The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

[outhouse]

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.

I do agree with most of this.

but would like to point out, much of the historicity has come from, born from biased views.

There has been no standard applied to the historical studies of said person.


while there is a core person under the myth, he is very vague at best do to the sources we are left with. It is not a open and closed case as pointed out.

 

[outhouse]

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.

the fact they burned the gnostic and jewish versions, means we used to have overwhelming documentation. ALL with different views of the same poor peasant jew

 

[fallingblood]

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

And you have a bad habit of trying to dismiss everyone that doesn't agree with you by insulting them. You also have a bad habit of not actually reading what your opponent says. Please, if you want an actual debate, don't use childish tactics.

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.

So your argument is that since we can't know, he had to have a small following? That is hardly logical.

The fact is, we are told that women provided for him. To what extent, we can't know for sure, but it is highly unlikely that such a story would be invented simply because of the status of women at that time. So we can be fairly confident that the followers of Jesus, for some time, were provided for by women.

And we can also be certain that this is not just for one trip. The context is that they provided for Jesus and his followers for an extended period of time. Which means that it is completely plausible that Jesus had a following that was larger than 3 or so individuals.

And again, we know of other leaders who had substantive followings, and they were able to be provided for. So it is hardly a stretch to assume that Jesus had a dozen or so in his closest circle.

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

Where are you getting this number of 2 or 3? None of our sources suggest such. More so, we know that many other leaders had much larger followings.

As for the fishermen, that is a trade that could be applied on the road and be used to supply food for a following. It hardly matters that they were peasants as well. The fact is, fishermen had the possibility of catching fish nearly anywhere that there were fish. And we have a variety of stories of Jesus and his followers either on a boat, or near the shore; both of places that fishing would have been possible.

Thus, it is not ridiculous to suggest that those fishermen helped provide for a larger following. Again, a dozen or so followers is not out of the question, and there is clear ways in which they could have been provided for, out of their own means.

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.

You took this quote completely out of context, and then argued against something that I wasn't even mentioning. When I said that "That again provides means for a larger following," I was referring to Jesus having fishermen in his circle that would have been able to provide for a larger following.

Now, I didn't say this was a massive following. I implied that it was more than 3 or so, that you have been claiming. A dozen or so followers is completely possible, and the women, as well as fishermen would have been able to provide enough for them.

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.

Matthew and Zach are not the only tax collectors, and really, I think you are simply making things up now, or relying to heavily on tradition.

We are told that Jesus ate with many tax collectors. We have stories of Levi as well, who was a tax collector. Also, Matthew is never said to have given up everything. Being a tax collector meant that you could move within a certain area. And really, Matthew is never said to have given up his work (more so, if he had, someone else would have replaced him, and there would have been no serious problem). As for Zach giving back, there is little reason to assume he gave back that taxes that he had to collect, but instead the above and beyond money that tax collectors collected. And really, neither have anything to do with what I said.

Again, we are told that Jesus was friends with tax collectors. Tax collectors had money, and had the means to provide for larger followings.

Also, going village to village, especially larger villages, would have still given enough to support a following that was a dozen or so. People had more than dinner scraps for guests. Especially if an entire family or village got together. And then there is also the matter of Jesus having fishermen within his circle, who could have provided extra. Again, a dozen or so followers is completely possible. Especially when one considers that other leaders had much more.

you missed the word "almost"

Okay, can you name any scholars, and I mean serious scholars, who see Paul as almost worthless? I'm guessing no since you haven't yet.

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.

Have I ever stated that Paul had all correct information? Such a claim is dishonest and a worthless way of debating. Yes, Paul has mythical ideas in his writings. And I have never used those in order to talk about Jesus. Paul also talks about an earthly Jesus, as well as the early church. And that is what I have been dealing with.

And Paul wasn't in direct conflict. None of our sources state such. In order to suggest such, you have to ignore what Paul states, and what Acts states, and then make something up yourself. That is not a sound method of research.

More so, Acts even puts Paul in a more subordinate position. As in, Paul is not an apostle.

Now, Paul does state that he is an apostle, but the least of apostles. Yes, he wants the authority, but no one seemed to have a major problem with this. As in, the Jerusalem church, from everything we have, is said to have supported Paul.

As for calling Paul a liar, you have no evidence. That is nothing more that mudslinging based on your own prejudice against Paul. And really, that is not an ethical or honest way of doing actual research.

 

[fallingblood]

contradictory

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

Not contradictory at all. Paul didn't take it his direction. He was commissioned from the Jerusalem church (both Acts and Paul state this) to take the movement to the Gentiles. According to both Acts and Paul, Paul was not the only one (in fact, Peter is said to have also done such). Not his direction at all, but the direction that the Jerusalem Church sent him.

It also wasn't going away from Judaism. This is where a little history is required. Within the Jewish tradition, it was long believed (and the OT supports this), that the message of God would be brought to all the nations. That it would be brought to the Gentiles. This was what Paul was doing. It was still within Judaism.

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.

It hardly spread like fire. It grew slowly. It spread slowly.

Also, it hardly spread faster because of Paul. Again, we have stories of small churches. And not even all of those were started by Paul. For instance, the one in Rome had never met Paul before he went there (also, he was selling tents). As for being stuck in prison (it was jail), you are relying too much on tradition. Yes, he was in and out of jail. Yet, every time he got out, he continued his mission.

As for the real apostles, they were behind Paul. So their movement spread as fast, or faster than Paul spread that branch. As for them being illiterate peasants, that makes no difference. They could hire scribes, Paul did. And oral tradition actually could spread quite quickly (that actually was largely how Paul spread his information as well, as most people wouldn't have been able to read anyway).

The movement stayed alive in Judaism until at least the 4th century though, long after Paul was dead. The reason it moved from Judaism is because Rabbinic Judaism kicked the Christian movement out, as well as every other sect of Judaism. The reason being to solidify Judaism and strengthen it under one group.

And the Jewish version was never put to fire. We still have Jewish-Christian writings. The Gospel of Matthew even stays Jewish.

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

The Temple was not the religion. Various sects broke away from the Temple. Look at the Essenes. Look at the Diaspora. The Temple may have been the center, but it was not the religion. And one did not have to worship in the Temple. Again, look at the Essenes. Even that Pharisees were moving from the Temple.

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

Who debates his Judaism? Can you name a source?

he did take it cross culture

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

According to all of our sources, he was living the Jewish life. He also was poor (there is no suggestion that he was rich. If he was, he wouldn't have had to continue to work every where he went.

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

Actually it can be both ways, if you understand what the ideas are. I'm German. I'm also American. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm Christians, and I'm also a Jew. There is nothing wrong with that.

They lived in the Greco-Roman culture. Why? Because the Romans had conquered all of that land, as well did the Greeks. The whole area was part of the Greco-Roman culture (which is why we see such influences all over the place during that time). Within the Greco-Roman culture, you also had a Jewish culture. You had Jews living int he Greco-Roman culture. Just like today, you have Germans living in the American culture.

Really, it isn't that difficult.

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.

What burning? There is no evidence they burned the other works. In fact, we have the other works. I have a couple of books filled with the other works.

Really, it seems as if you've been reading too much Da Vinci Code.

 

[fallingblood]

the fact they burned the gnostic and jewish versions, means we used to have overwhelming documentation. ALL with different views of the same poor peasant jew

I am really interested in why you think "they" burned the gnostic and Jewish versions? I'm interested because you're not the only one who states this, yet we have no evidence of "they" (I'm assuming you mean the Romans) ever had a policy of looking for and burning such works.

Not to mention that we have many Gnostic and Jewish versions. In fact, Matthew is a Jewish version, and John gets very close to being a Gnostic version. Not to mention that we have the Nag Hammadi library, as well as many other works from a variety of different groups. And that isn't mentioning the references that we have of various works in the writings of the Church Fathers and the like.

 

[outhouse]

I am really interested in why you think "they" burned the gnostic and Jewish versions? I'm interested because you're not the only one who states this, yet we have no evidence of "they" (I'm assuming you mean the Romans) ever had a policy of looking for and burning such works.

Not to mention that we have many Gnostic and Jewish versions. In fact, Matthew is a Jewish version, and John gets very close to being a Gnostic version. Not to mention that we have the Nag Hammadi library, as well as many other works from a variety of different groups. And that isn't mentioning the references that we have of various works in the writings of the Church Fathers and the like.

according to scholars there was atleast 50 different gospels, pre burning. They have been mentioned.

the fact they outlawed these gospels is more proof. You dont outlaw something "not" there

 

[outhouse]

Matthew is a Jewish version

written to a more jewish gentile audience, author is unknown.

fact he is using a gentile/roman foundation suggest he was not a strictly jewish source


as well romans are the ones who cherry picker the version we are left with [Constantine era]

 

[fallingblood]

according to scholars there was atleast 50 different gospels, pre burning. They have been mentioned.

the fact they outlawed these gospels is more proof. You dont outlaw something "not" there

Source please.

written to a more jewish gentile audience, author is unknown.

fact he is using a gentile/roman foundation suggest he was not a strictly jewish source


as well romans are the ones who cherry picker the version we are left with [Constantine era]

The whole Romans picked it, or that it is associated with Constantine is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Also, you haven't shown that Mark was a Gentile/Roman author.

 

[outhouse]

There is no evidence they burned the other works.

there is plenty of evidence. even a painting showing burning books below Constantine and early bishops

 

[outhouse]

Source please.

heard marvin meyer claim this

 

[fallingblood]

heard marvin meyer claim this

The same Marvin Meyer who has translated many of these burned books?

Do you have an actual source?

 

[outhouse]

The same Marvin Meyer who has translated many of these burned books?

Do you have an actual source?

the only Marvin Meyer in biblical studies

 

[crystalonyx]

You would think Ehrman's new book would finally settle it.


Bart D. Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist?

Settles what? All he does is what most of the pushers of the Jesus myth do, bad-mouth their opponents as know-nothing extremists.:bow:

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Agreed, but we may not all agree on what counts as "sound historical methods."

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.

This is where I have my greatest disagreement with you. Most historical figures are not validated largely by their mention in a body of religious scripture. They do not have a massive movement of people behind them that have a religious motive for belief in their existence. We do know that at least some of the scriptural and historical "evidence" has been tainted by this faith-based motive. For example, the Middle Ages had a veritable industry of fake relics designed to extract money from true believers. Just because we cannot prove that a body of text was so-manufactured, that does not mean that it wasn't. We are left with scraps of real data and enormous social pressure to give them more weight than intellectual generosity might otherwise warrant.

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.

The problem with relying on text is that it is sometimes very difficult to distinguish fiction from non-fiction. Good fiction writers can create an illusion of reality. The best fiction does it very convincingly. Even competent scholars who write history books get things wrong, and people like Josephus were not that sort of scholar. Tacitus was the best historical scholar in those times, and all his work does, assuming it contains no interpolations, is validate the existence of Christians in those times, not the historicity of Christ. Much of the rest of history contains more than just reliance on text for its validation. We can validate the existence of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, for example, not on just what their contemporaries wrote about them, but by archaeology and the historical shift of political borders. For lesser figures, we have no reason to suspect that their historicity might have been doctored by people who had ulterior motives for validating their existence.

The problem with the historicity of Jesus is not so much lack of evidence, but too much evidence. His historicity has been clouded by all of the falsehoods and social pressure created by his followers. Is it reasonable to doubt his historicity? Of course it is. Does it matter much in the end whether a real man lay at the heart of the narrative? Not to me, but I can understand why it matters to a great many others. In the end, that's the real problem with this debate that separates it from normal historical debates over what really happened in the past. Objective judgment is too easily clouded by the emotional stake that believers and non-believers bring to the debate.

 

[crystalonyx]

Does it matter much in the end whether a real man lay at the heart of the narrative? Not to me, but I can understand why it matters to a great many others

I actually don't see why Christians are so determined that a real Jesus existed, and did all the things mentioned in the NT. It's all suppposed to be faith based in the end, so why even be concerned with that question?

 

[crystalonyx]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.
If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.
A real historical Jesus would have had to have some of the traits of the NT Jesus to be considered to be a historical Jesus, or the relationship is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

 

[Sunstone]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.
If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.
A real historical Jesus would have had to have some of the traits of the NT Jesus to be considered to be a historical Jesus, or the relationship is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Do you think Elvis was a normal, everyday man? If so, how do you explain the tales that have grown up around him following his death -- tales of sightings, miracles in his name, and such?

 

[Quagmire]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists are faced with a Catch-22. If the real man the gospels were written about was just a normal everyday guy, then it is illogical to think the stories in the NT are based upon such a man. since they are stories about a charismatic healer and miracle worker, who actually could raise people from the dead, had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial. It is much more likely these stories of a man-god were fiction.

How is this a "catch-22"? A lot if not most of the "historical Jesus exists" apologists" are non-christian. they don't have anything vested interest in the legitimacy of those stories.

If there was a charismatic man who fit at least some of this description, i.e. had multitudes of followers, and was executed in a high profile trial (we'll ignore the miracles for now), then many historians of the day would have taken note. But such is not the case.

The first Jewish-Roman war devastated Judea and Galilea. Some estimates say as many as 2 million people were killed.

We only have one account of this event by one historian of the time, the same one who left us 2 references to Jesus as an historical person.

Which "historians of the time" do you feel should have left us records of either the war or the existence of Jesus?

And also, how do you know he wasn't written about by "historians of the time"? The devastation in Judea as a result of the War was pretty extensive. We have no way of knowing what was lost as a result.

A real historical Jesus would have had to have some of the traits of the NT Jesus to be considered to be a historical Jesus, or the relationship is totally inconsequential and irrelevant. But if he had these traits, he would have certainly been written about by historians of the day, several of whom wrote volumes about the most inconsequential things.

Like who and like what?

 

[Quagmire]

I actually don't see why Christians are so determined that a real Jesus existed,

Again: not all of the people on the side of historicity are Christian. If you completely discount any Christian scholars and what they have to say you're still left with the same argument.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The "historical Jesus exists" apologists ...

:biglaugh: