"Was Jesus a Myth?"

[Estro Felino]

All they did was recount what was passed along to them. In a very real sense it's old news, mistakes and all. The gospel writers passed along the tales and such they heard. Josephus passed along the tales and such he heard and read. Tacitus passed along the tales and such he heard and read. Justin Martyr passed along the tales and such he heard and read, and so on right up to today's pulpit sermons. And the gospel writers don't impart anymore validity to the stories than does Lee Strobel.

.
.

Actually chronological discrepancies are very common in Ancient historiography. Especially there are many chronological discrepancies between the Greek historiography and the Roman one. Between Diodorus Siculus, and Titus Livius, for example as for the Punic wars. This makes the work of a historian very tough.
So I find absurd that Jesus' existence is put in question just for some historical error, because, otherwise we should also doubt the existence of many Greek characters because the dates narrated by Polybius don't match with those told by Diodorus Siculus, as for Hiero II.

Speaking of historical reconstruction, we can affirm that this Jesus probably was born between 8 and 6 BC. He died when Pilate was prefect of Judea (26-36 AD) , that is around 26-29 AD, and when Tiberius was emperor. This matches with the Gospels reconstruction; besides, Luke himself doubts the historical truthfulness of his sources, speaking to Teophilus. It is explainable by saying that his witnesses confused the Census of 8 BC with that of 6 AD (and so it's probable he was born in 8 BC)

Evidence points to the greater likelihood that the stories surrounding Jesus are myths, or are at least highly unreliable.

.

Well...I think it's a given that they are myths. Plutarch himself distorted the perception and the historical truth of so many characters in his "Parallel Lives", by turning rumors and legends into facts.
The crucifixion of a Zealot leader cannot be put in question historically, because it was something very common. Also the fact that even Simon Bar Kochba was considered the Messiah, I dare not imagine how many Zealot insurgents proclaimed themselves the Messiah, before and after Jesus.

Eventually, the video says something historically irrelevant. That is, before 49 AD we have no historian mentioning Jesus. Well...I don't understand why Velleius Patercolus, Roman historian that wrote the Historiae Romanae in 30 AD should have spoken of a Zealot leader crucified in Jerusalem by Pilate...since the rebels and conspirators who were crucified in that period of time were countless, among rebellious slaves and insurgents.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because I don't have to prove anything.

You are quite right -- you don't have to prove anything. But if you don't, I have no reason to think you know anything, either. We can all assert anything we like. Lots of people do -- I pretty much ignore them all as being blowhards with little of worth to say. Which, by the way, is how they often turn out.

 

[Enoch07]

You are quite right -- you don't have to prove anything. But if you don't, I have no reason to think you know anything, either. We can all assert anything we like. Lots of people do -- I pretty much ignore them all as being blowhards with little of worth to say. Which, by the way, is how they often turn out.

I am not asserting anything either.

The YouTube video is doing the asserting and promised to reveal evidence 6 years ago. He has yet to follow up on his assertions. So if you want to quibble about assertions and proof I suggest you talk to the OP or the youtuber in question.

Your strawman is a fail, as usual.

 

[Quagmire]

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?

Well???

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am not asserting anything either.

The YouTube video is doing the asserting and promised to reveal evidence 6 years ago. He has yet to follow up on his assertions. So if you want to quibble about assertions and proof I suggest you talk to the OP or the youtuber in question.

Your strawman is a fail, as usual.

I'll start with your last statement -- that my "strawman is a fail, as usual." First, that's a put-down... I'm sure you're allowed, but is it really necessary? Second, it isn't a strawman by any stretch: anyone can assert anything they like -- is that a simple statement of fact or a strawman?

However, the fact of the matter is that the video actually presented a very large amount of very real evidence that suggest that what you believe is not actually true. In this particular case, your "out" is to say, "He has yet to follow up." Okay, so what? The fact that he didn't follow up does not make the original evidence false. What I asked you to do was look at what he presented (not what he didn't go on to present) and show it to be somehow invalid.

 

[shunyadragon]

For starters... and at the very beginning, I am totally lost how he came to this conclusion:

View attachment 20436

This assertion was speculative and probably not correct. It is the historical and factual information after that. Is it correct?

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't care about that video, just like people don't care about those Historical facts about Jesus.
You voice your opinion and I voice my opinion.

Does not answer the question. Are the time line facts accurate? The only problem I had was his description of 1 AD.

 

[Skwim]

Actually chronological discrepancies are very common in Ancient historiography. Especially there are many chronological discrepancies between the Greek historiography and the Roman one. Between Diodorus Siculus, and Titus Livius, for example as for the Punic wars. This makes the work of a historian very tough.
So I find absurd that Jesus' existence is put in question just for some historical error, because, otherwise we should doubt the existence of many Greek characters because the dates narrated by Polybius don't match with those told by Diodorus Siculus, as for Hiero II.

If you had watched the video you'd know this wasn't the only issue. Chief among the others are the major celestial and geological events, which the Bible mentions, but were never noted by any of the living 21 prominent writers listed.
The video isn't questioning the existence of the man Jesus, but simply the accuracy of the stories surrounding him, Including the claim by Christian apologists that historians were contemporary with Jesus Christ. Fact is, none were. Evidence points to the greater likelihood that the stories surrounding Jesus are myths, or are at least highly unreliable.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you really think I care what that video says. There were witnesses on both sides. Those that has it recorded in the Bible and those who were on the outside of the Bible, back during that time.

In Rome, in the year 93, A.D. Josephus published his lengthy history of the Jews, while discussing the period in which the Jews of Judaea were governed by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate.
Josephus included the following account.

"About this time there lived, Jesus A wise man. If indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising Deeds and was a teacher of such people as accepted the truth gradley. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when upon the accusations the principal men Among us. Pilate had condemned him to a cross. Those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life.
For the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other Marvel's about him.

The Historian Tacitus wrote
Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64.

"Nero fastened the guilt....on a class hated for their abominations, Called Christians by the populace Christus. from whom the name had it's origin. Suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of...Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievious superstition. thus checked for the moment , again broke out not only in Judaea the first source of evil in Rome.

What can we learn from this Ancient reference to Jesus, and the early Christians,
Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus ( from the Latin ) or Christ
He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty" obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion.

This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilate. This confirms much of what the Gospels tells us about the death of Jesus.

Therefore you have two outside of the Bible giving their account of Christ.

If you like to know about the historical evidence for Jesus.

Go to the internet, by putting
Ancient evidence for Jesus

This was covered in the video, and these references are much later than the life of Jesus and based on third hand testimony.

 

[Enoch07]

I'll start with your last statement -- that my "strawman is a fail, as usual." First, that's a put-down... I'm sure you're allowed, but is it really necessary? Second, it isn't a strawman by any stretch: anyone can assert anything they like -- is that a simple statement of fact or a strawman?

You claiming that I needed to prove my assertion was your strawman. Easily deconstructed because I never asserted anything therefore I didn't have to prove anything. Here:

You are quite right -- you don't have to prove anything. But if you don't, I have no reason to think you know anything, either. We can all assert anything we like. Lots of people do -- I pretty much ignore them all as being blowhards with little of worth to say. Which, by the way, is how they often turn out.

You used your strawman to justify sliding in calling me or anyone else that refuses to "proving the assertion" a blowhard for not "proving my assertion". Which to anyone believing your strawman would appear true, since I refused to "prove my assertion". So I pointed it out as a strawman, because I never asserted anything. To call you out on your shenanigan passive aggressive name calling.

Bottom line is if you don't like getting called out for making passive aggressive strawman arguments then don't do it.

 

[Augustus]

I think I got the basic gist of your outrage, but it's not worth paying attention to.

That's reassuring. I'd have expected it to be obvious to anyone with at least a passing interest in what is a very hackneyed topic.

Could have another go to help discern contempt from outrage though.

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

On second thoughts, this sarcasm was simply brutal. You seem to have mastered contempt perfectly well already, so were fully justified in not paying attention earlier.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What, you think I disagree with his video? Oh Augustus... Proper punctuation hardly makes for contempt.

 

[dfnj]

I came across this interesting video

This video really shook my view on the Gospel:

Most Christians dismiss out of hand. But the thing is the evidence they give is pretty convincing. Jesus's life is practically identical to Moses's life. And the events in Jesus's life correspond to Roman military victories. It's pretty convincing.

 

[Augustus]

What, you think I disagree with his video? Oh Augustus...

Ooooh, you were being serious?!? How unfortunate...

I that case you should definitely go back and read my post, paying more attention this time.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'll pass.

 

[Augustus]

I'll pass.

Can lead a horse to water...

Seeing as you enjoyed the video, which of his arguments for the non-existence of Jesus as an actual [non-magical] Jewish chap did you find most persuasive?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

which of his arguments for the non-existence of Jesus as an actual [non-magical] Jewish chap did you find most persuasive?

Had you actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that wasn't the argument.

 

[Augustus]

Had you actually paid attention to the video, you'd know that wasn't the argument.

It was heavily implied from around the 7 minute mark.

'Did the history of Christianity really start in 49AD?' and removing the Jesus bit from the timeline. He also issues an impossible challenge: falsify the idea that Jesus was a myth. Starts around the 7 minute mark.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, around the 7 minute mark of an 8 minute movie it's "heavily implied" that the events in the bible and the basis for the Christian religion were created around 49 CE. Which really says nothing about "Jesus the non-magical Jewish bloke".

 

[Augustus]

No, around the 7 minute mark of an 8 minute movie it's "heavily implied" that the events in the bible and the basis for the Christian religion were created around 49 CE. Which really says nothing about "Jesus the non-magical Jewish bloke".

We'll agree to disagree then. He states, rhetorically, 'no serious scholar thinks that Jesus was a myth' which makes more sense regarding mythicism than the idea that the Bible is exaggerating and embellishing his life. He then challenges people to falsify the idea that Jesus (not even Jesus Christ) was a myth which again makes more sense in a mythicist context.

For the history of Christianity to have started in 49AD and without the life of a historical Jesus being relevant (hence could be removed from timeline) would further imply 'Jesus was a myth' means he didn't exist.

I prefer my interpretation, you prefer yours.

I can hardly wait until he releases the second thrilling instalment of his magnum opus to find out the answer...