• 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!

The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
no but you cannot support a large group surviving on dinner scraps. only having 3or 4 followers his inner circle, is all that makes sense.
We are told that Jesus and his followers were provided for out of the means of a number of women. That does give means for the immediate group of followers to be bigger. There were also a number of fishermen in the inner circle. That again provides means for a larger following. Jesus also spent time with the tax collectors, and dining with them, which would have been able to feed a larger following.

More so though, we see other such teachers being able to have quite large followings, so it wouldn't be too surprising for Jesus to have a dozen followers or so.
Take the frog out of your pocket, because a stolen or misplaced body ranks high in what scholars look at to figure out the best option, its fiction after a vision that is more probably.
Yes, some scholars suggest a misplaced body or stolen body. However, most don't give much heed to a stolen body. It would be much more likely that the body was simply misplaced. It could even have been thrown into a pit.

There is no actual evidence that the body was stolen though. And really, there is no reason for the body to be stolen. It wouldn't have furthered the movement at all.
paul is almpst worthless because he is a "want -to- be" apostle who is removed far from the original movement. he is more responsible for Bjesus removing Hjesus from oral tradition
Can you name scholars that think that Paul is worthless? And I mean serious scholars?

All you're showing here is a bias and a dislike of Paul. Paul is a wonderful source, because he is early, he has contact with eye-witnesses, and he gives us a good glimpse into the Early church. Just calling Paul names and dismissing him is not a real argument.
I'd rethink that, and not put it out to the pasture unless you have good evidence.
the resurrection was a very powerful theme back then going way back in the OT.
And you know nothing of the original movement as paul took it in his own direction.
the thing that sticks out, is that the movement only gained steam after his death.
The idea of the resurrection (which really isn't talked much about in the OT) was one of a general resurrection. The idea wasn't that only one person would be resurrected. It was that all the righteous would be resurrected in the end. Paul even mentions this much, and stresses that Jesus is simply the first fruits of this general resurrection.

Stealing the body, or a missing body, did not suggest a resurrection. That simply suggests that one has a missing body. And certainly, in the context of a crucifixion, it would not be too much of surprise. Even when we look at the story of Jesus (there is some surprise), we don't see an assumption that Jesus was raised until they are told either by angels, or by Jesus. Their initial reaction is that the body has been moved or the like.

So again, a missing body isn't needed. The missing body didn't convince people that Jesus was resurrected. They simply assumed that his body was moved or the like, and were upset about that. What convinced them was the vision or stories of visions of the risen Jesus. A missing body doesn't suggest a resurrection. A vision of the risen person suggests a resurrection.

As for Paul taking the movement in his direction. Not really. All sources agree that Paul was only bringing the movement to a certain group; the gentiles. The movement was being led by the Jerusalem Church, which kept bringing it to the Jews. More so, it was also being spread by a variety of other leaders as well. Not to mention, many of the Early Church fathers also added quite a bit to the movement, as well as disagreed with Paul on a number of ideas. Some hadn't even heard about him.

Finally, the movement hardly gained steam after the death of Jesus. Even then, it barely moved along. It was simply lucky to have even survived the destruction of Jerusalem. And even then, it moved in a variety of different directions. It still had Jewish movements that continued until at least the 4th century.
the fact the movement gained all its steam after his death, places him as a martyr

it may not have been intentional.
That doesn't place him as a martyr. That simply places him as the catalyst for a movement.

And really, the movement didn't all of it's steam after his death. Unless you mean long long after his death. Immediately after his death, it hardly gained any steam.
sure it was

the temple was the religions government and bank, it was corrupt.

Jews were looking for new ways to worship within judaism, the religion itself was fine. hence the word corrupt, not ruined.
The Temple being corrupt doesn't make the religion corrupt. They are two different things.
you dont know that, and its a hot topic within scholarships

his judaism is debated.

he was a want to be so bad, its not a stretch to think this criminal litterate bounty hunter, wrote himself in.
Can you name a single scholar (and source), that states that Paul was never a Jew? Also, he was never a criminal, or bounty hunter. You're just mudslinging there.

Really, it isn't a hot topic. Most all agree that he was a Jew. Even many Jewish scholars agree that he was a Jew. What may be debated is to what extent of a good Jew he was, but it is agreed that he was a Jew.
yes free religion and health care took off in all directions, but thats not what jesus started

it was responsible for the cross cultural oral tradition that paul learned from.

its not like he spied on judaism and stole it.
Paul didn't take it cross cultures though. It was all within the Greco-Roman culture. More so, you didn't really address what I said.
you dont know that. you dont know that they just heard of this new method of worship for poverty strticken people that didnt cost a arm and a leg and start using it.
There were many options. The Greco-Roman gods were also options. Plus, what Jesus was offering was hardly a new method of worship. Jesus was in a long line of individuals promoting such a form of worship.

And yes, it was freely brought to the Gentiles. All of our sources state such.
by that time it was already within another culture

of course you can trace roots back to judaism
No. It was still within the Greco-Roman culture. Palestine was effected by such. It was still in the same culture.
My view stands, as its not that diffgerent from the roman/gentile foundation laid previously.

its far removed from a the sect of judaism that it started out from.

a gentile preaching more of the roots of judaism to keep his version of the movement as pure as possible makes perfect sense, given his geographic location ;)
Your view stands only if you ignore everything I said, as well as the Wiki link. Because really, you never addressed what I actually said.

You have shown no evidence that Matthew, or the other individuals who were pushing the Jesus movement were anything but Jews.

Also, both the author of Matthew, and Mark are thought to have been written in the same general geographic area.
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
The liklihood that a real Jesus existed that resembled the NT stories is about as high as the probablity of existence of other man-gods of the past.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The liklihood that a real Jesus existed that resembled the NT stories is about as high as the probablity of existence of other man-gods of the past.


the real jesus doesnt have much to do with what it is written.

Only a fraction of what is written can be applied
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Hyam Maccoby although, as you can see, his views are not generally accepted.

As for the rest, I can think of nothing quite so silly as an outhouse posturing as a library.

Interestingly, from that article, Maccoby doesn't seem to necessarily disagree that Paul was once a Jew.

I agree with you on the rest though.
 
Last edited:

vepurusg

Member
Darn ... I guess I should go read something substantive in the subject so I can keep up with vepurusg. :yes:

You don't seem to have understood my post.

I said you were reading wacko conspiracy theory sites, in respect to what you said about skepticism of the historicity of Yeshua being a conspiracy.

Your understanding of skepticism of Yeshua seems to be limited to the perspectives of conspiracy theorists.

Some of them are conspiracy theorists, but skepticism itself does not imply a conspiracy- it implies only reasonable uncertainty due to lack of reliable historical evidence. There are many explanations that involve no conspiracies. Conspiracy theorists are simply more vocal about it.

Certainty that this Yeshua character existed is a matter of faith, not reason.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You don't seem to have understood my post.
And I don't think you understand the problem. Given Josephus, the early Cristian writings, and the total absence of 1st century mythicist polemic, there are precisely two ways to sustain a mythicist position: (a) appalling willful ignorance, or (b) the presumption of a conspiracy of fabrication, redaction, and general duplicity.


Certainty that this Yeshua character existed is a matter of faith, not reason.
Talk of certainty is a childish star man.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
I do not know enough about the Jesus myth theory to comment on its validity, but it is interesting to note that it is becoming more publicized.

The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

I never thought any different, though I am willing to concede it if anything I would consider strong evidence appeared.

I like how Bart Ehramn describes deniers as kooks, implying that the claims are somehow fantastic or insane.

The main reason Bart amuses me is that he insists that he is not religious and has nothing to gain by believing in Jesus, I always found this a bit dishonest since he still makes a leap of faithin order to believe Jesus existed and justifies it because of the volume of 3rd and 4th hand testimonies from others who did not know Jesus.
His use of the work kook is not an impartial one based on evidence, but an emotive one based on his belief, for me this just shows his true colours.
 

vepurusg

Member
And I don't think you understand the problem. Given Josephus, the early Cristian writings, and the total absence of 1st century mythicist polemic, there are precisely two ways to sustain a mythicist position: (a) appalling willful ignorance, or (b) the presumption of a conspiracy of fabrication, redaction, and general duplicity.


False dichotomy.

I see what's going on here; you're practicing some appalling willful ignorance yourself. Sorry to hear it.

If you'd actually think for a moment with a critical mind, you might find other options there.
Those are not the only two ways to uphold a reasonable possibility of the fellow not having existed.



Like I said, I think this fellow (or possibly fellows) upon whom Yeshua was loosely based was probably a con-man, like any number of other two bit criminals who peddled their magician acts to take advantage of people at the time. There were plenty of them, and it's not a stretch to figure one probably set off all of the nonsense that went spiraling out of control and into myth after.

I don't know how distantly inspired the character may have been, and nobody really does. There are plenty of hypotheses, but there's no real consensus on who or what the historical Yeshua was, if such a person existed.

The question of whether this Yeshua fellow "existed" comes largely down to how we qualify existence- at what point does a myth become so removed from the thing that triggered it that the subject of the myth can be said not to exist? Is there ever such a point?

In one sense, we can say centaurs existed, because at some point somebody probably saw something (likely intoxicated, witnessing somebody riding bare-back). The myth may be based on something concrete down the line- but is that thing really a centaur?

No, it's just a guy on a horse. A centaur is something else all-together.

Almost every story is based on something- but when it becomes fictionalized and distorted to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the original, it is only reasonable to start questioning whether the thing at hand ever existed at all.

Whatever your beliefs about a magical zombie happen to be, they are false- completely. The Yeshua of the bible -a fictionalized character of a god made flesh- never existed.

Whether the character was based on one or more other real people, and how distantly, is another matter.

(c) If it doesn't look like a duck, and it doesn't quack like a duck, it's probably reasonable to say it's not a duck.

And beyond that, there is the perfectly reasonable:

(d) It was a CULT. The people were suffering from mass hysteria and delusions.

This is known to happen- WELL documented. There's plenty of documentation of suicidal Christian crazy from the era as well.

Your arguments would be laughable if they weren't so sad. :(

Josephus drew from common knowledge- ancient historians were hardly incredulous or rigorous; it's merely a reflection of what people thought, which is hardly news (and most historians do understand that there was some degree of slight embellishment going on there- evidenced by other translations- which hardly takes conspiracy for faithful scribes who were trying to avoid blaspheming). Look at all of the Christian rhetoric inserted into Beowulf, for example- it's simply an inevitable consequence of Christian scribes copying things for centuries, NOT conspiracy (and thankfully they did, otherwise we would have lost much more priceless cultural heritage, rather than just having it slightly -and very obviously and largely reversibly- contaminated).

Early Christian Writings are not consistent or reliable sources- if they were, we'd have a much better picture of a historical Yeshua, and much better academic consensus.

Absence of first century mythicist polemic? Seriously? Because some people believed something was true means it is? You clearly have no concept of how cults or mass hysteria function.


There's no more reason that we should expect mythicist polemic if Yeshua were false, than would we expect overwhelming documentation if Yeshua were real.

Nobody cared until quite a bit later; do you know how many decades it took for the Romans to even figure out that the Christians were distinct from the Jews? Their general mindset was "WTF is going on here? Who are these people and what is wrong with them?"

Add to that, ancient peoples were generally incredulous by modern standards; they believed in all sorts of magic and nonsense- they had no real reason not to at that time.

Yeah... you have no idea what you're talking about.

To use your words: appalling willful ignorance. :rolleyes:

Please consider a bit of open mindedness.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
False dichotomy.

I see what's going on here; you're practicing some appalling willful ignorance yourself. Sorry to hear it.

If you'd actually think for a moment with a critical mind, you might find other options there.
Those are not the only two ways to uphold a reasonable possibility of the fellow not having existed.



Like I said, I think this fellow (or possibly fellows) upon whom Yeshua was loosely based was probably a con-man, like any number of other two bit criminals who peddled their magician acts to take advantage of people at the time. There were plenty of them, and it's not a stretch to figure one probably set off all of the nonsense that went spiraling out of control and into myth after.

I don't know how distantly inspired the character may have been, and nobody really does. There are plenty of hypotheses, but there's no real consensus on who or what the historical Yeshua was, if such a person existed.

The question of whether this Yeshua fellow "existed" comes largely down to how we qualify existence- at what point does a myth become so removed from the thing that triggered it that the subject of the myth can be said not to exist? Is there ever such a point?

In one sense, we can say centaurs existed, because at some point somebody probably saw something (likely intoxicated, witnessing somebody riding bare-back). The myth may be based on something concrete down the line- but is that thing really a centaur?

No, it's just a guy on a horse. A centaur is something else all-together.

Almost every story is based on something- but when it becomes fictionalized and distorted to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the original, it is only reasonable to start questioning whether the thing at hand ever existed at all.

Whatever your beliefs about a magical zombie happen to be, they are false- completely. The Yeshua of the bible -a fictionalized character of a god made flesh- never existed.

Whether the character was based on one or more other real people, and how distantly, is another matter.

(c) If it doesn't look like a duck, and it doesn't quack like a duck, it's probably reasonable to say it's not a duck.

And beyond that, there is the perfectly reasonable:

(d) It was a CULT. The people were suffering from mass hysteria and delusions.

This is known to happen- WELL documented. There's plenty of documentation of suicidal Christian crazy from the era as well.

Your arguments would be laughable if they weren't so sad. :(

Josephus drew from common knowledge- ancient historians were hardly incredulous or rigorous; it's merely a reflection of what people thought, which is hardly news (and most historians do understand that there was some degree of slight embellishment going on there- evidenced by other translations- which hardly takes conspiracy for faithful scribes who were trying to avoid blaspheming). Look at all of the Christian rhetoric inserted into Beowulf, for example- it's simply an inevitable consequence of Christian scribes copying things for centuries, NOT conspiracy (and thankfully they did, otherwise we would have lost much more priceless cultural heritage, rather than just having it slightly -and very obviously and largely reversibly- contaminated).

Early Christian Writings are not consistent or reliable sources- if they were, we'd have a much better picture of a historical Yeshua, and much better academic consensus.

Absence of first century mythicist polemic? Seriously? Because some people believed something was true means it is? You clearly have no concept of how cults or mass hysteria function.


There's no more reason that we should expect mythicist polemic if Yeshua were false, than would we expect overwhelming documentation if Yeshua were real.

Nobody cared until quite a bit later; do you know how many decades it took for the Romans to even figure out that the Christians were distinct from the Jews? Their general mindset was "WTF is going on here? Who are these people and what is wrong with them?"

Add to that, ancient peoples were generally incredulous by modern standards; they believed in all sorts of magic and nonsense- they had no real reason not to at that time.

Yeah... you have no idea what you're talking about.

To use your words: appalling willful ignorance. :rolleyes:

Please consider a bit of open mindedness.
:biglaugh: Oh, my! Not Jesus the myth but Jesus the 'probable con-man' [sic].
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Why should anyone who does not see the evidence presented for historical Jesus as weak be called anything other than cautious or thorough?
Because terms like obstinant, thoughtless, and agenda-driven are far more appropriate. When they choose to apply their standards less selectively I'll consider treating them with less contempt.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
you have a bad habit of giving way to much historicity to every little phrase in the NT, according to you nothing is fiction.


We are told that Jesus and his followers were provided for out of the means of a number of women.

You dont have a clue about the level of this so called "provided for"

was that on one trip? from one village to the next??

was that his first year preaching? or his third??


you dont have a clue.


There were also a number of fishermen in the inner circle. That again provides means for a larger following.

his inner circle, so 2 or 3 poor fishermen at that time who were peasants as well.


That again provides means for a larger following.

you kow as well as I do, that is all added so he can compete with roman deities


all evidence points to a small following.


Jesus also spent time with the tax collectors, and dining with them, which would have been able to feed a larger following


First of all he gets Matthew to give everything up and follow him. and gets ole Zach to give back money. There he is being a tax zealot perverting the nation as mentioned in Luke.

Sitting around their dinner table getting scraps does not make him have a large following.


Fact is going from one village to the next looking for dinner scraps could only support a small following.

Yes, some scholars suggest a misplaced body or stolen body. However, most don't give much heed to a stolen body. It would be much more likely that the body was simply misplaced. It could even have been thrown into a pit.


that is a decent view.


Can you name scholars that think that Paul is worthless? And I mean serious scholars?

you missed the word "almost"


fact is you dont know how much paul ever glimpsed the early church as he was in direct conflict.

He was also starting something based on him being a "want to be" apostle that would have infuriated the REAL apostles to have someone who flat made up. lied about everything he knew.

You act like paul had all correct information about jesus, yes paul is a source. But not a good one with all his mythical fiction.


As for Paul taking the movement in his direction. Not really. All sources agree that Paul was only bringing the movement to a certain group; the gentiles.

contradictory

exactly, he took the movement in his gentile direction, away from judaism.


Finally, the movement hardly gained steam after the death of Jesus. Even then, it barely moved along. It was simply lucky to have even survived the destruction of Jerusalem. And even then, it moved in a variety of different directions. It still had Jewish movements that continued until at least the 4th century.

understatement

first ,,,, while jesus was alive the movement was as small as it gets. We know after he died it spread like fire, and it went in many directions. Gnostic, Jew, Gentile oh wait! thats everywhere and everyone!

fact is it spread to the gentiles faster due to paul going out hitting all the large cities while selling his leather, before he was stuck in prison.

the real apostles didnt spread the movment that fast because they were illiterate peasants who used oral tradition and it wasnt that effective of keeping the movement alive strickly in judaism, and within the gnostics who didnt do a bad job, but were short lived. Over the roman gentile version that took hold and destroyed the jewish version putting its script to fire.


The Temple being corrupt doesn't make the religion corrupt. They are two different things.

actually it did, because in this case it was the jewish government, the jewsih center of worship, and the bank.


that states that Paul was never a Jew?

pauls judaism is debated, we dont know. since je is a self proclaimed apostle, he very well could be a self proclaimed Pharisee.


Paul didn't take it cross cultures though. It was all within the Greco-Roman culture. More so, you didn't really address what I said.

he did take it cross culture

he was not a poor peasant jew living the jewish life.


You have shown no evidence that Matthew, or the other individuals who were pushing the Jesus movement were anything but Jews.

you just called them greco romans LOL come on man, you dont get it both ways lol





you forget or ignore or fail, fail to recognize there were mant wide and varied movements going on after jesus death, that took a sect of judaism and perverted it for their own means.

we are ONLY left with the roman/gentile version as to the winner, went the spoils. they burned many other works. We know there were over what 50 gospels that are gone never to be seen again as we only get the roman cherry pickek version to work with.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Why should anyone who does not see the evidence presented for historical Jesus as weak be called anything other than cautious or thorough?

Because they are not applying sound historical methods to the evidence. History is based on probability. We can't prove what happened in history, we can just show whether or not it was probable.

At the same time, there are standards that we have to apply to history. If we take the evidence presented for Jesus, and call it weak, then we must use those same standards for other figures. Basically what we have then is Josephus being a weak historian (as well as any other historian like Josephus). We have people like Paul, who we have first hand accounts from, and who relied on actual eye witnesses of Jesus, as also being weak. And then we have oral tradition, and works written shortly after the death as being weak.

If we apply all of that to all the other historical information we have, basically we are left with nothing more than nearly all sources being weak. We might as well as just dismiss all of history, or at least huge portions of it, if we want to apply those same standards. Because really, you are saying that first hand accounts are weak, that historians are weak, that oral tradition is weak, etc.
 
Top