Jesus is a Myth

[Ouroboros]

I mean, click on the "yeshu" tab and see what they have to say about Jesus.  They say he was a real dude, but not a jew.  He taught "a unique form of Nazirean Gnosis called Nazirutha".

 

Then, in the "nazorean" article it mentions that one of the names for the Nazorean Gnostics was N'Tzrim.  Then, I reread the first link in this thread by the Jewish guy, Hayyim ben Yehoshua.  He said that the jews called the first christians "Notzrim".  weird.

 

This shit is freakin' me out, man.  

It was probably just as confusing in the first century, and maybe that's why the orthodox Christianity could get a foothold. It could bring a consensus and order to the free-for-all religion, as it was in the beginning.

[- AUB -]

Hansolo is correct, 1st century xtianity was a mess, hence it being so now, but even more so then regarding the nature of Jesus. By the second century many were desperate for consensus.

 

The confusion can be put into 2 categories, modern theories, those that try to re-build the “real” Jesus and give him names like Yeshua ben Noztri etc, many of these are presumptuous or ignorant. Then there are the ancient groups that claim an old lineage, like the Ebeonite’s and those mythra mentioned, they either re-imagine from scanty data what the “original” cults were like or they genuinely have an old lineage, but may have reinvented themselves further alone the way. (Some clearly developed from later gospels traditions that prefured a more down to earth jesus, which they imagine came first) None of these groups can prove Jesus was real or that they pre-date Paul, but they do have some true Gnostic and neo-platonic elements that can give you idea of what the primitive pre-historical Jesus worshipers were like. Think of it as a anthropology study, though many of the best mythicists have already gone over them quite well.

[Mythra]

One thing would certainly be answered if Jesus had been a Nazorean Essene. That is, the misunderstanding of "Nazareth". Perhaps Jesus was called a Nazorean elsewhere, (even internally - isn't there a verse that says, "he shall be called a nazorean?" then the story of Nazareth was made up to support the misconception, with the writer not realizing there was no such place.

 

Make sense?

[Ouroboros]

One thing would certainly be answered if Jesus had been a Nazorean Essene.  That is, the misunderstanding of "Nazareth".  Perhaps Jesus was called a Nazorean elsewhere, (even internally - isn't there a verse that says, "he shall be called a nazorean?"  then the story of Nazareth was made up to support the misconception, with the writer not realizing there was no such place.

 

Make sense?

I think it makes totally sense. But I wonder if the word Nazorean means something else than "From Nazareth", could it have another meaning (maybe in another form), like "Nose picker", or "Word-of-Life", or "Like-Tequila-Much", I just wonder... If it does have some meaning instead of being a place, then it makes sense that when the writers lost the true meaning of the word, they made up the story about Nazareth!

[DanInPA]

I read somewhere that "Nazarene" was a misuse of "Nazirite", an OT distinction that meant "separated to the lord" or something like that.

 

Numbers 6-NIV

The Nazirite

    1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

    5 " 'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. 6 Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. 7 Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. 8 Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD.

 

    9 " 'If someone dies suddenly in his presence, thus defiling the hair he has dedicated, he must shave his head on the day of his cleansing—the seventh day. 10 Then on the eighth day he must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 11 The priest is to offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for him because he sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day he is to consecrate his head. 12 He must dedicate himself to the LORD for the period of his separation and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because he became defiled during his separation.

 

    13 " 'Now this is the law for the Nazirite when the period of his separation is over. He is to be brought to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 14 There he is to present his offerings to the LORD : a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, [a] 15 together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made without yeast—cakes made of fine flour mixed with oil, and wafers spread with oil.

 

    16 " 'The priest is to present them before the LORD and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. 17 He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the LORD, together with its grain offering and drink offering.

 

    18 " 'Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering.

 

    19 " 'After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair of his dedication, the priest is to place in his hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and a cake and a wafer from the basket, both made without yeast. 20 The priest shall then wave them before the LORD as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine.

 

    21 " 'This is the law of the Nazirite who vows his offering to the LORD in accordance with his separation, in addition to whatever else he can afford. He must fulfill the vow he has made, according to the law of the Nazirite.' "

[Saviourmachine]

I read somewhere that "Nazarene" was a misuse of "Nazirite", an OT distinction that meant "separated to the lord" or something like that.

Recently this webpage was suggested by one of the posters: Myth of the Historical Veracity of Jesus

 

But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene.") The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (Nazarene, Christian), "Natzrati" (Nazarethite) and "nazir" (nazarite), all of which have completely different meanings...

 

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout--an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.

Don't copy from this quote, it's only here for eductional purposes. I recommend to read the original source. See copyright at the bottom of that page.

[Mythra]

Good homework, saviour. I had forgotten that was in there.

 

The nazarene talk has reminded me of all of the "prophecies" that are quoted as christians to prove that the bible is true. In the church I was in, the pastor said over and over that there were 365 "indisputable" prophecies in the old testament that had been fulfilled. Yeah. Sure. Whatever. Here are a couple:

 

Matt 2:23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene".

 

John 7:38 as the Scripture has said, "streams of living water will flow from within him."

 

Cool. Prophecies. Why don't one of you scholarly christians look those up for us in the OT. (Hint - pack a lunch)

 

The "prophecies" in the bible are contrived and forced. Just look for yourself. When a scripture is quoted in the NT, make sure to look it up in the OT. Do some homework. You will see that the verses are tweaked and manipulated in order to make them appear to be prophecies, but sometimes they are talking about something completely different than the messiah.

 

And that is taking the assumption that the gospel story happened. If you take the position that it never really happened, it's surprising that there weren't a lot more "prophecies" written in.

[spamandham]

John 7:38 as the Scripture has said, "streams of living water will flow from within him."

 

I knew there was another one buried in there that I couldn't remember. Thanks!

 

 

I seem to recall that there is at least one named reference in the NT to a noncanonical scripture as well. Does anyone recall that?

[Ouroboros]

Good homework, saviour. I had forgotten that was in there.

 

The nazarene talk has reminded me of all of the "prophecies" that are quoted as christians to prove that the bible is true.  In the church I was in, the pastor said over and over that there were 365 "indisputable" prophecies in the old testament that had been fulfilled.  Yeah.  Sure.  Whatever. Here are a couple:

 

Matt 2:23  and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth.  So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene".

 

Hmmm, could this Nazirit "faith" group have been a cult? If Jesus came from a cult from start, maybe Jesus was (probably under another name) just one of the more outspoken teachers of the cult.

[Mythra]

In the book of Acts, it is called "the sect of the Nazarenes".

 

Now, if Nazareth did not exist at that time, (and it didn't)

 

What else could this mean, but a religious sect?

 

There is a town called Nazareth today, is there not? I wonder what the actual history of it is. My guess is that Constantine's mommy had em build it when she went on a tour of Palestine in 280 CE and couldn't find the place.

[Ouroboros]

In the book of Acts, it is called "the sect of the Nazarenes". 

 

Now, if Nazareth did not exist at that time, (and it didn't)

 

What else could this mean, but a religious sect?

 

There is a town called Nazareth today, is there not?  I wonder what the actual history of it is.  My guess is that Constantine's mommy had em build it when she went on a tour of Palestine in 280 CE and couldn't find the place.

That makes sense. Or maybe the city was built by some real Nazirits from the sect, at some time between. I'm not sure how old that city is. Maybe it didn't exist just a few hundred years ago...

[chefranden]

Hmmm, could this Nazirit "faith" group have been a cult? If Jesus came from a cult from start, maybe Jesus was (probably under another name) just one of the more outspoken teachers of the cult.

All religions are cults.

[Ouroboros]

All religions are cults.

Yes, very true.

 

Let me rephrase to "a minor religious faction of judaism", maybe works better, I'm not sure.

[Kryten]

I knew there was another one buried in there that I couldn't remember.  Thanks!

I seem to recall that there is at least one named reference in the NT to a noncanonical scripture as well.  Does anyone recall that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jude 1:14 refers to a prophecy in The Book of Enoch, and in Mat 27:9-10, "Jesus" quotes Jeremiah when the passage is really in Zechariah (11:12). Oops!

[spamandham]

Jude 1:14 refers to a prophecy in The Book of Enoch, and in Mat 27:9-10, "Jesus" quotes Jeremiah when the passage is really in Zechariah (11:12).  Oops!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks! I've been arguing with a Bible literalist on another site, and spent the threshold of the amount of time I was willing to waste trying to find the Jude reference. I didn't know about Mat 27:9-10.

[Heimdall]

Just an aside, the Jude reference doesn't really mean anything. Enoch is a pseudepigrapha penned in the second or first century BCE by Macabeean scribes during the period they were reconstituting the scriptures that were destroyed when their Greek overlords destroyed the temple! It was during this period that Daniel was either rewritten or was created (epigraphists point out 2nd/1st century BCE word useage, etc) along with several other books. With this in mind and the fact that Enoch was never even considered for inclusion in the Jewish or Christ Cult canons, any reference in Jude probably was not for Enoch and if it was would not be important - Heimdall

[- AUB -]

HanSolo

 

Let me rephrase to "a minor religious faction of judaism", maybe works better, I'm not sure.

 

Not necessarily, they would like you to think they’re an offshoot (or successor, whatever) of Judaism, but that’s just part of their re-written history. All the facts point to a Gentile neo-platonic cult, stealing Jewish theology for its own uses, no more a legitimate faction than Mohammed’s cult was a true successor to xtianity, the shmucks just tacked on Jewish mythology to give their new idea a fake history, (old sold back then). Mohammed with his moon god, Paul with his personality cult. You’re playing into their hands if you assume a Jewish origin, same reason Paul pretended to be a Pharisee, its a legitimacy they don’t deserve.

 

Hmmm, could this Nazirit "faith" group have been a cult? If Jesus came from a cult from start, maybe Jesus was (probably under another name) just one of the more outspoken teachers of the cult.

 

 

The Nazarene confusion is due to a post-Paul label Jesus got lumbered with that was either misunderstood or disliked, if the later then it may have meant he was part of a group, and xtians would rather he lead, or was solo than followed others. If the former (as a mythicist I see this as more likely), then it was Jewish term not known to gentiles, Nazareth existed by the time the second century xtians decided it refereed to that town, and re-translated it thus. (the OT makes similar mistakes in naming cities as existing long before they actually did, such as Genesis mentioned places during the time of Isaac, but were only contemporary with the 6th century BCE writers). The term Nazirite is sometimes thought to be what was originally meant but this is unlikely, Matthew may have been dumb enough to misunderstand but most would know it clearly meant a sect Samson was part of.

 

 

Mythra

 

The "prophecies" in the bible are contrived and forced. Just look for yourself. When a scripture is quoted in the NT, make sure to look it up in the OT. Do some homework. You will see that the verses are tweaked and manipulated in order to make them appear to be prophecies, but sometimes they are talking about something completely different than the messiah.

 

Yes, this is a very important part of xtianity’s origins, they took the OT and “divined” Jesus from it, and at first the OT was the NT, twisted to tell the Jesus story. In other words they pieced together what they thought the messiah was supposed to be, and what he had already done from OT passages. That’s one of the reasons the gospels stories are Midrashic re-tellings of OT myths, as that’s were they came from, (that and the gospels writers were talentless hacks). But as the myth developed new story elements had to be matched up to OT “prophecies” hence the really bad Matthew quotes, they had to stick to the formula even when the Jesus myth had started to borrow from pagan archetypes. The later gospels dropped this method (for the most part).

[spamandham]

I recall seeing a theory at one point that links Jesus entire life to the zodiac including the order in which Gospel characters are introduced in the ministry of Jesus. First is John the Baptist (aquarius), followed by James and John (the two fish of pisces), etc.

 

If this can be shown to more than just one writer's interpretation, I think it would seal the case for a mythical Jesus.

 

The obvious zodiac allusions in the NT can not simply be dismissed, including the fact that Jesus arrived on the scene right at the dawn of the age of pisces, and one of the symbols for Jesus just happens to be a fish, but perhaps they are not enough to make an airtight case either.

 

Notice how worked up new agers have gotten over the dawning of the age of aquarius? ...and this in an age of reason and relative enlightenment. Just imagine how worked up ancient people would have gotten over the dawning of a new astrological age. Perhaps enough to form a whole new religion?...

[Ouroboros]

I recall seeing a theory at one point that links Jesus entire life to the zodiac including the order in which Gospel characters are introduced in the ministry of Jesus.  First is John the Baptist (aquarius), followed by James and John (the two fish of pisces), etc. 

 

If this can be shown to more than just one writer's interpretation, I think it would seal the case for a mythical Jesus.

 

The obvious zodiac allusions in the NT can not simply be dismissed, including the fact that Jesus arrived on the scene right at the dawn of the age of pisces, and one of the symbols for Jesus just happens to be a fish, but perhaps they are not enough to make an airtight case either.

 

Notice how worked up new agers have gotten over the dawning of the age of aquarius?  ...and this in an age of reason and relative enlightenment.  Just imagine how worked up ancient people would have gotten over the dawning of a new astrological age. Perhaps enough to form a whole new religion?...

 

This sounds familiar... I wonder if Joseph Campbell talked about this?

[Guest CRCampbell]

If someone claims to have known Jesus wouldn't Occam's razor suggest that they had? Why lie about it? What would they have got out of it?

 

No. Occam's razor doesn't claim to take people at their word. Occam's razor would more likely parse it as:

 

Which is more likely:

 

a) The Jesus of the New Testament is a mythical religious figure in the line of many, such as Zeus, Thor, Mars, and Krishna.

 

OR

 

/ This Jesus of the New Testament did exist, rose from the dead, and flew off into heaven.

 

Based the the lack of credible evidence for B, Occam's razor would rule A the most likely of the two. Therefore, we can eliminate the possibly that B is true.

 

Also, your apology for Jesus existing is lousy. You claim that the the followers of Christ are living proof that Bible Jesus really existed. By that logic, Muslims could claim Islam (Mohammed) is true because they exist, Mormons could Joseph Smith's clams are true because they exist, and Hindus could claim their gods exist because they are present.

 

This is lazy, intellectually-dishonest thinking on your part. You really should apologize.

[Ouroboros]

Welcome to the board CRCampbell,

 

Related to Joseph?

[RedPillAddict]

http://members.aol.com/valinda555/csp01001.html    You all have got to read that.    It shows how myths got started.  It is for children but boy, is it good for those still in the land of "make believe".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! That is awesome. They should make them into books.

[Ouroboros]

http://members.aol.com/valinda555/csp01001.html    You all have got to read that.    It shows how myths got started.  It is for children but boy, is it good for those still in the land of "make believe".

Super-Story! Explanation made easy.

[♦ ficino ♦]

http://members.aol.com/valinda555/csp01001.html    You all have got to read that.    It shows how myths got started.  It is for children but boy, is it good for those still in the land of "make believe".

 

Right on. I can hear just what I would have said about that site back when I was a fundy - 'out of the pit of hell,' 'oughtta be investigated and shut down,' 'doesn't explain how life started or how the universe began so there must be a superhuman God after all,' 'fails to realize how jesus changes lives,' 'people loving each other without God is a LIBERAL socialist-summer camp delusion,' etc.

[- AUB -]

CRCampbell

 

Succinct post. It would be less frustrating if apologism rose above the level of the fallacial nonsense you dealt with, but even leading works like The Case For Christ make exactly the same arguments.

 

We shouldn’t be surprised, they are both unprepared for mythicism and trained to use only reassuring bunk, rather than genuinely honest and decent arguments, capable of dealing with critical thinkers. I suggest a new strategy, one less frustrating, I’m working on it now.