Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The mythical Jesus


spamandham

Recommended Posts

This discussion has come up numerous times, but I don't recall the following excellent resource being brought into it.

 

For those who are not familiar with Earl Doherty, here is a link to his argument for a mythical Jesus http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm.

 

Having read through the first few chapters, I'm fairly convinced he is correct, and his arguments corroborate my own layman's research.

 

I would be particularly interested in a non-faith-based discussion from any Christians here as to why his arguments are invalid, particularly the argument that the earliest writings of the New Testament depict Jesus as a purely spiritual being who's sacrifice happened before the beginning of time and was being revealed by Paul.

 

(everyone is welcome to pitch in though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Amanda

    24

  • spamandham

    9

  • - AUB -

    8

  • dogmatically_challenged

    6

This discussion has come up numerous times, but I don't recall the following excellent resource being brought into it.

 

For those who are not familiar with Earl Doherty, here is a link to his argument for a mythical Jesus http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm.

 

Having read through the first few chapters, I'm fairly convinced he is correct, and his arguments corroborate my own layman's research. 

 

I would be particularly interested in a non-faith-based discussion from any Christians here as to why his arguments are invalid, particularly the argument that the earliest writings of the New Testament depict Jesus as a purely spiritual being who's sacrifice happened before the beginning of time and was being revealed by Paul.

 

(everyone is welcome to pitch in though)

 

Spandham, I attempted to access this site via my email, with no avail... as it says this page has been expired. Attempting to access it from this forum left me no connection what so ever. Is it me? :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link should get you to Brother Doherty's site: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com.

 

I don't have time to go into lengthy reasons at the moment (just taking a quick study break), but I personally do not agree with the "Jesus Myth" position. I have investigated the position, but the bottom line I guess is that I see no valid reason why it should be necessary to write Jesus out of history. My own thoughts are that there was a historical Jesus (about whom little is known) who was an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was deified by his followers after his death. The Jesus of Faith portrayed in the anonymously written gospels is entirely fictional, derived from the earlier myths of ancient Paganism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Euthyphro
This link should get you to Brother Doherty's site: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com.

 

I don't have time to go into lengthy reasons at the moment (just taking a quick study break), but I personally do not agree with the "Jesus Myth" position. I have investigated the position, but the bottom line I guess is that I see no valid reason why it should be necessary to write Jesus out of history. My own thoughts are that there was a historical Jesus (about whom little is known) who was an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was deified by his followers after his death. The Jesus of Faith portrayed in the anonymously written gospels is entirely fictional, derived from the earlier myths of ancient Paganism.

I hope we find jesus's skeleton and proof of what he really taught....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....ER...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we find jesus's skeleton and proof of what he really taught....

 

You won't find his skeleton. Not because he flew bodily up to heaven, but because he never had one.

 

Earl Doherty's book (The Jesus Puzzle) goes into a lot more depth than the website. It's available on Amazon. Highly recommended.

 

I totally disagree with my good Brother Jeff.

 

There is convincing evidence that Jesus never was a man. The silence in the epistles is just one part of it. But they cannot be explained away.

 

The epistles make no mention of the following: Jesus' miracles. Jesus' virgin birth. Jesus' teachings. Mary. Judas. Bethlehem. Nazareth. Jesus as a carpenter. Wise men. Slaughter of the innocents. Cleansing of the temple.

plus a whole lot more. Paul didn't know of these because the story hadn't been developed yet.

 

You cannot resolve how Paul could not have mentioned that Jesus had been a real man, in trying to convince Pagans that his gospel should be considered the truth. All he references are his revelations from the Lord.

 

What we do find mentioned in the writings of Paul, in particular, is an interpolated reference to Pontius Pilate and numerous references to a "gospel" and a "Christ crucified".

 

People just assume that it's the same gospel as is written down in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It's not.

 

Paul's gospel was of a spiritual son of god, who suffered at the hands of demonic spirits, and was crucified in an upper world. A spiritual world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of times in the epistles, when an argument being made would have been bolstered by quoting Jesus' words.

 

Such as when they are discussing what they should be allowed to eat. You never see something like - "when Jesus was here, he taught that it isn't what goes into a man that defiles him. It's what comes out of a man that defiles him"

 

You NEVER see Jesus referenced in this way in the epistles. When adding weight to an argument, the references always go back to the old testament.

 

You cannot make a rational defense for this if Jesus had been here physically just a few years prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have investigated the position, but the bottom line I guess is that I see no valid reason why it should be necessary to write Jesus out of history. My own thoughts are that there was a historical Jesus (about whom little is known) who was an itinerant Jewish apocalyptic preacher who was deified by his followers after his death.

 

If you read through the early christian documents in chronological order, you see detail of Jesus being added as time progresses. This is not trivial and can not not be ignored. Arguments from silence can be compelling, if there is strong reason to believe that such silence should not be prevalent under the given premise (a historical Jesus).

 

But it's more than an argument from silence. If you read Paul's writings from the perspective of Jesus being purely spiritual, they all make sense. Paul made it clear that it was he himself who had been chosen to reveal the secrets of Jesus, which makes perfect sense if Jesus is spiritual, but no sense at all if he was historical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the bottom line I guess is that I see no valid reason why it should be necessary to write Jesus out of history.

 

It's not at all that it is "necessary" to write Jesus out of history. It's a matter of looking objectively at all of the evidence and reaching a conclusion.

 

Jesus isn't being written out of history. It's the other way around. Jesus was written into history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's anyone's guess. Could have been a real guy that the myth came out of. It's been done before I don't see why it couldn't have been done then. Really all you can do is guess and assume. You all act like apologists sometimes. :lmao:

 

Some have a desire to write off jesus as totally nonexistant and others have a desire to want jesus to be a real person. Then everyone scrambles to find "evidence" to prove they're right. Well good luck with that (apologists!). Doesn't really matter, it's all bullshit in the end. Here's an idea:

 

What if Paul didn't exist? :Wendywhatever: Let's use the bible as proof! :Doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's anyone's guess. Could have been a real guy that the myth came out of. It's been done before I don't see why it couldn't have been done then. Really all you can do is guess and assume.

 

I consider it more than a guess. To me it's an issue of looking at every clue I can find, (and I've only just begun) one way or the other, and resolving in my mind what is the most probable answer. I have yet to hear any good arguments against the mythicist position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great to see another thread on this! I’m doing more research into the background of Paul’s theology with a classical scholar in OZ, and hopefully I’ll have the whole thing figured out soon. I might also post up our correspondence; there’s some great information there.

 

I have yet to hear any good arguments against the mythicist position.

 

Exactly, there is none. This is about explanatory power, we can take into account all available data, no other hypothesis can. Besides most Mythicists don’t set out to disprove a historical Jesus, but simply find out what happened, and that usually turns out to exclude a historical Jesus. I’m a sceptic, and it took me a long time to except this, I couldn’t care one way or the other, but now after a lot of independent research, still ongoing, I’ve concluded that Mythicism fits. Look into this and then call us apologists.

 

Brother Jeff

 

If the gospels are bunk, were do you get your belief in a historical Jesus, as they’re the only source for one? It is purely a faith position, when all the “proofs” are dealt with Occam’s razor does the rest.

 

 

What people fail to understand is that Jesus could not have existed. It’s logically impossible. Let me explain, if he had started xtainity, he would have put Paul out of a job, who clearly felt his revelation gave him a monopoly. But if there had been witnesses, disciples, gospels writers, he’d have less to crow about. But he regarded xtianity to be complete with his ideas, and would have seen a historical belief as unnecessary (and absurd), as did many church fathers. Lets not forget a historical Jesus via the gospels was a minority belief among the great many different xtian groups. They did not all derive from a real Jesus, but started out as multiple expressions of Logos worship, diversified, then become engulfed unified or destroyed by the historical worshipers during the late second century, who re-wrote history has they went. That is the only model that matches all the facts. Maybe some denominations may have abandoned his historical personality for an idealised personality-free version focusing on his sacrifice, as some accuse Paul of doing. But this could not have happened so quickly, and only among a minority of movements. No way could all trace of Jesus been erased. Why would they want too? And why decide they needed a historical Jesus after all, when all trace of the original had vanished? Causing them to make a patchwork man, a contradictory combination tailored to the latest tastes. A very unlikely series of events. But the opposite is true, most if not all worshiped a phantom. Until a movement gave him a history, that looked plausible a century later to the followers but goes against all the previous theological development we see in church writings. Now on to the logic.

 

A historical Jesus who founded xtianity would have been the focus of a cult of personality, (as we see in the gospels) his words, deeds and example would have been the spine of the cult, the oldest fragments we’d have would relate this. Elaboration and deification would have come soon after, but there could not have been total obliteration of such elements of his personality that created the movement. Yet by Paul’s time no trace of such a cult is left, no personality behind the name Jesus Christ is to be found in any writings of the 1st century. Nor could it have remained “dormant” until “remembered” during the gospels writings, (100-160 CE). We don’t even have any evidence of oral traditions for any historical Jesus before the gospels. If his personality was weak enough to be forgotten it would not have been strong enough to create a cult around him. Can we believe his name inspired many cults of deity or spirit, but somehow the true memory of his historicity managed to survive to one day become the nucleus of new writing that would change the course of the faith? That this minority that triumphed through propaganda and violence just happened to the be the truth? That may explain the other church father’s lack of knowledge of a historical Jesus but how can this be reconciled with supposed history of the early church, propagated by the same group? How could the book of Acts be true as well? How can an obscure minority in the early 2nd century be the Apostolic lead, Pentecostal inspired, miracle working, mass martyred orthodoxy of the 1st century? The whole thing falls like dominoes, once you work back. Any solution to one problem results in the discrediting of another essential element, it not only cannot be partly true, it cannot be in any way true.

 

It goes against everything we know about cults, that his divinity eclipses his personality, with no sign of such historicity, then for the need to arise for it to be rekindled and for such a personality to be re-created from scratch from multiple pagan and jewish sources, it is an absurd chain of events. A name and divinity becoming historical with a fake biography is the only explanation, there simply is no room for a real jesus in the cult’s evolution. We can trace all the gospel-Jesus’ components, teachings, miracles, wanderings, all 2nd century compositions from cynical, mythical and biblical material, serving current apologetic aims. That is no mystery, what needs to be understood is the derivation of the mythic Jesus, and that’s were it gets complicated.

 

 

First things first, Xtianity is not in anyway derived from Judaism, there are too many fundamental theological differences, from the very beginning for that. All the Jewish elements are later additions. This leaves the mystery cults, but they are derived from pagan mythology. The name Jesus Christ, a mixture of messianic and divine-king references could have been put together at any time, but not from pagan pantheons. Were then does this focus of so many differing visions come from? Unfortunately this religion that dashed civilisation and philosophy to pieces in its greed was the product of a philosophical experiment, gone horribly wrong.

 

Long ago, the gods were all too similar to us, when we look at them with our post Judaeo-Christian sensitivities, we see the gods of Olympus and Egypt as distinctly flawed and human. And so did Plato and Aristotle, who thought, in their metaphysical idealism that the gods or “God” should be perfect, and thusly removed from this lowly sphere. Everything in Platonic metaphysics exists on ever increasingly perfect spheres of reality, with their “God” at the top, and us at the bottom. Even the Epicureans thought of the gods in this way, but lacked a intermediary so effectively became atheists. This perfect god is the one xtians worship, which explains why their “God is love” crap contradicts the Jewish O.T. deity so much. They only made the two the same later on, and it never really stuck, hence Marcion’s insistance that xtians should dump the O.T. and it’s god. He recognised the syncretous amalgim didnt quite work, idealism and primative tribal war gods go togther like religion and me.

 

This brings me to the next problem, this idealisitc god, first dreamt up my the idealists of Athens was too far removed from us lowly base humans to be of any help, (unlike the Jewish god who was non-corporeal but still “knowable” according to the rabbis, and bits of the O.T.) He needed an intermediary, which is the key to the whole thing (just in case you thought I was wandering). This go-between was what the philosophers experimented with for some time; it was a necessary by product of the pinnacle sphere deity. Someone who could travel between the spheres, from top to bottom and back. Wisdom, Logos, the Son of God, the Word, all these names and identities were Greco-Roman abstract creations, that occasionally would be mixed with Jewish theology, as a holy spirit being, (along with the spheres of reality, Enoch’s 7 heavens etc) but with one crucial difference, Jews did not believe such a Word was needed for our salvation or relationship with god. A messenger, agent, angel like deliver of Solomon like genius maybe, but not a Son or similar offspring, and certainly not a link to god, as that constitutes idolatry to the Jews, then and now.

 

No, a source of salvation, exclusive salvation was more in the line of a mystery cult, but few were as exclusivist as xtianity. An attitude it took from Judaism, but only to make it a more effective cult, no Jew would have had a hand in such a blasphemous project, there were gentiles enough who understood Judaism to us it for there purposes. How and when The Messiah got mixed with a strictly gentile idea is unclear, maybe Paul was responsible, but it was a bad idea, as it pissed off the Jews, as their Messianic critea is as far removed from the Logos concept as you can get, plus a Son of God and David violates the law of non-contradicion.

 

Whatever happened this was no Rabbi or Messiah turned into a god, the Jewish elements fit too badly. Paul’s doctrine is philosophical, it derives from the need for an intermediary, this was no Jew selling a Messiah, but a philosopher dabbling in religion. His attempts to appear Pharisaic are a joke, and no Jew would have excepted his ideas, as they bare no relation to Judaism. From the first this was a Platonic exercise, that stole Jewish theology to impress gentiles, who were ignorant of the colossal flaws in such a mixture. They could believe in a Logos-Messiah as they hadn’t been waiting for centuries for a Davidic-Messiah. Jews today and now point out that they have never needed a Logos style bridge, sin was not the same as Aristotelian base matter, “original” sin is clearly a mixture of the two. But it is still all a Greek metaphysic, with Jewish trappings. So many have been fooled by them, but take away the Messiah, the god of Abraham, the O.T. and the later artificial Judaising (Similar to Jews for Jesus) elements and you still have the fundamental framework of what xtianty is.

 

Jesus is a combination of so many elements, its hard to get to the first essential parts, (especially as so few are familiar with philosophical idealism, and metaphysics, let alone the mystery cults). But look to the earliest basics laid out in Paul, and ignore the window dressing, and you have something that we as freethinkers and philosophers need to be aware is our responsibility, as our intellectual ancestors did this. Not desert dwelling zeolots or priests, but the great minds many of us look up to. They made it, only we can unmake it. They may not have spliced it into that terrible cult that destroyed free inquiry for over a thousand years, but without their constructs and experiments this would not have been possible. This is the greatest embarrassment philosophy has, and we need to treat is as damage control when dealing with xtianty. Anyway do you seriously think there was this guy in Judea telling everyone that he was the Platonic Logos being?

 

More later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent summary AUB! :thanks:

 

When I first rejected Christianity, I assumed that Jesus had been a real person, but that the fantastic parts of the story were myth. But as I continued to learn more and more, I started to doubt that.

 

The one thing that really got me wondering was the whole business with Nazareth. All evidence suggests there was no Nazareth in the 1st century. That isn't enough to say a Jesus of some kind didn't exist, but it is enough to throw serious question on it. If the gospel writers got such a basic fact wrong, can we really trust anything they said?

 

I recall running across another tidbit that I'm still trying to confirm if it's true or not, which is that records were kept of those who were crucified, but that such records are conveniently missing for the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified. Does anyone know anything about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great to see another thread on this! I’m doing more research into the background............

 

 

Great post - thanks a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear AUB, I would be sure to take into account Morton Smith's thesis that Jesus was a "magus," that the event with the young man in the garden of Gethsemane was an initiation into his cult. Smith resisted the Jesus-myth position. I'd be interested if you've read The Secret Gospel and Jesus the Magician. I had a year-long course with Smith on Palestinian history back when. He was proud to tell us that he had "solved the problem of the historical Jesus."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother AUB,

 

I didn't find your explanation convincing, and I've never been given a good reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus. I actually don't really give a damn whether a historical Jesus lived or not since I don't believe the religious claims made about him by Christians anyway. My views on the historical Jesus come largely from the Jesus Seminar, and from research on the issue done over the last several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spamandham

I recall running across another tidbit that I'm still trying to confirm if it's true or not, which is that records were kept of those who were crucified, but that such records are conveniently missing for the time when Jesus was supposedly crucified. Does anyone know anything about that?

 

There are rumours like this all over the place, full-of-it xtains claiming there are records of the crucifixion, amateur mythicists claiming the lack of records prove there was no such execution. All bunk, total nonsense, not only is there no evidence Romans made such records, but there were regular fires in Rome that would have destroyed any such records. This is a real non-issue, the lack of records serves neither side in this debate.

 

ficino

Dear AUB, I would be sure to take into account Morton Smith's thesis that Jesus was a "magus," that the event with the young man in the garden of Gethsemane was an initiation into his cult. Smith resisted the Jesus-myth position. I'd be interested if you've read The Secret Gospel and Jesus the Magician. I had a year-long course with Smith on Palestinian history back when. He was proud to tell us that he had "solved the problem of the historical Jesus."

 

This old chestnut? Morton Smith is just another academic projecting his own image onto Jesus, even if all his finding were accurate, (big if) it still barely scratches the surface. This goes far deeper than a few alternate gospels, historicists can be remarkably obtuse. His theory is just a minor variation of the Talmudic view of Jesus, and fails to take into account all the many details mythicism touches upon, as such this lack of depth makes his work easy to ignore.

 

 

Brother Jeff

I didn't find your explanation convincing, and I've never been given a good reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

 

I could probably have rephrased the case a bit better, it’s a tricky picture to depict. Basically the xtian view of Earth, humanity god and Jesus derive from Aristotelian idealism, not Judaism, therefore could not have had a historical beginning, as these things are metaphysical not messianic or Jewish which is what the historical Jesus would have been. Its a matter of peeling back the layers, any historical Jesus would not have resulted in such a theology, as it was anything but Earthly in focus.

A guy in Judea walking around claiming to be the messiah? Yes, but not a intermediary Logos, that's not how it works. And as the messianic elements are the most contradictory, problematical (ask the Jews), and easy removed (look at the Gnostics and Marcions) they can be ruled as a superficial addition. Messiah to Logos doesn’t explain the intermediary emphasis present from the very begging, nor could a gentile cult have started with a Jewish messiah.

 

I actually don't really give a damn whether a historical Jesus lived or not since I don't believe the religious claims made about him by Christians anyway.

Can’t say I blame you, its just something I’m interested in as the Jesus issue has always bugged me.

 

My views on the historical Jesus come largely from the Jesus Seminar, and from research on the issue done over the last several years.

 

The Jesus seminar was a good start but still too orthodox, and prone to church influence. The underline flaw was an a priori assumption of historicity, even when ruling out the many gospel teaching as apocryphal. I find Robert M. Price’s work by far the best of all the fellows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has come up numerous times, but I don't recall the following excellent resource being brought into it.

 

For those who are not familiar with Earl Doherty, here is a link to his argument for a mythical Jesus http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm.

 

Having read through the first few chapters, I'm fairly convinced he is correct, and his arguments corroborate my own layman's research. 

 

I would be particularly interested in a non-faith-based discussion from any Christians here as to why his arguments are invalid, particularly the argument that the earliest writings of the New Testament depict Jesus as a purely spiritual being who's sacrifice happened before the beginning of time and was being revealed by Paul.

 

(everyone is welcome to pitch in though)

 

Spandham, I think I definitely qualify for being a non-faith-based follower of Christ! :grin: My personal studies have alligned me with much more of a 'metaphysical' interpretation of Jesus... as I believe another person has already posted emphasis on that concept attributed to their 'mythical' Jesus interpretations. All that has been interesting to me, has been the "teachings" attributed to Jesus, as I study them more closely to the manuscript from which the KJV was derived. I do tend to lean towards Jesus having been a real person.

 

Spandham, the site which you refer has a basic foundation that there are no other recorded documents to Jesus other than the Gospels. I have found resources in opposition to that theory, a couple among many can be accessed below. These site nonChristian sources... including a visit by Jesus to India and some references to him by Islam. There are also just historical accounts. It seems to me that one must remember that literacy was NOT at an all time high at that time... Newsweek and Time magazines were not quite on the scene... not even The Inquirer or The Globe were there to give us all the intimate details... :wicked:

 

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm

 

and

 

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

 

It seems to me that Jesus had concepts that were so socially revolutionary at the time, it was quite dangerous to associate one's self with him... much less make a strong stand on his validity! Those who did so, did it in fear... and NO ONE wanted to play 'chase' with the lions in the arena!!!

 

Further, it seems to me... that attributing these concepts to Jesus was dangerous... yet why would anyone with such outstanding teachings, especially for the times, want to credit them to a mythical person? That is almost like Einstien or Plato crediting Santa Claus for their theories! :scratch:

 

Someone mentioned that Nazareth had not existed at the time of Christ. I believe it was Mythra that use to have a saying at the bottom of his posts saying that Jesus was from another town... and I'd really like to hear more about that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do tend to lean towards Jesus having been a real person.

Spandham, the site which you refer has a basic foundation that there are no other recorded documents to Jesus other than the Gospels. I have found resources in opposition to that theory, a couple among many can be accessed below. These site nonChristian sources... 

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm

 

and 

 

http://www.sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

Amanda, perhaps you could look at the first link you provided and read the "nonChristian" sources, concentrating especially hard on the birth dates of the authors, then consider how much weight you would actually give to a source who was not even born when the supposed events took place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned that Nazareth had not existed at the time of Christ. I believe it was Mythra that use to have a saying at the bottom of his posts saying that Jesus was from another town... and I'd really like to hear more about that....

Amanda, here's a link to peruse if you're interested.

Jesus Never Existed

 

Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's nothing there that proves anything. All these accounts are second hand and written decades after the purported facts.

 

 

Interesting, but the Acts of Thomas (upon which the argument seems to center), is dated to 200CE+, and thus is irrelevant in establishing the historicity of Jesus.

 

It seems to me that Jesus had concepts that were so socially revolutionary at the time, it was quite dangerous to associate one's self with him

 

Like what? Freedom of thought was rampant in Greek society of the day. Unless you badmouthed Rome, no-one cared. Nothing of the teachings attributed to Jesus is revolutionary in the slightest.

 

Someone mentioned that Nazareth had not existed at the time of Christ. I believe it was Mythra that use to have a saying at the bottom of his posts saying that Jesus was from another town... and I'd really like to hear more about that....

 

There are a couple of ancient listings of cities, and Nazareth isn't in them. Further, the Bible says Nazareth had a synagogue, and it had 'a crowd of people', and it had at least one cliff. The modern Nazareth has no cliffs, but further, it was "discovered" by the Church in the 4th century to try to cover this gross Biblical error.

 

The verse that says (paraphrased) "thus fulfilling the prophecy that he would be called a Nazorean" refers to a nonexistent prophecy. The actual prophecy is that the Messiah would be a Nazorite, meaning "one devoted to god". This misunderstanding of scripture by the gospel writer demonstrates that (a) the Gospel writers knew nothing about a historical Jesus (if there was one), and ( B) they were probably not even Jewish, but instead were Greeks influenced by Jewish customs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are several more sites dealing with the utter hopelessness of Xtian fundie literalist dogma, contrived BS, and the "inerrant" "word" of "perfect" biblegod.

 

This link has good discussion, as well as including some things by Doherty

http://home.freeuk.com/jesusmyth/index.html

 

A massive site by Dr. Mike Magee---lots of material

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/

 

Biblical Inconsistencies by Donald Morgan

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...sistencies.html

 

'Forgery in Christianity' by Joseph Wheless:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ity/index.shtml

 

'Is It God's Word?' by Joseph Wheless:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ord/index.shtml

 

....I think I definitely qualify for being a non-faith-based follower of Christ!....
OK then....here is material you may find interesting..

 

The complete on-line Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn library, including 'Who Is This King of Glory?' and other commentary on Esotericism:

http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm

 

Massey's perspectives:

On ancient Egypt: http://www.theosophical.ca/AncientEgyptIntroduction.htm

The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ: http://www.theosophical.ca/MythicalChrist.htm

 

Regards,

 

K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amanda, perhaps you could look at the first link you provided and read the "nonChristian" sources, concentrating especially hard on the birth dates of the authors, then consider how much weight you would actually give to a source who was not even born when the supposed events took place.

 

Bob... YOU ARE VERY OBSERVANT! Thanks for bringing that to my closer examination. Although these people may have been born after Jesus had supposedly died, some were born very near his death... and NOT being Christians, what agendas would they have to perpetrate the validity of such a real person in history, if not to record the truth? Then there is the claim that Jesus was in India through the Buddhist documents also, and I believe the Islamic people recognize him too.

 

Obviously Jesus was not a guy with whom you would want to associate yourself in his day. He was quite unpopular and inflamatory to those in power at the time, which could put one in a compromising position to allign themselves to him in a positive light in any way! As the story goes... ALL the disciples, but one, were killed due to their promotion of this man Jesus... along with many others.

 

Further, Jesus' emphasis were on the disadvantaged of that time... which were NOT too likely to be literate, nor likely to write something that would of been preserved for history. It seems that Jesus operated from a position of having no alterior motives... but to share, teach, and live out his principles. I think he never had intentions of becoming famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although these people may have been born after Jesus had supposedly died, some were born very near his death... and NOT being Christians, what agendas would they have to perpetrate the validity of such a real person in history, if not to record the truth?
Perhaps they were simply repeating what they had been taught all their life. Perhaps all they were doing was writing down what they had heard from someone else. Perhaps it was simply tradition, and has nothing to do with the truth.

 

Obviously Jesus was not a guy with whom you would want to associate yourself in his day. He was quite unpopular and inflamatory to those in power at the time, which could put one in a compromising position to allign themselves to him in a positive light in any way!
This statement is based on the biblical description of Jesus life. You are assuming that these stories are true, about Jesus being considered dangerous, by the religious leaders of the time. What if these stories are not true, and that Jesus, if he existed, was pretty much ignored because he was not a threat, because he did not command much of a following? That would be the safer assumption because there is no contemporary, written, eye witness accounts to his life. Why would you believe "He was quite unpopular and inflamatory to those in power at the time" when there is no evidence that that is true?

 

As the story goes... ALL the disciples, but one, were killed due to their promotion of this man Jesus... along with many others.
Again, bible stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The business about the disciples being martyred is church tradition rather than Bible stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.