There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[mcdaddy]

Back in NT days, there were no newspapers, driver's licenses, databases, etc. I think it is asking too much for there to be such evidence for the existence of a common person who lived in a backwater region that was repeatedly destroyed by military campaigns.

 

Evidence, as in one single contemporaneous report?

 

Well where are you supposed to go find it? Everything is buried in fucking sand. The region got destroyed over and over. Yes, it's still a lot to ask for. You guys are being completely unrealistic.

 

i was under the impression that this time was ripe with documentation. obviously if he's a no name shmuck that got offed and there was no reason to document it, then yes you wouldnt have any. But my point is, IF the general timeline of when the NT was written is correct (epistles first, then gospels), then there is extremely little that points to an earthly figure, and the earthly details come over time. If he was real, its only logical that the first sources would include some historical data. but they dont. (generally). There are a few verses in Paul that may indicate it, but they are vague and have been argued logically for both sides.

[Ouroboros]

Well, that's not good.

 

Why? I was just admitting an emotional bias. I do my best to be objective when I assess a subject. Admitting a bias I have no control over allows me to at least examine my views on the subject more carefully knowing they can be influenced by the bias.

It wasn't about you admitting it, that part is actually good. It's good that you see that and can adress that.

 

But you admitted to it because you probably feel it's not good that you follow an emotional bias. Right? I do that too, very often, and it's not good for me either. That's why we have to examine what, why, how, who, etc for the thoughts, claims, beliefs we have.

 

It wasn't my intention to give you flack for it, but rather just agreeing what seemed to be between the lines, that you didn't feel it to be good.

[Vigile]

 

It wasn't my intention to give you flack for it, but rather just agreeing what seemed to be between the lines, that you didn't feel it to be good.

 

Gotcha. I think it might have been a language thing a little bit.

[Ouroboros]

It wasn't my intention to give you flack for it, but rather just agreeing what seemed to be between the lines, that you didn't feel it to be good.

 

Gotcha. I think it might have been a language thing a little bit.

Written language is even worse.

 

My pet-peeve with the myth theory is that I agree that most is myth, but taken too far, and if we're starting to make assumptions, we will come out as "believers" of yet another myth, the myth-myth, so to speak. If it's true that we left Christianity because we're "too smart" for it and it doesn't make sense, then we need to keep it up and not let us be driven into another con. Honestly, I think there's something fishy with Asharya S. There are truths in what she says, but there are holes too. Just let's not be suckered again.

[Antlerman]

It wasn't my intention to give you flack for it, but rather just agreeing what seemed to be between the lines, that you didn't feel it to be good.

 

Gotcha. I think it might have been a language thing a little bit.

Written language is even worse.

 

My pet-peeve with the myth theory is that I agree that most is myth, but taken too far, and if we're starting to make assumptions, we will come out as "believers" of yet another myth, the myth-myth, so to speak. If it's true that we left Christianity because we're "too smart" for it and it doesn't make sense, then we need to keep it up and not let us be driven into another con. Honestly, I think there's something fishy with Asharya S. There are truths in what she says, but there are holes too. Just let's not be suckered again.

Plus 1. Exactly. It's a tenuous position. No one has answered my more than salient point:

 

"And this underscores the point I was making. What happens when we do find "hard evidence"? What then? Did you just grant them license to proceed with their hostile takeover and anti-intellectualism? That's the core flaw I see here, and a dangerous and tenuous one, considering how it sets itself up for failure. What then happens to how you believe too?"

 

If 'hard evidence' comes along, which it very well, reasonably could considering the sorts of finds that have surfaced even within the last 100 years, such as the Nag Hammadi text believe to be forever lost to sand!, then what then? This is not a reasonable scholarship by any means. It smacks of religio-political doctrines. If you wish to go after Christian dogmatism, then go about it with reason. Not some conspiracy theory junk. There is far more support for a more liberal scholarship than this dark-room stuff.

[Vigile]

It seems AM and Ouro are conflating those who are saying there is no evidence of Jesus actual existence with the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. This is batting down a strawman.

 

I'm willing to concede that I don't have a clear enough picture of available evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion on the subject, but I haven't seen anyone here embracing any conspiracy theory.

[Antlerman]

It seems AM and Ouro are conflating those who are saying there is no evidence of Jesus actual existence with the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. This is batting down a strawman.

 

I'm willing to concede that I don't have a clear enough picture of available evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion on the subject, but I haven't seen anyone here embracing any conspiracy theory.

Perhaps I am. What say the pure mythicists? Was this supposed purely mythological creation a deliberate fraud perpetrated on the world by the powers that be, or something less? How did it this occur? What were the motives for it?

[Ouroboros]

It seems AM and Ouro are conflating those who are saying there is no evidence of Jesus actual existence with the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. This is batting down a strawman.

And Acharya S. who is independent of Zeitgeist. I think I mentioned her too. And there are other myth-only theorists.

 

I'm willing to concede that I don't have a clear enough picture of available evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion on the subject, but I haven't seen anyone here embracing any conspiracy theory.

Myth only, not conspiracy.

[Vigile]

It seems AM and Ouro are conflating those who are saying there is no evidence of Jesus actual existence with the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. This is batting down a strawman.

 

I'm willing to concede that I don't have a clear enough picture of available evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion on the subject, but I haven't seen anyone here embracing any conspiracy theory.

Perhaps I am. What say the pure mythicists? Was this supposed purely mythological creation a deliberate fraud perpetrated on the world by the powers that be, or something less? How did it this occur? What were the motives for it?

 

I'm agnostic about it at this point, but as I mentioned before, my hypothesis was simply that the stories just morphed from various sources. This would have been a largely unintentional process that evolved over the years. I'm still convinced this is true at least to the degree that stories and legends attributed to christ were the same as other god/king, virgin birth, etc... stories that had been swirling that region of the world for hundreds of years prior. In that sense, I think the religion borrows from Roman religions, Greek theater and other sources.

[Antlerman]

It seems AM and Ouro are conflating those who are saying there is no evidence of Jesus actual existence with the claims made by the Zeitgeist film. This is batting down a strawman.

 

I'm willing to concede that I don't have a clear enough picture of available evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion on the subject, but I haven't seen anyone here embracing any conspiracy theory.

Perhaps I am. What say the pure mythicists? Was this supposed purely mythological creation a deliberate fraud perpetrated on the world by the powers that be, or something less? How did it this occur? What were the motives for it?

 

I'm agnostic about it at this point, but as I mentioned before, my hypothesis was simply that the stories just morphed from various sources. This would have been a largely unintentional process that evolved over the years. I'm still convinced this is true at least to the degree that stories and legends attributed to christ were the same as other god/king, virgin birth, etc... stories that had been swirling that region of the world for hundreds of years prior. In that sense, I think the religion borrows from Roman religions, Greek theater and other sources.

I think you and Urobo and I are saying the same thing. What you describe is how I see it. But I fail to see how that process began without an actual person at the beginning of it that started the avalanche of myth in his name. That's where I just don't get the 'he never existed' theory. Besides looking at the evidence, you don't just have myths. You have teachings. And those teachings are what 'took off'. It's not just 'here's a cool new god to worship', it has the earmarks of the teachings of some sage at its core.

 

I'll add here too that the myths that were added to the founding father figure of Jesus were not just supernatural ones with the flavors like the gods of the mystery religions, but those of great Jewish prophet figures as well, like Elijah, and Moses. Those were human figures also who had a lot of supernatural qualities attributed to them too. Shall we say that Elijah is pure fiction too? The purpose of these myths seem to be that of validation. To claim Jesus as a the founding figure of some new religion was not a good thing for these Christians to be saying about themselves in the Roman empire of the time.

 

New religions were frowned upon and considered a threat to social order. So the Christians imagined their origins as part of the Jewish religion which was ancient and granted exception to the rules of the Empire in the need to perform sacrifice to the Emperor. These myths you see tying Jesus to the ancient Jewish tradition, all these OT prophecies of his coming, etc (with its crappy hermeneutics I'll add) make sense as trying to say, "No, we're not new! We come from the Jewish religion! It foretold of his coming!". John takes that theme even one step further and places its origins not only in ancient times, but "In the beginning" of space and time itself!

 

I see all this creative mythmaking to be part of a process as a vehicle to validate the life and communities of those followers of a certain set of core teachings. Sayings Gospels preceded the Narrative Gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, and what those scholars working off the Two-Source Hypothesis call the Quelle, or the Q Document. The Narrative Gospels came much later, weaving all these various sayings, miracle stories, and various traditions about Jesus into a story arc, beginning with Mark. The theory is that Q simply fell into disuse as it was absorbed into the latter Narratives of Matthew and Luke, who drew from Mark and Q.

 

Hence why myth is not a "lie", but simply a vehicle to communicate a core teaching, philosophy, a face of the communities various imagined origins for the purpose of self-identity (we have those in this country too, with the happy Indians sharing a feast with the peaceful Pilgrims). My argument is there was a core actually there that all these sprung upon around. I cannot see how or why such things would be created out of whole-cloth. "Oh, hey, what a neat deity over there! Let's copy that and call it Jesus, just because. And while we're at it, let make him look like Moses, and Elijah, Horus, and Krishna, and all the other gods people in the 20th Century beginning with Gerald Massey seeing surface similarities between the Egyptian gods and Jesus imagines they saw." I can't see how that works very well.

 

BTW, the Buddha also has a lot of later teachings and myths ascribe to him too. Was the Buddha a non-historical person?

[Vigile]

And those teachings are what 'took off'.

 

My issue is I don't have a clear enough picture of what the early years looked like outside of my reading of Acts -- which isn't exactly an objective source.

 

My basic understanding is that the religion never really took a basic foothold and was just a minor sect until it was adopted by Constantine, and as such was given virtually the entire framework and infrastructure of the Roman pagan religion he replaced with christianity. The teachings of Jesus would have been extra to the rituals and support it inherited and really in my mind have never been that profound. Most of them, quite the opposite actually.

 

Anyway, there may yet have been a charismatic figure who preached and kicked the whole thing off, but I still find the lack of any contemporary history for him, even from biased followers, to be a big loud question mark.

 

I cannot see how or why such things would be created out of whole-cloth. "Oh, hey, what a neat deity over there! Let's copy that and call it Jesus, just because.

 

I have never imagined it worked that way. What I've seen personally, is people in church telling personal stories regarding miracles in their lives that get repeated and that grow from minor to big impressive things as they are retold and as simple people are impressed. I've also seen cranks spending hours and hours studying the bible, imagining god speaking all kinds of nonsense to them and then retelling it or rewriting it, creating websites, and sometimes even small movements of their own. All of this is inspired from other sources, from other people's stories, etc... Now remove ourselves by 2,000 years and a culture that was largely uneducated and far more naive than we are today it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how things could have evolved to a point where original sources of inspiration meld and are lost and mixed with one another.

 

Again, I'm not claiming this is what happened, but given how easily people believe and follow and readily churn out large amounts of ideas and materials, I think it could have possibly started something like this.

[Ouroboros]

Before you even read this post, I'm going to do a preventing excuse for sounding grumpy. I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet. So I'm sorry beforehand if I sound harsh.

 

I'm agnostic about it at this point, but as I mentioned before, my hypothesis was simply that the stories just morphed from various sources.

Absolutely. AM and I agree on that part.

 

This would have been a largely unintentional process that evolved over the years.

Sure. Kind of agree to that. Some were intentional, like forgeries, but not all.

 

I'm still convinced this is true at least to the degree that stories and legends attributed to christ were the same as other god/king, virgin birth, etc...

True... but... you're saying here "attributed to chris". Why did anyone unintentionally attribute anything to someone call "Christ" or "Jesus"? Are you suggesting with that statement that multiple people over time, at different places, without influence from each other, suddenly decides to have the same delusion that "Christ" is a central figure for the old pagan beliefs? There is no one name "Christ" or "Jesus" in the Egyptian religions or Greek beliefs. Who, what, when, where are the questions that would be the ones directed to finding the unifying factor, patient zero in a pandemic vector analysis, etc. When a video goes viral, someone made the video first and posted it. When a meme starts, someone at some point actually was the first one to call it out, unintentional or intentional. Let's say there never was a Jesus, okay. Let's go from there. That means that there still was a Jesus-believer cult-leader or something that got the whole idea of "Jesus" to tie the story to. Put it this way, one person asks "who did it?" the other person answer "Jesus did." Not hundred different people, scattered around the world, without any connection suddenly, "Oh, Jesus did it" to a question no one asked. That's magic.

 

stories that had been swirling that region of the world for hundreds of years prior. In that sense, I think the religion borrows from Roman religions, Greek theater and other sources.

Take Jim Jones. He existed. His beliefs were delusional. But his followers didn't just make him up.

 

Joseph Smith invented Moroni. But who invented Joseph Smith? J. Smith is like any human being when it comes to history. The things he did people have done before. So he could very well be a creative tool for the invento of Mormons. But an anonymous person inventing Smith to invent Moroni to invent Mormonism to ... Doesn't sound likely, does it?

 

Realians, invented by Rael (who is not real). His name is Claude Verihon. He actually does exist... but he calls himself Rael. His religion is invented, but it wasn't like a bunch of people around the world suddenly decided to call their leader "Rael" and their religion "Raelians" based on a fictitious author.

 

What I'm getting at is that you tend to have a leading person in a wave of a cult. Someone with enough narcissism and egotism to get people to follow the new "product". You can't see a waved of new vacuum cleaners sold unless someone is making the vacuum cleaners. So perhaps his name wasn't Jesus, but there must have been someone who first believed that Jesus was the person they should follow and get everyone to agree. Who was this person? If it wasn't Jesus. Not Paul. Not Peter. Not James. We don't know. But I bet there was one.

[Vigile]

Why did anyone unintentionally attribute anything to someone call "Christ" or "Jesus"?

 

What I've been basically arguing regarding this is we just don't know as it has been lost to history. Earliest recorded history of him, from non objective sources were at minimum 40 years after the year of his supposed death, right? There are no reliable secular sources and there are no contemporary sources whatsoever. It just seems to me that insisting that he had to be one man is standing on the same ground as those who suggest alternatives here given the utter lack of evidence.

 

 

Are you suggesting with that statement that multiple people over time, at different places, without influence from each other, suddenly decides to have the same delusion that "Christ" is a central figure for the old pagan beliefs?

 

Not at all. I've tried to be clear about this, but seem to have failed. I'm suggesting that we don't have a clear idea what happened in the early years -- the years he was supposedly alive and the 40 odd years after he was killed. A lot could have happened during that time and things could have melded and confused as various stories about various religious leaders/teachers morphed.

 

It's not like we are talking about who was the leader of Israel or the president of an institution like Harvard, or who was Emperor of Rome. We are merely talking about legends about a crazy street preacher. A lot can get lost in regard to how stories and legends of such figures begin. It wouldn't take conspiracy or scheming of any type. All it would take is at a later date for a paradigm shaper, like a Paul, like a Calvin, like a Luther, to come along and organize and reshape the paradigm for followers drawing upon any number of sources that had been floating around at the time.

 

Again, 40 years is a long time in a largely illiterate world so far removed from us today. I just don't see how we can really know or even measure probabilities.

[Antlerman]

And those teachings are what 'took off'.

 

My issue is I don't have a clear enough picture of what the early years looked like outside of my reading of Acts -- which isn't exactly an objective source.

 

My basic understanding is that the religion never really took a basic foothold and was just a minor sect until it was adopted by Constantine, and as such was given virtually the entire framework and infrastructure of the Roman pagan religion he replaced with christianity.

It actually wasn't a minor sect at the time of Constantine. Rather it had infiltrated into the Roman government itself in various offices. It had tried to be stamped out by a wholesale persecution under the Emperor Decius in the 3rd Century because it had become so big and so popular he viewed it as a political threat. They had become so popular because they had set up many public social programs that the Empire itself never offered such things. They were very popular because of this.

 

I highly recommend reading the material in this PBS special called From Jesus to Christ In the section Why Did Christianity Succeed, you can read about that later period leading up to Constantine.

 

The teachings of Jesus would have been extra to the rituals and support it inherited and really in my mind have never been that profound. Most of them, quite the opposite actually.

They were what led to all those social programs being established that became so popular in the Roman Empire I mentioned above. The truth is, even long before that, I'd say in the 30's to 50's AD, the reason it caught on and spread is because it accommodated a growing cosmopolitan mindset in culture. "There is neither Greek nor Jews, but all are one in Christ". That was a message of inclusiveness. How very unlike the Christians of today! The reason it spread because it said things like the Kingdom of God was for everyone. It is 'within you'.

 

Why Paul, whom people cite as 'creating Christianity' ceased upon this movement, IMO, is because he saw it was a very effective message about spreading faith in God. It was enormously attractive teaching that brought people in to faith in God, whereas the Jewish religion forced them to undergo such torments as adult circumcision, and strict dietary laws. So Paul in his zeal 'converted', to what worked better! "It is easier to kick against the pricks", is essentially "why fight evolution?" See it? The teachings is what led to its popularity, the forms, the rituals, supported the teaching.

 

Anyway, there may yet have been a charismatic figure who preached and kicked the whole thing off, but I still find the lack of any contemporary history for him, even from biased followers, to be a big loud question mark.

I think the internal texts alone speak volumes of information, if you look beneath the surface layers like any fossil hunter has to do. That there were no contemporaries who spoke of him is to imagine the movements in his name of that noteworthy at the time. It cause no concern to me, and make sense actually. It wasn't until later that it became so widespread that it caught 'national media attention', to use a modern term.

 

I see what is happening in thinking this is an area of concern to be taking the later mythological stories about Jesus have huge followings, 12 disciples going about, threats of riots in his name, mass miracles, etc, as somehow reflective of actual reality on the ground. Then with such a buzz as the story portrays, why isn't that in the news!? But the fact that wasn't 'fact', does not mean Jesus never existed. The reality would have been much more meager, more humble in origins, but potent enough to cause it to grow and spread within a few decades following his death.

[Ouroboros]

My issue is I don't have a clear enough picture of what the early years looked like outside of my reading of Acts -- which isn't exactly an objective source.

I don't think you need a picture-perfect understanding of it to see that there's an issue with a common and coherent meme growing up from nothing. When you stick pictures on a collage, you have a backboard you actually stick them on. Something is the first foundation of a meme/idea/cult/viral video, etc. Something sparked it. Or someone.

 

I totally agree with having myths building upon myths, but the problem is that myth-only theory doesn't explain why suddenly all myths were thought to belong to one person, with a specific name, and a name that was pretty much drawn out of a hat. Why didn't they call him Zeus? It was more common. More pagan. Non-Jewish also. Think about Romans converting to a Jewish cult... sure, they just suddenly thought it was great to do so. Someone either played them. Or someone/something peaked their interest. People don't buy into a fad unless someone created the thing they are "fadding" for. A first product must be made, then you have people modifying it with their old beliefs.

 

My basic understanding is that the religion never really took a basic foothold and was just a minor sect until it was adopted by Constantine,

Sure. A minor sect consistent of random people who suddenly democratically realized (or had a shared delusion) that their old religious myths should be put on a jewish person. It's like we suddenly would have Southern Baptists suddenly believe in "Bob" the Muslim instead of Jesus.

 

We know how difficult it is to lose our faith, or change it. Romans would stop believing in Zeus and the pantheon and suddenly decide it was great to believe in Yahweh and a Jew. That is not just myth building of normal character. If it is, then it takes some magic to happen.

 

and as such was given virtually the entire framework and infrastructure of the Roman pagan religion he replaced with christianity.

But listen to what you're saying here. The Roman pagan religion had everything the new Christian religion had. There's no reason to change from Zeus to Jesus if they're exactly the same in every aspect and nothing peaked their interest. There must be something new and different. What was it? Not everything can be made from old cloth since then it would still just be an old cloth. And especially changing from Roman Zeus to Jewish Jesus. Did the Romans love the Jews that much?

 

The teachings of Jesus would have been extra to the rituals and support it inherited and really in my mind have never been that profound. Most of them, quite the opposite actually.

Then why change?

 

Anyway, there may yet have been a charismatic figure who preached and kicked the whole thing off, but I still find the lack of any contemporary history for him, even from biased followers, to be a big loud question mark.

I find the myth only lacking the power to explain the spark of the meme.

 

I have never imagined it worked that way. What I've seen personally, is people in church telling personal stories regarding miracles in their lives that get repeated and that grow from minor to big impressive things as they are retold and as simple people are impressed. I've also seen cranks spending hours and hours studying the bible, imagining god speaking all kinds of nonsense to them and then retelling it or rewriting it, creating websites, and sometimes even small movements of their own. All of this is inspired from other sources, from other people's stories, etc... Now remove ourselves by 2,000 years and a culture that was largely uneducated and far more naive than we are today it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how things could have evolved to a point where original sources of inspiration meld and are lost and mixed with one another.

And if you keep on removing, then there's a nothing. A "nothing" can't start a movement. What you're saying just there is that people do these things. There are people doing these things, not myths or imaginary people.

 

Again, I'm not claiming this is what happened, but given how easily people believe and follow and readily churn out large amounts of ideas and materials, I think it could have possibly started something like this.

There's a difference between evolution (change over time) and abiogenesis (the origin of life). Same here. The evolution is Christianity was the changes through myth making and additions. Abiogenesis of Christianity can't be just a change from the old since there are new components that didn't exist in the old.

[qadeshet]

 

But I fail to see how that process began without an actual person at the beginning of it that started the avalanche of myth in his name. That's where I just don't get the 'he never existed' theory. Besides looking at the evidence, you don't just have myths. You have teachings. And those teachings are what 'took off'. It's not just 'here's a cool new god to worship', it has the earmarks of the teachings of some sage at its core.

 

I don't see how Joseph Smith could have possibly made up the Golden Tablets, therefore Moroni exists. There is nothing original about any of the the teachings of Jesus. All can be found in the Torah, Tanakh, and Pagan beliefs. A new Cult found promises in the Suffering Servant of Isaah 53 and Daniel 9.

 

I'll add here too that the myths that were added to the founding father figure of Jesus were not just supernatural ones with the flavors like the gods of the mystery religions, but those of great Jewish prophet figures as well, like Elijah, and Moses. Those were human figures also who had a lot of supernatural qualities attributed to them too. Shall we say that Elijah is pure fiction too? The purpose of these myths seem to be that of validation. To claim Jesus as a the founding figure of some new religion was not a good thing for these Christians to be saying about themselves in the Roman empire of the time.

 

Elijah and Moses are Myths as well. There was no Exodus.

 

As a foundation myth, the exodus myth therefore constitutes the Israelite people not as a normal people like any other around, but as a separate, elected people of God. The origin myth is simply that of a religious community, whether people or a congregation. It is not a normal myth of origin of a secular entity; it is the kind of mythology that follows other religious communities of this world, including Christianity. It is not history but beyond history, phrased in historical terms; it is the origin myth of a religious history of the chosen people, the holy congregation of God, who having sinned passed the judgment in order to reclaim their land and their God.

(pp. 92-93 of The Israelites in History and Tradition, Niels Peter Lemche)

 

 

BTW, the Buddha also has a lot of later teachings and myths ascribe to him too. Was the Buddha a non-historical person?

 

The Buddha, Orphus, Pythagorus, Homer, and probably Muhammad are all Myths, the Myth of the Great Man.

 

Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins Robert Spencer

 

First Century Christian History is a virtual blank. Did Christianity begin with a Mystical Cosmic Christ that was later historicized to support a Church hierarchy? Or an Earthly Jesus who made no impression on his contemporaries? I find this an interresting area of study, but I don't really care which turns out to be right.

[Ouroboros]

Not at all. I've tried to be clear about this, but seem to have failed. I'm suggesting that we don't have a clear idea what happened in the early years -- the years he was supposedly alive and the 40 odd years after he was killed. A lot could have happened during that time and things could have melded and confused as various stories about various religious leaders/teachers morphed.

That's what I'm talking about too. We don't know exactly who it was, and we don't have historical sources to really know exactly who he was, but we can draw a conclusion by induction from the things that happened that there must've been something/someone to spark it off. That's been my point from the beginning of this discussion, but it's been hard to explain it from my end too.

 

It's not like we are talking about who was the leader of Israel or the president of an institution like Harvard, or who was Emperor of Rome. We are merely talking about legends about a crazy street preacher.

Yes! But a street preacher we can assume existed somewhere there under the rubble of myths.

 

A lot can get lost in regard to how stories and legends of such figures begin. It wouldn't take conspiracy or scheming of any type. All it would take is at a later date for a paradigm shaper, like a Paul, like a Calvin, like a Luther, to come along and organize and reshape the paradigm for followers drawing upon any number of sources that had been floating around at the time.

Totally agree.

 

Again, 40 years is a long time in a largely illiterate world so far removed from us today. I just don't see how we can really know or even measure probabilities.

We can't know. But you just suggested a "street preacher." The growing trend is that people say that there wasn't even a "street preacher" but he was invented too. But I fail to see how it was possible that people started to follow an imaginary person before he was even written into history. The Gospels were written after the churches were in place. The forged letters from Paul was written to churches that we must assume existed, because the alternative makes the myth complexity ever stranger. Imagine people start following "bobbism" today but bobbism won't be invented until 100 years from now. So yes, we can compare alternative theories and judge which one has slightly more probability, not in numbers, but intuitively based on how ridiculous the alternative becomes.

[Vigile]

I find the myth only lacking the power to explain the spark of the meme.

 

I think this is where we disagree. I can probably change my mind on this and you guys have both giving me a lot to think about, but right now I'm not convinced this is true. I'll just say that I don't largely see it as a myth the way you seem to frame my position. I think there can be truth here and there and that there quite possibly/probably was/were a street preacher/s. What was attributed to them both in words and in action is where I'm suspicious that we are making a stretch as I think those stories had to have evolved and changed over a 40 year period to the point where they are pure fiction simply due to the unreliability of true believers who were the ones who offer us today's accounts.

 

Imagine, just for instance, a People's History of American written by Pat Robertson is the only surviving document of American history 2,000 years into the future. All we could gain from that is that there was a country named America and a couple of names. Nothing attributed to those names would be reliable or representative of true history in the slightest. And, ti probably wouldn't even be Pat's fault. He probably would really believe what he wrote.

[Ouroboros]

It actually wasn't a minor sect at the time of Constantine. Rather it had infiltrated into the Roman government itself in various offices. It had tried to be stamped out by a wholesale persecution under the Emperor Decius in the 3rd Century because it had become so big and so popular he viewed it as a political threat. They had become so popular because they had set up many public social programs that the Empire itself never offered such things. They were very popular because of this.

But all those things are myths. Constantine didn't exist. The Roman government didn't exist. etc...

[Vigile]

It actually wasn't a minor sect at the time of Constantine. Rather it had infiltrated into the Roman government itself in various offices. It had tried to be stamped out by a wholesale persecution under the Emperor Decius in the 3rd Century because it had become so big and so popular he viewed it as a political threat. They had become so popular because they had set up many public social programs that the Empire itself never offered such things. They were very popular because of this.

But all those things are myths. Constantine didn't exist. The Roman government didn't exist. etc...

 

You're strawmanning me here Hans.

[Ouroboros]

I find the myth only lacking the power to explain the spark of the meme.

 

I think this is where we disagree. I can probably change my mind on this and you guys have both giving me a lot to think about, but right now I'm not convinced this is true. I'll just say that I don't largely see it as a myth the way you seem to frame my position. I think there can be truth here and there and that there quite possibly/probably was/were a street preacher/s. What was attributed to them both in words and in action is where I'm suspicious that we are making a stretch as I think those stories had to have evolved and changed over a 40 year period to the point where they are pure fiction simply due to the unreliability of true believers who were the ones who offer us today's accounts.

We do agree on the street preacher. And it's possible that his words were put in his mouth too. But there must've been something original and different from the pagan religion for it to be attractive enough for non-Jews to convert to a new Jewish cult (with pagan flair to make it easier to transition). Someone must've come up with the brilliant composition.

 

It's like the wheel or the axe, even the ancient stone axes. It is very likely that someone (or a combined effort) started all those inventions. The process of creating a stone ax requires more than just hitting randomly on a rock. It's a special kind of rock. Special way of chipping, etc. If it was easy and by pure chance, all apes would do it, even today. But they don't. It was an idea that took hold, and it's reasonable to think that one ape started to use trim a stone to make it better to hit bushbaby apes with.

 

Imagine, just for instance, a People's History of American written by Pat Robertson is the only surviving document of American history 2,000 years into the future. All we could gain from that is that there was a country named America and a couple of names. Nothing attributed to those names would be reliable or representative of true history in the slightest. And, ti probably wouldn't even be Pat's fault. He probably would really believe what he wrote.

With the exception of having records of hundreds of churches being followers of Pat Robertson's writings. We know there were many churches in the first/second century. Exactly what they believed we don't know, but they did follow a belief in a "Jesus". Not a "Paul". It's one thing to write a book with a fictitious character. Another to have followers all over the place. Imagine Pat Robertson got Americans to convert to an Islamic cult with a head character he invented.

 

And besides that... Pat Robertson would be considered to have existed and written the books. That suggests that Paul must've existed at least. Doesn't it?

[Ouroboros]

It actually wasn't a minor sect at the time of Constantine. Rather it had infiltrated into the Roman government itself in various offices. It had tried to be stamped out by a wholesale persecution under the Emperor Decius in the 3rd Century because it had become so big and so popular he viewed it as a political threat. They had become so popular because they had set up many public social programs that the Empire itself never offered such things. They were very popular because of this.

But all those things are myths. Constantine didn't exist. The Roman government didn't exist. etc...

 

You're strawmanning me here Hans.

I know you don't think that. Just wanted to lighten things up a little by teasing. Sorry.

[Vigile]

But there must've been something original and different from the pagan religion for it to be attractive enough for non-Jews to convert to a new Jewish cult (with pagan flair to make it easier to transition). Someone must've come up with the brilliant composition.

 

Yeah, this is the area where a clearer understanding (on my part) would help me get a clearer picture of what might have happened. I tend to imagine that there were loads of competing sects at the time, but perhaps not and it is true that one new one came along that offered an alternative to Judaism and challenged the Romans.

[Antlerman]

But I fail to see how that process began without an actual person at the beginning of it that started the avalanche of myth in his name. That's where I just don't get the 'he never existed' theory. Besides looking at the evidence, you don't just have myths. You have teachings. And those teachings are what 'took off'. It's not just 'here's a cool new god to worship', it has the earmarks of the teachings of some sage at its core.

 

I don't see how Joseph Smith could have possibly made up the Golden Tablets, therefore Moroni exists. There is nothing original about any of the the teachings of Jesus. All can be found in the Torah, Tanakh, and Pagan beliefs. A new Cult found promises in the Suffering Servant of Isaah 53 and Daniel 9.

This comparison is not very good. Joseph Smith and Jesus would be more the comparison, not Jesus and Moroni.

 

And to say there was not original about the teachings of Jesus, well, if they weren't unique then why have a religion start over them? Why not just take what already existed? This is true of any and all teachings that start new religions. Obviously, they have to be different enough. Common sense actually.

 

I'll add here too that the myths that were added to the founding father figure of Jesus were not just supernatural ones with the flavors like the gods of the mystery religions, but those of great Jewish prophet figures as well, like Elijah, and Moses. Those were human figures also who had a lot of supernatural qualities attributed to them too. Shall we say that Elijah is pure fiction too? The purpose of these myths seem to be that of validation. To claim Jesus as a the founding figure of some new religion was not a good thing for these Christians to be saying about themselves in the Roman empire of the time.

 

Elijah and Moses are Myths as well. There was no Exodus.

You are saying there is no basis whatsoever for either Elijah or Moses to have been actual human beings, because the myths about them can't be true, therefore they didn't exist? I see the deep fault line in your views here.

 

Was there an actual Exodus as described in the OT? Not as it is presented. No. Archeological evidence reveals nothing of the sort, which it would yield at least something has something of that magnitude had happened, such as 40 years in the wilderness with millions of people without a single trace left. But this does not mean that there was not a human being named Moses, who may have with a small band of people left Egypt to then later join up with the growing tribes of displaced Canaanites who settled into the Highlands areas of ancient Israel, whose stories became part of the tribal legends and part of their later origin myth. Goodness, the Israelites themselves were Canaanites, yet their stories have them entering the land and vanquishing them! Does that mean the Jews never existed because the myth is historically false?

 

Again I see you going from "There was no Exodus" to "Therefore Moses never existed", the same flaw of logic as saying "Jesus never walked on water, therefore he never existed".

 

As a foundation myth, the exodus myth therefore constitutes the Israelite people not as a normal people like any other around, but as a separate, elected people of God. The origin myth is simply that of a religious community, whether people or a congregation. It is not a normal myth of origin of a secular entity; it is the kind of mythology that follows other religious communities of this world, including Christianity. It is not history but beyond history, phrased in historical terms; it is the origin myth of a religious history of the chosen people, the holy congregation of God, who having sinned passed the judgment in order to reclaim their land and their God.

(pp. 92-93 of The Israelites in History and Tradition, Niels Peter Lemche)

I only see you making the conclusion "Moses didn't exist" based on what he says here. I say the myth of origins is not always a whole-cloth fabrication. I'd contend there was something in their collective memories of individuals of note that made such stories actually work for them. It's the difference between adding a Moroni myth to Joseph Smith, and making up Joseph Smith himself. You can't see the difference?

 

BTW, the Buddha also has a lot of later teachings and myths ascribe to him too. Was the Buddha a non-historical person?

 

The Buddha, Orphus, Pythagorus, Homer, and probably Muhammad are all Myths, the Myth of the Great Man.

The Buddha was a historical person. His name was Siddhartha Gautama. He actually lived and had actual teachings. Later myths became ascribed to him of his divine greatness, such as lotus flowers blossoming in his footsteps as he first walked as an infant. But that you say he represents the Myth of the Great Man, is dead wrong. The Buddha is not a Hero Myth, like the Greek Gods, extolling the virtues of mans greatness of man conquering the Earth Mother. I see Jesus and Buddha much the same in origins and later myths. They became notable figures of schools of thought, which later heaped myths upon them to infuse them with deep symbolic meaning to their followers.

 

I find this an interresting area of study, but I don't really care which turns out to be right.

You seem to. I see it more a matter of having some actual teeth to speak of when talking with True Believers™ who take the myths as literally true. I see taking a pure mythicist position to lack understanding about the role and purpose of myth, and thereby set themselves up for complete destruction when one little piece of actual hard evidence that Jesus did in fact exist historically comes along. In what I'm saying, I would bet bottom dollar it would only further support what I am saying. In your case, you would then validate the literalist. In my case, I'd further be able to support this understanding with more information that helped illuminate what we are already seeing in religions and social evolution the world over. Your faith would be shaken. I would just be more intrigued.

[Ouroboros]

But there must've been something original and different from the pagan religion for it to be attractive enough for non-Jews to convert to a new Jewish cult (with pagan flair to make it easier to transition). Someone must've come up with the brilliant composition.

 

Yeah, this is the area where a clearer understanding (on my part) would help me get a clearer picture of what might have happened. I tend to imagine that there were loads of competing sects at the time, but perhaps not and it is true that one new one came along that offered an alternative to Judaism and challenged the Romans.

I too can imagine a load of competing sects, but they all (or at least several of them) attributed their belief and stories to a character with the same name. That's very strange to happen without something/someone unifying at least that single part.

 

Take the myths of Hercules. At some point, someone must have written the first Hercules story. That author must have existed. We can't assume that the Hercules story came into existence on its own through an imaginary author. Imaginary things can't create real things. So at some point, a real person did a real thing, even if that thing was about an imaginary idea. That's the essence of my discussion. If it was Jesus? Don't know. Was it Paul? Well, if all his letters were forged and he wasn't him but someone else (Simon Magus) who was a Gnostic, and really didn't have the name "Magus", then the conundrum builds and gets more complicated rather than simpler. Or put it this way, there were other myths going around at that time, why didn't they get ascribed to Jesus as well? Why only certain things and not all? Something/someone unified the early cults to the same base.