be taken seriously, even if their claims are in the end dismissed. A number of other mythicists, however, do not offer anything resembling scholarship in support of their view and instead present the unsuspecting reading public with sensationalist claims that are so extravagant, so wrongheaded, and so poorly substantiated that it is no wonder that scholars do not take them seriously."
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
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.

Maybe this guy

Apollonius_of_Tyana.jpg
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Since John the apostle was with Jesus then John saw 'the man'
Since Matthew the apostle was with Jesus then Matthew saw 'the man'
Since Mark is the certain young man of Mark [14 v 51] then Mark saw Jesus.
Since Luke used eyewitnesses then those eyewitnesses saw 'the man' -Luke 1 v 2

Gospel is singular. Four gospel writers of one gospel.
The people the gospels were named for did not actually write them; it's called 'spurious authorship', and it happened a lot in that time period. This fact is widely accepted by Biblical scholars.

The only possible exception is Luke [scholars do not agree on his authorship], and he never met nor saw Jesus, even if the gospel named for him was written by him. And his 'eyewitness' is Paul of Tarsus, who never saw nor met Jesus.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The people the gospels were named for did not actually write them; it's called 'spurious authorship', and it happened a lot in that time period. This fact is widely accepted by Biblical scholars.
Just curious: could you reference a couple of these "Biblical scholars" using the term "spurious authorship"?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Just curious: could you reference a couple of these "Biblical scholars" using the term "spurious authorship"?

1) Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible: comprising its ... - Page 958

books.google.com
William Smith, Horatio Balch Hackett, Ezra Abbot - 1869 - 3667 pages - Free Google eBook

"Strauss bases his theory on the assumption that our Gospels were not written by the men whose names they bear, ... of spurious authorship. Irenseits, who wrote a little later, gives a detailed description of our four Gospels...."

2) Current discussions in theology: Volume 3 - Page 74

books.google.com
Chicago Theological Seminary - 1885 - Free Google eBook - Read

that all the Gospels were written within fifty years after the death of Jesus, and vindicates the Fourth as genuine. ... Is it admissible — the theory of spurious authorship in a sacred writing?

(this section addresses "spurious authorship" of the Gospels and other sacred texts)
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The people the gospels were named for did not actually write them; it's called 'spurious authorship', and it happened a lot in that time period. This fact is widely accepted by Biblical scholars.

The only possible exception is Luke [scholars do not agree on his authorship], and he never met nor saw Jesus, even if the gospel named for him was written by him. And his 'eyewitness' is Paul of Tarsus, who never saw nor met Jesus.

Do you mean to say that Paul was an eyewitness of the birth of Jesus?
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
The people the gospels were named for did not actually write them; it's called 'spurious authorship', and it happened a lot in that time period. This fact is widely accepted by Biblical scholars.

The only possible exception is Luke [scholars do not agree on his authorship], and he never met nor saw Jesus, even if the gospel named for him was written by him. And his 'eyewitness' is Paul of Tarsus, who never saw nor met Jesus.

One wonders who actually saw Jesus, that wrote from that time period.

Nobody.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
One wonders who actually saw Jesus, that wrote from that time period.

Nobody.

What about John the Baptist? No one doubts he existed, yet he wasn't written about until long after his death. The biographies we have of Alexander the Great don't come until long after he was dead. Most of the information we have about the various emperors is not from quite some time after they were dead.

Not really surprising.
 

Vultar

Active Member
If you write about a person after they are gone, you can make a much better sounding story. It is also harder for people to rebute a dead person.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
One wonders who actually saw Jesus, that wrote from that time period.

Nobody.
One wonders who actually saw the leader off the Essenes, that [sic] wrote from that time period.

One wonders who actually saw the leader off the Sadducees, that [sic] wrote from that time period.

One wonders who actually saw ...

But mostly, one wonders what point you think you've made with that adolescent question.
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
On wonders why you keep going from thread to thread asking the same misguided question and then ignoring the answers. :)

You must not be payihg attention, I'm not asking the same question from thread to thread, and am not ignoring the answers. I post much more in the scientific threads than these in any case.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
What about John the Baptist? No one doubts he existed, yet he wasn't written about until long after his death.
Not really surprising.
That's not strictly true.

The biographies we have of Alexander the Great don't come until long after he was dead.
If the biographies were the only evidence for Alexander you would be right to be sceptical,
but it isn't.

[youtube]

b5ayo8Fczg8
[/youtube]

Most of the information we have about the various emperors is not from quite some time after they were dead.
I don't follow what you are saying here?

If you are questioning whether the emperors existed, based on writing alone which could have been corrupted, then I agree you should do this. That is what I have been saying all along.

Physial evidence doesn't make the writings about the emperors any more true, it just proves they existed in the first place and are not a myth.

There is a lot of supporting physical evidence for many of the emperors in the form of statues, busts, coins, mosaics, carvings, art, pottery, buildings, burial chambers, their personal belongings, recorded lineages and so on, so we don't just rely on the writings.

With the writings, they are copies of copies, so you woud have to consider if there are any motives for people over the centuries altering the written accounts of events, whether they be for political, economical, religious or any other reason.
 
Last edited:

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
You must not be payihg attention, I'm not asking the same question from thread to thread, and am not ignoring the answers. I post much more in the scientific threads than these in any case.

Here ya go ;): http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2881369-post84.html

Of course, since you just cut&pasted the text from somewhere else last time maybe you didn't understand what you were posting.

Edit: and it looks like I'm paying more attention to your posts than you are.
 

bigbadgirl

Active Member
Good people write good things. Too bad Jesus could not read or write. What wonders we would have had if Jesus was the author of the good news instead of Saul the Roman.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
One wonders who actually saw the leader off the Essenes, that [sic] wrote from that time period.

One wonders who actually saw the leader off the Sadducees, that [sic] wrote from that time period.

One wonders who actually saw ...

One should wonder and question assumptions since accepting everything without question throws up no errors and validates nothing.

But mostly, one wonders what point you think you've made with that adolescent question.

Is that your adult response?
 
Top