Did Jesus Exist?

[Mythra]

I freakin knew something was up. Had no clue it was Rameus. The first time I came to this site, I read a thread between Rameus and a fundy.

 

But I KNEW that no Harvard PhD was gonna say he believed in Satan, and that he believed Satan inspired parts of the old testament.

 

I KNEW there was an odor in the air. Glad to have it solved.

[Amanda]

99595[/snapback]

 

Hello again Asuryan... and thank you for expanding my insights into the blatant oppression there. It certainly makes me consider all those cathedrals, fountains, and statutes in a new light.

 

I hope your friend finds his way in overcoming the oppression there. He can't expect the church to be 'totally' in truth... as no one walks on water, right? It seems like there should be some kind of support groups to denounce this kind of repressive position, secretly any way. Hopefully things will start changing in these regards world wide, like I understand it is in Holland.

 

You're a brave guy.

[Fweethawt]

Farewell my friends, perhaps I will make a point of dropping in once a year to check up on you in the future.  And more importantly, to test the sharpness of your steel.

 

Your old friend,

Rameus

Thanks for stopping by, Rameus.

 

Try to make it more than once a year though.

 

 

Was I the only one who heard the sound of a whip cracking just now?

 

[Asuryan]

Farewell my friends, perhaps I will make a point of dropping in once a year to check up on you in the future.  And more importantly, to test the sharpness of your steel.

 

Your old friend,

Rameus

99795[/snapback]

 

 

You always were one of our finest members, Rameus.

When you've got some free time on your hands please come back again And the next time, come back to stay!

[Asuryan]

Hello again Asuryan... and thank you for expanding my insights into the blatant oppression there. It certainly makes me consider all those cathedrals, fountains, and statutes in a new light. 

 

Another thing that can explain why italian Catholics are so blatantly ignorant about their faith tenets, the bible, the gospels and so on, is the fact that reading the bible has been considered an heresy here for centuries. You could be burned at the stake for merely possessing a bible... or trying to translate it from latin. Only priests could possess a bible.

Today, the RCC keeps being silent on the "reading the bible/ the gospels" subject. No priest encourages the people at mass to read their holy book, no sunday school teacher does that with the children. There is no approval sign from the church representatives if someone starts studying the bible. So what was and has been an heresy for centuries has slowly become fossilized as a cultural trait.

No one here reads the bible. Now you know the reasons why. A sad thing.

 

You're a brave guy. 

99926[/snapback]

 

Girl

[Amanda]

99960[/snapback]

 

Not only are you a very brave lady, but your insights are amazing for living in such a situation. Did you learn this from some sort of underground movement there?

[- AUB -]

I everyone, I didn't intend to post until after my research is finished but when I saw the subject of this thread...

 

Mythicism is finally getting the attention is deserves, and with the beast film it should get mainstream coverage. As for myself, I've pretty much finished my NT studies for now, and will gladly answer any questions on the Gospels you may have.

 

Also, for fans of The Bible Geek (on Infidel Guy) in episode 10 the worlds leading mythicist, (apart from Doherty) Robert Price was kind enough to answer some questions on this issue I mailed him, here's the entire show.

 

(right click save as)

 

Bible Geek ep 10

 

(45:25 in)

 

Here the complete list I sent him.

 

I'm a mythicist of the Earl Doherty variety, and am attempting to model an unbroken theological chain covering the ideas that went into Paul's idea of “Christ Jesus” to the Gospel and Nicean concepts. Can you give me your opinion as to whether Philo's Logos - Son of God could have been the primary source for Paul's Jesus, (date wise is this likely?).

 

Also do you except that the gospel writers, especialy Luke relied heavely on Josephus in order to foster the impression that they were writing history? (I know Mark may not have meant to give this impression, but John went out of his way to correct various historical errors the others commited). Including the Gadarene swine miracle which appears to be a anti-Semitic satire of the 1st Jewish War’s greatest massacre.

 

And I’d love your opinion on the Flavian Hypothesis as I’m currently writing a critique of it, for one of its proponents, (you know him).

 

Whenever I try to trace back the theology I end up in Athens rather than Jerusalem. Do you have arguments against the position that Platonic idealism provided the inspiration for Christianity, more than Judaism, for example Ebionite origins, the supposed Jerusalem apostolic church etc?

 

I’m aware that the early Pauline epistles contain references to such groups, Peter, James the “other” Jesus, etc, could these be interpolations? If so how much of the less obviously pseudepigraphical epistles are interpolated? I imagine as the earliest writings there are bound to be more than any later NT material, to cover up the extent to which the theology mutated.

 

Also would you say that in all probability the entire bible is essentially pseudepigraphical?

 

P.S. I read Beyond Born Again, do you find it ironic that the arguments you used on behalf of liberal Christianity against evangelical apolagetics as examples of alternatives they don’t acknowledge are now the same arguments you use to defend your atheism?

 

- AUB -

[Asuryan]

Not only are you a very brave lady, but your insights are amazing for living in such a situation. Did you learn this from some sort of underground movement there?

100134[/snapback]

 

No real underground movement here, sadly.

 

My first atheist model of life was my uncle. Some time ago I wrote something about him, on the Rants and Replies section (but maybe, it was before the forum was restarted again); two degrees, one in psychology and one in pedadogy, a fine, cultured man with an interest in classical music, reading and art (traveling too, visiting museums, and so on).

While I grew up, he was there for me, he asked some questions when I couldn't explain what was that worried me, answered my questions when I posed them to him, taught me by example, and so on. He was the kindest man in the world (not realistic but... still... the kindest man I've ever known). He always said that he didn't want any flowers on his grave, nor prayers, and he didn't want people to be sad for his death, because he'd rather have people around him remember him with a smile and lots of good memories. He didn't think that there was a heaven of some sort, he simply had accepted death and the idea of closing his eyes and never opening them again. He always said he had lived a full life, and that when his moment would come, he only hoped he wouldn't suffer.

 

Well he was the first blade of light through the shutters for me. His quiet acceptance of death, his total absence of fear toward the concept of dying forever (no soul, no heaven), the way he was a better person than almost everyone else...

 

After that, and after his death, I kept wondering. He opened my eyes to a different reality. I then started a thorough search for informations. Since I study at the university, I had access to big catalogues of books, usually not available through the normal bookstores, and only at disposal of scholars, students researching for their thesis, professors and researchers. Serious essays, with lots of informations. A thorough research about the bible in the middle ages, and how it was prohibited to read it, then a book analyzing marriage in the middle ages (and the views of st. augustine about it as well), then an inquisitor's manual that he wrote himself (eymerick), and so on, and so on...

I was shocked to find out how many books never manage to get in the bookstores. These books are "dangerous" here, but they're admitted for professors, researchers and scholars that already know where to find them and what to ask for. Then I kept going on and started ordering some books, the ones that still weren't translated to italian, directly from america or england, in english of course. Mind Myths was the best one so far.

 

There's no underground movement. I've managed to find and surround myself of a small but strong group of atheists and skeptics. My boyfriend is one of them, most of my friends are from this group. Usually, we meet IRL or on the web, and we speak about christianity. They tell me about their experiences with christians and discrimination, about their latest quarrel with some christian acquaintance, and I give them in turn informations and opinions: not many of them know english as well as I do (and still, my english is far from perfect, although I can understand everything I read, writing and speaking it are a different matter!), they can't access my sources as easily as I can, reading the books I've bought online, or even browsing the skeptics annotated bible or comparing a KJ bible against a CEI bible... I translate something today, I point a blatant contradiction tomorrow, I paste a piece from the skeptics annotated bible here and there... I can see that they are happy that I am taking the time to share my points of view with them (and I always point out my sources, so that they can do some research on them themselves, if they want to), and even more happy that I give them sharper and sharper weapons with which to defend themselves against threats of everlasting hell and accusations of being evil and disrespectful and blaspheme.

 

Sure, there are some groups and associations like CICAP and UAAR here, but the first one is an association of scientists intent on debunking many so-called "mysteries" without much attention on faith issues and so-called miracles, while UAAR is an atheist association, rather big I'd say, but to be part of it you have to pay, and it's completely lacking the "support" and "sharing" part, that here on exchristian I can find so easily and wholly. I'm not much for it.

So the best I could do myself was putting together and nurturing this small group of skeptic friends and acquaintances. They're happy, I'm happy, who knows, maybe in the future I'll be able to do even more. Maybe run for politics? The first female president of Italy...

[Ouroboros]

I everyone, I didn't intend to post until after my research is finished but when I saw the subject of this thread...

100422[/snapback]

It would be interesting to see your viewpoint on the arguments from Abram.

The section at InfidelGuy is only for gold members, and I'm not even registered yet.

[Mythra]

I everyone, I didn't intend to post until after my research is finished but when I saw the subject of this thread...

100422[/snapback]

 

GAWDAMMIT! Now the A team shows up.

 

We coulda used you a couple days ago, AUB. Hope you'll be around more.

[mako]

I know that it is a little like beating a dead horse, but the allegations made by Abram need to be addressed:

 

I'm sorry mako, but your information is incorrect. Normally I would quote a text I have from a Persian scholar, Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, but if there is one lesson I have learned here, quite painfully, its that you tend to put more credence in online evidence. Again, from your own skeptical encyclopedia:

 

It is your prerogative to disagree, however I am standing on ground that is just as heavily defended as that of Mr. Curtis. In his “Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith”, Peter Clark had this to say:

"Linguistic evidence has suggested a strong case for placing Zarathushtra at the time of the emergence and compilation of the last text relating to the Vedic religion, that is, between 1750 and 1400 BCE (although the Rig Veda did not receive its final redaction until 900 BCE). The dating is approximate and 1200 or the more precise 1080 BCE have also been suggested from linguistic research. The Gathas and the hymns of the Rig Veda exhibit such a similarity of grammatical style and vocabulary that it is certain that they both derive from a common parent language and thus presume a common cultural and religious heritage. In addition to this cosmetic affinity there are also other significant points of convergence, and so the Haoma ceremony, whose abuse Zarathushtra attacks, finds its Vedic counterpart in the Soma ritual, and indeed these two terms are related. In further evidence of this early dating, the imagery that Zarathushtra employs in the Gathas is that more associated with a pastoral economy than an agrarian one. just as the cow is a dominant feature of the Rig Veda, so she is of the Gathas."

"We should also note that in the roughly contemporary Rig Veda the idea of a cycle of rebirths - samsara - had not been established, and that this idea was not to emerge until the later texts called the Brahmanas; it is surely not by coincidence that neither does Zoroastrianism entertain notions of rebirth or reincarnation. Even though the Aryan split had taken place long before, at probably 2000 BCE, there is sufficient reason to think that there must have been some contact between the two peoples [Avestan and Vedic], even if it was only sporadic." I hate having to type out that much, but his points were too good to edit. In his “The Heritage of Persia”, Richard Frye says, “Zoroaster [Zarathushtra] (628-551 BC?) was probably a priest of the old Aryan religion, for he calls himself a zaotar (Indian hotar) in the Gatas (Yasna 33.6)....He also retained the old poetic form, for the meter of his Gathas is similar to that of the Vedas. He further exalted the concept of asha, 'truth', the rta of India, and further used words in the same sense as in the Vedas. The deity is like a partner in discourse with the prophet, and this is new with Zoroaster.

...The adherents of the old Aryan religion were more rites centered and the adherents of Zoroaster, perhaps to be designated as Aryan reformers, more belief centered." Those are but a few that see the age of the Avesta.

 

 

Or for those few of you who do use actual books, you might consult the following for a discussion on the dates and modes of transmission for the Persian sacred texts:

 

Curtis, Sarkhosh Vesta. Persian Myths (Austin: U. of Texas, 1998), 8-11

 

May I add to your list of one? Peter Clark, Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith, Richard N. Frye, The Heritage of Persia, Andrew Collins, From the Ashes of Angels, A. Jafary, The Zoroastrian Priest in the Avesta, Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind, Geoffrey Ashe, The Ancient Wisdom, Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Mag.

I'm afraid it means everything mako. The oldest Hebrew Bible / Old Testament texts are those discovered at Qumran, some of which date to the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C.E. Almost fifteen centuries older than the Avesta I might add. Physical remains of New Testament texts date as far back as the 2nd century A.D. Almost eleven centuries older than the Avesta. Using the Avesta as evidence against Christianity or Judaism is simply a poor method of argumentation, as all of the evidence extant simply eviscerates your arguments.

 

As I pointed out before and you just blew it off, the linguistic evidence of the age of the Avesta shows that it far outdates that of the OT. The age of existing copies of the OT as opposed to the age of the existing copies of the Avesta really mean very little. The fact that the area that Zoroasterism held sway was under the influence of foreign powers and religions for the last two millennia and that the Avesta was a collection of various “books” (some which were passed verbally for generations, as was the Quran, before being put to paper), would tend to explain the lack of a “paper trail”. Whereas the very opposite was true for the OT and the NT. Being the basis of the Christian religion, which dominated most of the “western world” and the near east for several centuries, these two documents would tend to preserved, although the oldest NT complete(?) copies date to the 4th century CE, the others you mention are only fragments and partial documents. The way your argument is written shows an extreme weakness in that it intimates that the OT/NT corpus is true because the extant copies are older than the Avesta copies. I guess this means that the Cult of Amun is really the true one, since it’s oldest copy dates to the 13th century BCE!

 

Again you are mistaken. You will have a very difficult time finding even a handful of liberal New Testament scholars who believe that the entire corpus of Hebrew sacred texts was written in a post 538 B.C.E. environment. However, one such scholar is Thomas Thompson. See:

 

Thompson, Thomas L. Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992).

 

The more mainstream, critical academic view put the Elohim-source and Jahwist-source to the eighth and ninth centuries B.C. There are various parts of the Torah that indicate that the authors were writing in the Dual Monarchy period (ca. 925 - 722 B.C.) And as we know, when the Assyrians destroyed Israel ca. 722 B.C., all that remained of the Israelites was the territory of Judah. Although it is certainly possible that two Judah authors wrote the J and E sources much later, but one would be left with the following questions:

 

1. Why did the E source (who if he was writing later, would have been from Judah) charge his account with such a pro Israel, anti Judah bias? And why does he seem to focus on the geography and political climate of Israel, which at that time would no longer exist?

 

2. Assyrian inscriptions of the conquest of Israel attest to the general accuracy of the account in the Tanakh. Although the biblical account basically asserts that the Assyrian host was turned away by God at Jerusalem, the Assyrians say that they were paid off to let the city stand. This was an eighth century event, so if the ancient Israelites were not keeping records, and the Old Testament was not written until after 538 B.C. as you have indicated, then how did they retain such (generally) accurate knowledge for eight or more generations?

 

3. The Tell-Dan inscription indicates that there may very well have been a Davidic Dynasty, which would have existed ca. 965 B.C.

 

4. Many of the cities mentioned in Exodus and Numbers are consistent with an eighth century Israelite environment (interestingly enough not a fourteenth or fifteen century B.C. environment, which would be necessary for the Exodus to have been a historical event.)

 

For these reasons, and numerous others, most mainline, critical scholars believe that J and E were writing in the eighth or ninth centuries B.C. The P source, and compilation and redaction of the documents into the Torah was more likely done during either the reformation of King Josiah (ca. 609 B.C.) as hinted at in II Kings 22, or perhaps as late as the Babylonian (ca. 586-538 B.C.) or even the Persian Period (post 538 B.C.) as hinted at in the Book of Ezra.

 

So your statement "it is easy to show that the Jewish scriptures were written after the return from Babylonia" is both irresponsible, and not supported by the evidence. Which is why most critical New Testament scholars in the United States, Christian and secular alike, reject it. There are however a number of European scholars, German in particular, who are in general agreement with you. If you want to pursue this line of argumentation you might consider learning German so you learn how to make the argument properly from those who do it for a living.

 

Well aware of what you are saying and even mentioned it in passing on another thread of this forum. What you haven’t pointed out is that the various “sources” are actually documents that support various varieties of what would become Judaism, and not the Pentateuch as we know it today. The”J” source (Yahweh/Jehovah) dates from around the 9th century and supported the Northern/Mushite version of Judaism, while the “E” source (of approximately the same period, albeit a few decades later) supported the Southern/AAronoid version. It is believed that these two sources were combined through sheer necessity after the Assyrian Diaspora (722 BCE) and later, because the Aaronoids perceived that their cult hero Aaron received short shift, the “P” source was “shoehorned into the combined “JE” source. The “P” source was a very successful and subtle attempt to restore prestige to Aaron. That is how the proMushite stance came into being and how the Aaronoids managed to temper it. You ask how they managed to keep the knowledge of their history over x number of generations. Well, since they were a literate peoples, they probably wrote the information down and then they (since they did enter the civil service of their conquerors) would have had access to both the Babylonian and eventually the Persian records. That one was a relative no-brainer. I love your mention of the Tel Dan/BYTDWD, knowing full well that there is a large controversy raging over the meaning of BYTDWD! When you point out that many of the cities mentioned in Exodus actually existed at that time, you validate the truth of Superman comics, because many of the cities mentioned in it, actually exist. Gee, I wonder why I have never seen Superman, since the story must be true, it mentions real cities! What makes you think that I don’t speak German, after all I speak Chinese (Gwuyu dialect), Mexican Spanish, some Tagalog, some Japanese, some Thai, some Vietnamese? I am aware of the works of these gentlemen and have read part of their works (where do you think I get my ideas from) and as the others become available, will read the rest. I make my living translating for the government, and since my education is a degree in Gwoyu (the official language of China) from the Institute of Far Eastern Languages (aka IFEL) at Yale, you can probably guess which language

 

 

 

Anyone who believes that dating the NT is "relatively simple" clearly does not understand the topic. It is complex, convoluted, controversial, highly emotional and almost completely subjective, which is why there is such a large range of dates proposed by the various camps; conservative, moderate, and liberal scholars.

 

Actually, that is only because the non-Christian camp has allowed the Christian camp to make it so. The total lack of evidence for the existence of anything other than Paul’s letters prior to the end of the 1st century, the lack of mention of the gospels until the middle to end of the 2nd century say much about the late production of the gospels, etc. You claim to be a historian, then you must be aware that until around 1921, scholars accepted a second century date for all of the gospels, without question. The birth of the renewed Evangelitical movement was also the birth of the idea that the gospels were of 1st century production.

 

Yes, we project the date of the belief system initiated by Zoroaster back to that date or earlier. However, and this is a major point, textual and inscriptional evidence detailing the specifics of the Persian religious system during this period is relatively scant. We have the Avesta to be sure, but it is a product of a medieval environment. The oral traditions that it represented may very well have been passed down faithfully for 1500 years or more. But are you sure you want to go there? If we go there, then we are allowing for the accurate transmission of oral traditions over 1500 years...which then allows conservatives to say "See! Even the rabid skeptics admit it! The gospels and the Torah were both accurately passed down by oral tradition! Praise Jesus!"

 

You are ignoring the fact that numerous textual problems have surfaced within the Qumran library. Nothing major, but enough to show that the vaunted Jewish copy method was not near as foolproof as claimed. As I pointed out before

Do not think of me as an adversary, think of me as someone who has come to sharpen your swords; which frankly have become very, very dull. If you are going to be skeptics who purport to have found the "truth" by exercising your minds, then exercise them properly by digesting accurate information, not online, fundamentalist skeptic (or Christian apologetic) shash.

 

Be ex-Christians because you understand the issues well enough to realize that much of the Bible is fiction, not because you are every bit as ignorant of the (accurate) details as the fundamentalist Christians are.

 

Ah, but I am not an Ex-Christian, I am a 3rd generation Deist and I think my knowledge of the bible and it’s history is probably as good, if not better, than the average.

[- AUB -]

We coulda used you a couple days ago, AUB. Hope you'll be around more.

 

I’ll try, I’d like an excuse to write down some of what I’ve found, however I’ve a large number of books on the way, so it will be hard to tear myself away from them. I know however I can’t just do pure research, there’s more than I can ever learn either way, and I’m starting to take it to the streets, my giving lecture’s in local pubs, people need to know this stuff.

 

mako

 

With such competent posters I feel redundant, excellent.

 

The birth of the renewed Evangelitical movement was also the birth of the idea that the gospels were of 1st century production.

 

This is a major pain, with the lowing of standards in biblical criticism, anyone can get establishes as a “credible” scholar, and the field has been flooded with raving right wing fundy nutters, who have set back biblical criticism 500 years. The Jesus-brigade then point to this surge in Sunday school dating and interpretation as proof of their claims, (ad popularum), but the context of such a turn around clearly shows this is not in anyway genuinely damaging to the more honest scholarship that these theists are afraid of.

 

Great to see Rem is still remembering this place, it is so easy to get carried away in research and lose track of forums like this one. He is quite right, there is a lot of sloppy work in this field, Archarea S, Cersey Graves, and allot of it boils down to this eagerness to paste the gospel stories into earlier myths. The problem is this, the gospels are irrelevant as far as learning the truth of xtian origins is concerned, they are later embellishments, based on pagan sources for sure, but mostly just amateur Midrash of OT material. It is the pre-gospel xtianity, and its motifs that need to be subject to form criticism, Paul’s theology, his meta-physical paradigm, the dying and rising concept, not crucifixion, which is not as important as less sophisticated scholars think. The mystery cults and Platonic idealism is the primary sources for this, trying to find similar gospel motifs in other faiths is a red herring. Even if there were none we can still show the gospels to be later works of fiction, only adopted as history by a limited number of xtian schools, who just happened to engulf the rest later, who’s Jesus was neither historical nor in some cases even sacrificed.

 

Here is a thread I began were I discuss this angle.

 

I VS M

 

as usual however it gets highjacked my didactic intellectuals, and I never got to finish the points.

[Mythra]

Mako / AUB:

 

Just because Abram turned into Rameus, this is far from being a dead horse.

 

We learn tons from you guys. Thanks so much.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

I'll second what Mythra just said. I'm new to this forum, one of the

reasons that I joined is because I wanted to learn more about how

we got to where we are - i.e., how did so many people come to

believe in that truckload of horse crap known as christianity?

Thanks for sharing your learning with the rest of us.

[- AUB -]

"how did so many people come to

believe in that truckload of horse crap known as christianity? "

 

Historically? Politics then momentum

 

Today? Mostly ignorance, which is why we have to be thorough in our research, buying everything Acharea S. writes makes us no better than the Lee Strobel swallowing theists. We can never stop searching, especially when we think we've found what we want, that is subjective and superficial, and how educated theists function.

 

I'm not looking for ways to destroy religion but simply the truth, it just happens that truth kills faith, and I like that.

 

Is there anything in particular previously touched upon on this thread that they'd like dealt with in greater detail?

[mako]

Historically? Politics then momentum

The only thing I will add to that is, "to the nth degree".

buying everything Acharea S. writes makes us no better than the Lee Strobel swallowing theists

Again I agree! One should read everything (even Acharea S.), but we should concentrate on the true professional historians and archaeologists, both of the Maximist and Minimalist schools, no matter your leanings. It is best to know what the "enemy" is getting set to spring on you and know the truth of the matter prior to the ambush! I may be wrong and you can correct me on this AUB, but doesn't it seem that a lot of the "borderline" archaeologists are leaning more and more toward the Minimalist school?

[Mythra]

I'm going to take the position that the mythicists are wrong, for the sake of discussion. For now, I'll join lots of others on this site, who believe that there had to have been a historical person named Jesus at the beginning of all of this.

 

You mythicists talk about the authentic Pauline epistles (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians) as being the first writings of the New Testament. You go on about how Paul didn't recognize an earthly Jesus.

 

Let's take a look at something.

 

Galatians 1:13 "For you have heard of my previous life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it."

 

and, this

 

Galatians 1:18 "Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord's brother."

 

Okay, mythicists:

 

1. Who was Paul persecuting, if he's the one who started all of this off?

 

and,

 

2. Who were Peter and James, if not disciples of Jesus?

 

ps: If you are going to take the position that these are later interpolations, you'd better be able to back it up with reasonable evidence.

[Mythra]

The article that started this thread talked about the Testimonium Flavianum being the famous smoking gun. Hogwash. That's obviously a Eusebian invention.

 

Here's the smoking gun: Ignatius. 110 CE.

 

"Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His father having raised him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe in Him"

 

And, many similar statements by Ignatius in his letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp.

[Mythra]

Now, about Pagan origins:

 

It's not too hard to prove similarities between much of the gospel story (virgin birth, resurrection, eucharist, miracles etc) and pagan myths.

 

This does nothing to debunk the idea that Jesus was a man. A teacher. Who had 12 followers. Who pissed off the establishment and was crucified.

 

All the "Pagan Origins" argument does is to show that the story of Jesus was embellished and hype'd at a later date, to attract a bigger following. (primarily of Greeks and Romans)

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

"how did so many people come to

believe in that truckload of horse crap known as christianity? "

 

Historically? Politics then momentum

 

Today? Mostly ignorance, which is why we have to be thorough in our research, buying everything Acharea S. writes makes us no better than the Lee Strobel swallowing theists. We can never stop searching, especially when we think we've found what we want, that is subjective and superficial, and how educated theists function.

 

I'm not looking for ways to destroy religion but simply the truth, it just happens that truth kills faith, and I like that.

 

Is there anything in particular previously touched upon on this thread that they'd like dealt with in greater detail?

101521[/snapback]

 

 

Hi AUB,

 

If you could help me on two things it would be much appreciated.

First, could you recommend one or two references that would

act as a good starting point for a non-scholar like myself, who

wants to learn more about where the Christ myth came from and

how it evolved? Second, what good, objective sources on Biblical

archaeology could you recommend? I seem to find a lot of

"sources" which are nothing more than christians trying to make

the archaeological evidence fit their religion. It gets frustrating

having to wade through tons of chaff to find tidbits here and there

that seem interesting.

 

Many thanks!

 

[- AUB -]

Mako

 

but doesn't it seem that a lot of the "borderline" archaeologists are leaning more and more toward the Minimalist school?

 

Try mainstream. Most archys are specialists and don’t want to kick up a fuss, but u put all the findings together as some braver scholars do and u have a slam dunk for minimalists, so much so that only the kooks stick to trying to prove the historicity of the bible. Truly terrible stuff, but the fundies lap it up

 

Mythra

 

Good Idea!

 

I’ll deal with what you wrote, but first a brief outline of mythicism.

 

There are 2 kinds of cults, those founded on a leader’s personality, and those created from worship of pagan deities, and astrotheology. How does one tell the difference? Well cults of personality develop in a certain way, leaving traces of the initial personality on the earliest material. Mythic cults begin more abstract, and soon branch into multiple interpretations, mystery cults particularly, and those based on sun/son worship. What do we have with xtianity? Multiple cults of great variety from the earliest days, far more than the church admits, and the earliest writing are theological, with no trace of a founder’s personality, (Paul’s epistles). In short there could not have been a historical Jesus, the data flatly contradicts this, no way can a cult of personality leave such traces, the founder’s aspects are never so quickly obliterated, or then (as the un-historical nature of the gospels is beyond question) re-invented as a contradictory composite. The gospels are an attempt at historicising Jesus, as was the fashion at the time. Disproving the validity of the gospels is so easy that I won’t even bother here, the hard part is making the case that there could not have been any such founder, that there is no sliver of truth in the gospels many mythic motifs (as so many cling to), and explaining historicalisation.

 

A snobbish attitude developed among the philosophical schools along the lines that their founders and focus were historical (and often recent) figures whereas the cults and religions followed myths. This lead to various attempts to historicalise such mythic figures as Osiris, Dionysus, and especially Hercules (with some success, even today his fame is based on his “earthly” deeds and most don’t know he was worshiped as a full god for most of the ancient times. Every TV and movie adaptation always stops the story before he becomes a god, and never deal with afterwards, his earthly character being more compelling). This tendancy continues to this day, with the liberal position of jesus as a teacher, something many sun gods became, when such a figures were the rage. Both a god and a wandering sage, in “incarnate” mode. Certainly greater credibility in this century is more likely to be given to a faith founded by a “great teacher”, than sun worshippers, its good marketing, not the most likely explanation.

 

It was also common to slowly personify astral deities, and ideal example is Horus. First he was simply the sun, child of the land and sky, then these three were personified as Horus, Osirus, and Isis. Horus was given wings, as were most sky entities and gods (even YHWH), (the ancients understood wings as being the only obvious method of flight) this resulting in Horus becoming a bird, then as the humanistic Greeks spread their influence Horus was depicted as fully humanoid. This process was taken to full historicising for many other deities that were originally just as astral, (Samson, Moses, Enoch). So from solar deity to historical teacher was a common translation in the Greco-Roman world, there is plenty of precedence, but so few study the classical world. Ignorance of the mystery cults also deprives most of crucial context. How many here had even heard of them before looking into this?

 

Jesus is just such an abstract being at first, with traces going back as far as the pre-Socratic Hericlitus in 600 BCE who first postulated the Logos concept. It hard to visualise such a evolution today as astral worship is rare and we’ve been conditioned for so long to see Jesus as historical, but this was just a tactic to outdo the other mystery cults who worshiped Dionysus, Osiris etc. Most educated people long stopped believing in them. There was a push from the earliest days to recruit among the intelligentsia and nobles (or at least appear to be able to), Paul’s Pharisaic pretensions, Luke’s use of Josephus’s writing style to hide is hackery, etc. It was easier to historicalise Jesus as he was such a vague concept with no crude personifications up until then. (study the earliest depictions of him, no consistency at all, just copies of other pagan deities, the final “orthodox” image was the long product of trial and error). Another point is that people see Jesus’ historicity as likely given the abundance of similar figures at that time such as Apolonius of Tyan, and the false Messiahs, and philosphers. However they are looking at this on the wrong way, everyone knew of these people and were the inspirations for the Gospel writer’s project. In a sense Jesus was a fiction based on fact. But like the NT passages that appear to fulfil OT ones, what is reality going on is the the NT writers based their material on them. (they certainly could not have been ignorant of them before hand) People imagine the NT writers were in a vacuum, and were unaware of the historical precedence, and “prophecies”, this is naive in the extreme. Pointing to the similar life of Apolonius at the (alleged) exact same time does not show a reasonable basis for historicity, as the evidence shows the historical Jesus was created much later, when his story was long known, and could well be a source for Mark. (I personally put Mark at 135-145 CE) The historicists have to prove accounts of his historical existence go back to Apolonius’s time, (they can’t even show they go back to the 1st century).

 

So it is largely due to our cultural and temporal context that causes so many to take the historicist positon, I held it for a long time. But you have to think outside your context, especially regarding the Pauline Jesus. We have so little common experience with Platonic meta-physics, and so interpret the epistles’s description of Jesus Gospel wise, rather than philosophically. But the Gospels are a far later embellishment, not excepted by many xtian schools even in the middle of the second century. I suggest research to all those historicists here, there is so much data to back up mythicism, it just take a bit of digging. Your (understandable) gut rejection of this leads to warping of material; objectivity and thoroughness will makes things clearer.

 

Now onto mythra’s questions

 

1. Who was Paul persecuting, if he's the one who started all of this off?

 

Only a few mythicists credit Paul with creating xtianity, it is a straw man to imply otherwise. And for those that do, these are precicly the kind of passages that later scribes would need to interpolate in when a previous founder was created. Paul’s work is full of interpolations, (given how the theology later evolved, and the early nature of the material) so this is not so unlikely. (Mark is also full of them for similer reasons). But beyond that, the anachronisms that show interpolations are too numerous to mention, and there are plenty of resources that list them. You have to decide for yourself if these passages are among them, it has no baring on my personal position. Markan interpolations is my field.

 

There is certainly precedence of xtians invention of early persecuations, that go against all the facts. It may well be that the Jews harassed the early xtians, (though given their small numbers and obscurity this is unlikely) certainly the Pharisees disliked Hellenistic influences, (of course this would imply xtianity was a Greek cult from the very beginning, he he). The tendency to imagine or exaggerate persecutions and martyrdoms for propaganda and psychological manipulation may have started with Paul himself inventing such goings on. Certainly it got ridiculous when Judea was destroyed and the Jews were no longer in a position to persecute xtians, (if they ever did) and the pious (not to mention luridly sick) romancers had to claim the Romans were now doing it, despite the practice of religious tolerance and the fact that no one even noticed the xtians till the second century, let alone bothered them, (why would they?).

 

There’s another reason why such fantasy were propagated and that was to explain why the numbers of followers were so low even by the mid second century when the gospels and oral traditions speak of mass conversions, apostolic miracles, the great commission etc, (a fictional cull of the fictional numbers).

 

Even if this account of Paul and his doings was true, this makes no differance to either side of the debate. Pre Pauline xtians even though we have no material from them would hardly have been historical Jesus based, given Paul’s lack of reference to him, and clear mythic metaphysic.

 

2. Who were Peter and James, if not disciples of Jesus?

 

Apostles, he said so himself, read the material properly, not with “Gospel coloured classes”. An apostle was just a preacher, there’s no implication in Paul’s mention of them that they had any more significant relation with Christ then he did, in fact he flatly denies they had anything worth while for him regarding Jesus. Turning them into disciples was a later idea, (the term appears along with the historical Jesus, not before) they could not do this with Paul, as he clearly was no disciple, but the other references were vague and could be more easily manipulated. (This sort of building up from brief references led to the idea of “Luke” writing a gospel) As for ”the lords brother” that is a hotly contested passage, and is in no way as clear-cut as you seem to think. Even if it wasn’t an interpolation "brother" may refer to a spiritual connection, (you xtians do do that you know), which was later literalised in the gospels, remember the Evangelists know these passages, and constructing their stories around them. They built up a great deal of extra biography to Paul himself that he never mentions, its just fictional extrapolations. Stop reading back into the material. Think outside the finalised NT box.

 

 

Here's the smoking gun: Ignatius. 110 CE.

 

"Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His father having raised him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe in Him"

 

And, many similar statements by Ignatius in his letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp.

 

 

1. Even Calvin admited these writings are spurious. Bishopic propaganda.

 

2. The idea that Ignatius found the time to compose all these letters, (count them) while being transported to Rome (for no good reason) to be executed, (for no good reason) while he was being abused, defies belief, bunk, so bunk I am under no obligation to even respond.

 

3. However, I will point out that he’s mentions a lot of “truly”s, why did he feel the need to so affirm? Also even if these were written in 110CE, (impossible, too many historical anachronisms) it is still the ranting of a believer to an event he did not witness, this proves nothing.

 

A pious frauder trying to get a more credible name to support his blind faith, when neither are qualified. Just like the Joe, Pliny, Suet, and Tacitus passages, even if they were real, (fat chance) they to do not in ANY way constitute first hand proof or testimony, that is hysterically obvious, and I find it amusing how theist still promote these. To be ignorant of the controversy if not outright debunking of the material is one thing, but why do they think people born after these alleged events, especially Joe are suitable witnesses? Can’t they read dates? I read one post by a fundy fruitcake recently, who was ranting on about how Josephus witnessed the crucifixion, and loved Jesus etc, what part of “born 37 CE” don’t they understand? Its depressing to watch the intellectual credibility of xtianity slip further behind the flat earthers. (I also find it amusing that this “ignatius” passage contains the most fundamental contradiction in the gospels, that of Jesus being of the Davidic line, yet also having god as a father)

 

Now, about Pagan origins:

 

It's not too hard to prove similarities between much of the gospel story (virgin birth, resurrection, eucharist, miracles etc) and pagan myths.

 

This does nothing to debunk the idea that Jesus was a man. A teacher. Who had 12 followers. Who pissed off the establishment and was crucified.

 

All the "Pagan Origins" argument does is to show that the story of Jesus was embellished and hype'd at a later date, to attract a bigger following. (primarily of Greeks and Romans)

 

Again the problem is you assume the official order of events or theological development. Yes real people get divinized, but just as many myths get historicalised, you have the order the wrong way round, built on wishful thinking, when a purely objective study of the facts shows otherwise, Earl Doherty’s model alone has far greater explanitory power than any other. That is what determines truth, not your subjective desires. Yes many of these elements are later embellishments, miracles, virgin birth etc, but many PRE DATE the gospel accounts, resurrection eucharist, etc, and the 12 and teacher aspects are later ideas, therefore not historical. You really need to acknowledge the correct order before you make such judgements. His death was from day one an atoning universal act, a roman cruxificiton is a common event, but you cannot point to this particular thing just because it’s not supersitious fantasy when in this case its just a more down to earth version of a mythic event. There mere many crucifixions true and its not asking much to except a certain person may have died this way, (ordinary claims only require ordinary proof), but the Jesus sacrifice is part of a tradition of mystery cult motifs, retold to sound probable, but the retelling cannot be true, no matter how rational or historically valid when the origins are fictional.

 

Our paradigm is based on all the evidence, yours ignores most of it, and excepts a priori far too much of the traditional understanding, can u account for our findings better? Your only hope is to refute the case we have already made, not bring out this tired old trash. Deal with our findings not throw up out moded objections. These are things your own side faked long ago to deal with our intellectual predecessors, it failed to convince them, and only through oppression was your view excepted, now we have even more on yo. Go through Earl Doherty’s work, or Robert Price’s, (you clearly haven’t) your first volley is long deflected, ours has still to be even acknowledged. If the mythicist case is so absurd, take it apart, why is Earl Doherty unrefuted? Why as his superior case not been met with an even more superior one? One that accounts for all the findings even better? All you have done it show “proofs” that have most likely been dealt with in the case we made, you attempt to refute our case with what we refuted in our case. Just like the line “God did it” your “proofs” explain nothing, they are simply stealth demands for blind faith.

 

My forward already dealt with the teacher motif being a popular embellishment, and the 12 followers have so many astronomical and OT precedents that it’s as likely they are as fictional as the virgin birth. No matter what aspects you pull out of the gospels, even the seemingly most probable ones, you will find pagan or OT precedence. Besides the pagan motifs are the least important aspect of mythicism, the NT being midrash on OT is the most damning evidence.

You want Jesus to be historical, even though you have no reason to think he is, so you pick the bits you think you can make the best case for, but each era and group have their own most likely, or moral, or popular part of the patchwork gospels. There’s something for everybody, however you cannot show your favoured passages or motifs are anymore historical than any other. They are all equal, and “probable” or “realistic” is relative, and highly open to question. Why do the realistic parts have to be historical, why can’t they be taken from historical cases, like the mythic elements were take from other myths, given the excessive plagiarism of the Evangelists, doesn’t this seem more likely?

 

Your like a man who in 2000 years time finds a copy of Harry Potter, and so likes the main hero, that he decides that, being “rational” he cannot possibly believe it all, or convince other it is so. Therefore he concludes that the parts about magic and dragons are obvious embellishments, but there really was a boy call Harry, and a school called Hogwarts. Afterall, what else could have been the basis for the story and its many fans? I’m sure JKR based Harry and co on kids she knew, and Hogwarts on real schools, (most of my fantasy fiction is based on people i’ve met) no work of fiction is totally fiction, but a dash of realism added to characters or setting via some real examples does not a factual account make. A work of fiction contains a mix of probable and improbable, you cannot pick and choose with no good reason. Without independent confirmation your rationalising of the gospels is worthless, and as I’ve previously demonstrated, such evidence is something you are utterly incapable of producing.

 

Hows that?

 

Gnosis of Disbelief

 

If you could help me on two things it would be much appreciated.

First, could you recommend one or two references that would

act as a good starting point for a non-scholar like myself, who

wants to learn more about where the Christ myth came from and

how it evolved?

 

Earl Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle goes into the best full on mythicist theory, his site is excellent, and contains most of his case,

 

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

 

Robert M Price's two main books on this our Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible shrinking Son of Man, both give the best balanced account of the sceptical and critical position.

 

As for raw data,

 

The Christ

 

This is the complete The Christ by John E Remsberg, it catalogues the lot, as was known then, a bit out of date but thorough.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/

 

This site is run by a friend of mine, and has the best account of the Josephus/Luke connection there is.

 

And to start you off, of course it has to be Brian’s doc. (looking forward to the movie) This guy’s done more to get mythicism into the mainstream than anyone.

 

God Movie

 

 

I also think this book is a good start.

 

Mysteries

 

 

+Plus I have my own mythicist section, under development.

 

http://www.humanism.me.uk/essays/Mythicism.htm

 

Second, what good, objective sources on Biblical

archaeology could you recommend? I seem to find a lot of

"sources" which are nothing more than christians trying to make

the archaeological evidence fit their religion. It gets frustrating

having to wade through tons of chaff to find tidbits here and there

that seem interesting.

 

There are plenty of good books that detail the real findings, we don’t get any biblical archeology junk here, so its easier to find the facts. It’s been so long since I did the OT I’ve forgotten most of the sources I used. This should be reliable.

 

http://www.imj.org.il/eng/archaeology/

 

I can sketch it out quite simply however.

 

There is no confirmation of any event in the OT or NT.

 

The Jews were indigenous cannanites who amalgamated the gods and myths from various tribes, and re-wrote their history before during and after the Babylonian exile, turning gods into prophets, myths into history and inventing the Exodus, Conquest, etc, all the archaeology backs this up.

[Amethyst]

All the "Pagan Origins" argument does is to show that the story of Jesus was embellished and hype'd at a later date, to attract a bigger following. (primarily of Greeks and Romans)

 

Not really. It shows that he is most likely a myth. There has never been any proof of his life beyond the Bible and church propaganda.

[Mythra]

I'm actually in the "christ myth" camp myself. I wrote what I did to stimulate discussion, since I know that there are a lot of members of ex-c who are skeptical of the mythicist position. AUB didn't dissapoint me with his answers.

 

Are there other valid arguments to be made for a historical man Jesus to have been at the beginning of all of this? I'll need help here from some of you who don't think the mythicist position holds water.

 

Once you bring in contemporary writers, such as Philo or Justus or Josephus or Pliny the Elder or Seneca, it only supports the christ myth theory.

 

Any other good "historical Jesus" arguments? (Aside from the "every word of the bible is God-breathed" - the "GOD said it, I believe it", position)

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

Earl Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle goes into the best full on mythicist theory, his site is excellent, and contains most of his case.... <snip>

 

102083[/snapback]

 

 

AUB,

 

Thanks for the highly detailed and well-thought replies! I see I shall be

reading for quite some time!

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm into the Christ Myth theory too, or that Jesus was another person, but earlier in history and a teacher of some kind in some cult, and it was the start of the "new" theology of the proto-Christians that Paul was persecuting.

 

Then Paul had an epileptic episode (similar to Mohammed) and had visions that made him turn around. There are still people (schizofrenia) that see visions, hear voices, and believe the most peculiar things. I'm certain that's how Paul got so many followers, he really believed what he had seen. ... poor chap... and people believed him.