"Was Jesus a Myth?"

[Skwim]

I came across this interesting video a few minutes ago and thought it worth sharing. I can't vouch for its accuracy, so don't blame me if it's gotten something wrong. However, if it has, fair play requires that the error be explained and supported by evidence.

I strongly suggest you access the "full Screen" function. Enjoy.

.
​

 

[wizanda]

Everyone does this; the outside garments that are placed onto Yeshua by authors are shoddy, and make him look like he doesn't exist...

Yet when we practically examine the parables, the speeches, and actions by Yeshua, when compared with the prophets; it makes the least amount of assumptions to say that someone very intellectual had to exist, for the things that have happened to be so well documented.

In my opinion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

A well-done video. Can't wait for him to finish part 2.

 

[Enoch07]

There is no part 2.

Guess he couldn't prove it like he said.

Part 1 was published 6 years ago. I don't think part 2 is coming anytime soon.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

8 months ago he said in the comments that he's currently working on Part 2.

 

[Enoch07]

We will just have to wait and see then.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think he wasn't. I'm familiar with the arguments that he was though. Like trying to deconstruct the gospel narratives with the Hebrew Bible and such. I think the teachings came from a man, which I base not only on the NT. The gnostic gospels seem to confirm without a doubt that Jesus had some knowledge in eastern wisdom. Scholars often compare the teachings found in Thomas with the Tao te Ching- just as one example.

How likely you reckon it is that a real person didn't bring together and harmonize these teachings, when we consider there are ideas present outside of the known culture? Seems reasonable to me that a person did. I think Jesus was a Jewish reformer.

I identify Jesus as the first Jewish person to emphasize Ahimsa: total non-violence, which I have my reasons for thinking he encountered through eastern influence. Indeed, that made Jesus unique in his Jewish culture, where there are all kinds of traditional justifications for violence.

The Ebionites were strict vegetarians as well, so perhaps we can infer from them that Jesus extended his non-violence ethic to all sentient beings. I think the Nazarene was a good man. Especially when I consider the culture and background he heralded from. I think he had deep thoughts about love and kindness. Again, think about his background.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was Jesus a myth? It depends on how one defines a myth. Was Abraham Lincoln a myth? No. Was Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer a myth?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I identify Jesus as the first Jewish person to emphasize Ahimsa: total non-violence

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36

 

[Buddha Dharma]

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36

Do you suppose that could be interpreted as his doing it, or his teachings doing it? I must think the latter, given his other teachings about kindness. Unless I conclude he was extremely mentally disturbed.

He also said that the one that lives by the sword will die by it, so told Peter to put his away.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

He also cursed a fig tree and, oh yes-- drove people from the temple by beating them with a knotted rope. Total non-violence.

 

[Augustus]

A poor video, even by Jesus mythicist standards which tend to be pretty low. The kind of thing you'd expect a 13 year old atheist neophyte who thinks he's being edgy and subversive to come up with.

Gospel birth narratives are inconsistent and the Gospels aren't historically accurate (shock!) = Jesus must be a myth!

They are inconsistent because they are desperately scrambling to fit a real person who completely fails to meet the expectations of the prophesied messiah into the correct narrative. That Jesus is such a bad fit is one of the strongest reasons for his historical existence. Why wouldn't you just create an imaginary figure who actually matches expectations?

"Argument from silence" - this is only potentially legitimate if, based on the remaining sources, you could reasonably expect they should have written about him. This is not the case for one of countless poor preachers and prophets. Even then, he is written about by 'near contemporary' sources which is better than a whole load of other major historical figures, kings, etc.

Paul's letters to diverse preexisting religious communities within a few year of Jesus' crucifixion suggest a historical figure. Rapid spread of cults implies a central figure, cults that form around myth tend to develop long after the purported lifetime of the figure. AFAIK, a cult with a mythical central figure emerging concurrent with their lifetime would be unique in this regard.

"Historians didn't start writing about Christianity until after Paul started converting people" was my particular favourite though. Wow, people who write about significant issues didn't write about Christianity until it became significant?

 

[Estro Felino]

Very good video...it sums up all the historical inconsistencies of the New Testament very accurately.

From a historical point of view, it is very probable that a heroic Zealot named Jesus did exist and was crucified because, evidently he was the Rabbi and chief of a very influential subversive group. This explains why they moved to Jerusalem, and why crucifixion was applied to him.
Obviously, the Gospels, which were written at least after 50 CE (or after the take of Jerusalem, I believe, thanks to the Jews who migrated to Rome and Greece) stand for the attempt to reconstruct his story, and since testimonies were not reliable they created chronological disorder.

Besides, I would classify Christianity as Hellenistic religion, not an Abrahamic one because it has all the characteristics of a Hellenistic religion, like Mithraism, Isis' cult, Cybele's cult etc...
Let's not forget that Mary replaced the Mother-Goddess in so many pagan religions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A poor video, even by Jesus mythicist standards which tend to be pretty low. The kind of thing you'd expect a 13 year old atheist neophyte who thinks he's being edgy and subversive to come up with.

Gospel birth narratives are inconsistent and the Gospels aren't historically accurate (shock!) = Jesus must be a myth!

They are inconsistent because they are desperately scrambling to fit a real person who completely fails to meet the expectations of the prophesied messiah into the correct narrative. That Jesus is such a bad fit is one of the strongest reasons for his historical existence. Why wouldn't you just create an imaginary figure who actually matches expectations?

"Argument from silence" - this is only potentially legitimate if, based on the remaining sources, you could reasonably expect they should have written about him. This is not the case for one of countless poor preachers and prophets. Even then, he is written about by 'near contemporary' sources which is better than a whole load of other major historical figures, kings, etc.

Paul's letters to diverse preexisting religious communities within a few year of Jesus' crucifixion suggest a historical figure. Rapid spread of cults implies a central figure, cults that form around myth tend to develop long after the purported lifetime of the figure. AFAIK, a cult with a mythical central figure emerging concurrent with their lifetime would be unique in this regard.

"Historians didn't start writing about Christianity until after Paul started converting people" was my particular favourite though. Wow, people who write about significant issues didn't write about Christianity until it became significant?

I am not sure if he is trying to claim that Jesus never existed. Merely that he was a myth on the order of my earlier example of Abraham Lincoln Vampire slayer. But one has to love the "we screwed up our story so badly that he has to be real" argument that you tried to use.

 

[Kenny]

Trolling?

 

[Augustus]

I am not sure if he is trying to claim that Jesus never existed. Merely that he was a myth on the order of my earlier example of Abraham Lincoln Vampire slayer.

Could be, I just flicked through it so didn't listen to it all. Usually Jesus + myth is linked to arguments he never existed so I just made that assumption.

But one has to love the "we screwed up our story so badly that he has to be real" argument that you tried to use.

Why would you strongly associate your non-existent literary character with a backwater like Nazareth then have to create some implausibly convoluted backstories (that don't match) to get this figment of your imagination to be in the place that he was supposed to be born and with the right lineage?

It makes zero sense if he was mythical, but is highly plausible if you started with a real person and had to work backwards as an eschatological prophet became the Messiah after his unexpected death. This was by crucifixion, perhaps the least plausible cause of death for the Jewish Messiah due to the stigma attached to it in Judaism meaning the victim was 'cursed by God' leading to all of your opponents continually bringing this up in argument against you.

Historians often use the criterion of embarrassment as an analytical tool, when it is highly unlikely that anyone would have fabricated such information about a revered figure and consider this to be legitimate evidence in favour of the authenticity or certain things. Crucifixion would be a textbook example.

If you were going to create a fictitious person to persuade people to follow, I doubt you'd go out of your way to give him as unpersuasive a backstory as you possibly could.

 

[Father Heathen]

Trolling?

Educating.

 

[Kenny]

Educating.

that's like an online purchase of a diploma for 5 cents.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not sure if he is trying to claim that Jesus never existed. Merely that he was a myth on the order of my earlier example of Abraham Lincoln Vampire slayer. But one has to love the "we screwed up our story so badly that he has to be real" argument that you tried to use.

Reza Aslan's book 'Zealot' does a very good job of putting Jesus into historical context. The upshot is that Jesus was one of several people who emerged from the smaller towns to lead insurrections of various sorts.

So, the basic story of Jesus' life fits into the overall arc of history of that area and that time. From this, there is no reason to think that Jesus didn't exist (and the fast start of Jewish Christian churches is another piece of evidence).

That, of course, says NOTHING about the mythological aspects like miracles and a resurrection.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no part 2.

Guess he couldn't prove it like he said.

Part 1 was published 6 years ago. I don't think part 2 is coming anytime soon.

Proof?!?!!?

He documented and demonstrated what he said based on the facts of history and scripture.

Is there anything inaccurate or false in what he said?