Bart Ehrman "jesus Existed!"

[Ouroboros]

"They"? Who are "they" and is there any evidence for the existence of them?

[mcdaddy]

I should've put this in the Lion's Den.

 

Hi BD, I think its a good subject for discussion.

 

I think when we say "historical Jesus" I mean a man may have existed as the source of the myth.

 

As we know when theists say "historical Jesus"they mean something different. They mean they know a man called Jesus existed and that the gospel accounts are accurate history.

 

And I think when those in the myth camp say Jesus doesnt exist. They dont mean a person called Jesus as a source for the founding myth is impossible. But that it is impossible to say anything concrete about a Historical jesus cause the gospels are so full of myth, contradictions, and propoganda, that there is no sound basis for accepting anything in them.

I should've put this in the Lion's Den.

 

Hi BD, I think its a good subject for discussion.

 

I think when we say "historical Jesus" I mean a man may have existed as the source of the myth.

 

As we know when theists say "historical Jesus"they mean something different. They mean they know a man called Jesus existed and that the gospel accounts are accurate history.

 

And I think when those in the myth camp say Jesus doesnt exist. They dont mean a person called Jesus as a source for the founding myth is impossible. But that it is impossible to say anything concrete about a Historical jesus cause the gospels are so full of myth, contradictions, and propoganda, that there is no sound basis for accepting anything in them.

I know that a nonsupernatural man behind the myth is meant. I'm just stating that there is no evidence for such a man. I was reading up on Tacitus, and the problem with him is that he says Chrestus, wasn't that just a greek epithet for him?

 

1: I don't believe there was ANY man at ALL that these stories were based on. Not even some apocalypto running around preaching love your neighbor and end times. Now, I'm sure there WERE some guys doing that, but I don't think THIS Jesus we're talking about was based on any those "potential" failed prophets. (as always -- i could be wrong)

 

2. Chrestus was not talking about "Jesus Christ". Its been shown in the extant manuscripts themselves that there are many instances where it originally said "Chrest" or "Chrestus" (which meant righteous one in Greek) the e was slightly erased to leave the i, forming "Christ".

[Joshpantera]

Hot off the press from the Vridar blog critique of Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

 

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/thomas-brodies-review-of-bart-ehrmans-did-jesus-exist/#comments

 

Thomas L. Brodie has an epilogue in his latest book, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus, in which he responds to Bart Ehrman’s purported attempt to address the arguments of mythicists, Did Jesus Exist? (I say “purported” because although Ehrman has vehemently denied the charge, he has never, to my knowledge, addressed the actual evidence that he did not himself even read the books by Doherty and Wells that he critiqued. But Brodie is a kinder reviewer than I am.)

Brodie summarizes the three parts to Ehrman’s book and then responds. A summary of his summaries follows. It dwells mostly on Ehrman’s argument about oral traditions since Brodie (as I have posted recently) is particularly critical of the way biblical scholars “uncritically” rely upon oral tradition to make their reconstructions of Christian origins work...

On the Chrestus issue, yeah, it means basically "The Good" and not messiah.

 

A study on the Tacitus manuscript under ultraviolet light reveals that an "i" has been overwritten on an "e" in the word chrestos.

from Kenn Humphreys' website

 

Even more interesting is this:

Chrestos Gods in mythology

 

From what I've gathered, some feel that the Gnostic concept coming from Simon Magus about a Good God above the lower tribal YHWH is what the early Chrestos references of the 1st century are dealing with. The idea of a spiritual mediator son between the Good God and humanity. Over time Chrestos was changed to Christos and the whole idea shifted away from the Gnostic heresy idea and towards merging the Good God's mediator son with the tribal YHWH instead. And thus ushers in the movements of the 2nd century and beyond...

[Ouroboros]

Did Simon Magus exist? What's the evidence for his existence?

[Joshpantera]

Isn't "christ" the greek translation of "messiah"? And there were a bunch of "messiahs" in Judea pre-70 AD? If those two claims are true (i.e facts), then there were "christs" in Judea. But if any of those two claims are false, then yeah, there were no "christ" of any kind pre-70.

I'm not sure about the number of messiah's, but you just reminded me of just how many Jesus's were mentioned by Josephus. None of them fitting the gospel Jesus aside from the blatant interpolation found in the TF.

"Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" By G.R.S. Mead

Here are the many Jesus's mentioned by Josephus throughout his works along with citations:

1. Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest. Ant 15.322

2. Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple. War 6.300

3. Jesus, or Jason – High priest. Ant 12.239

4. Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias. War 2.566, War 2.599; Life 1.066, Life 1.134

5. Jesus, brother of Onias – High priest. Ant 12.237, Ant 12.238, Ant 12.239

6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest. Ant 20.213, Ant 20.223

7. Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus. War 4.238, War 4.316, War 4.325

8. Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest. Ant 20.203

9. Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend. War 4.160; Life 1.193, Life 1.204

10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun – Successor to Moses. Ant 03.049, Ant 03.308; Ant 4.459

11. Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias, sallies against Vespasian's messenger Valerian. War 3.450

12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, delivers to Titus precious things deposited in the temple. War 6.387

13. Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest. Ant 20.231, Ant 20.234

14. Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600 followers, sent by Ananus & Jesus to depose Josephus. Life 1.200

15. Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ. Ant 18.063

16. Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers who were in the confines of Ptolemais, allies with Josephus. Life 1.105

17. Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ. Ant 20.200

Ant.

03:049 (numerous) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.

11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]

11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.

12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.

12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus

12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.

12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.

15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)

15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.

17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.

18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.

20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.

20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.

20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.

20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.

20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.

20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

War

2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.

3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae

3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]

4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.

4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.

4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].

4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.

6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.

6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.

6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Life

1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.

1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]

1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.

1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.

1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.

1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.

1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?

1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.

1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus Whiston translation online

Josephus: The Complete Works Whiston translation online

The Works of Josephus in Greek

Flavius Josephus

 

And the interpolation was apparently unknown until the time of Eusebius. Here's a brief list of those who knew of Josephus and/or his works yet made no mention of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) or Jesus:

93 CE

Josephus: The book Jewish Antiquities by Josephus is published in Rome. . . Manuscripts surviving today also contain a description of Jesus. But was this description present in the year 93? Josephus, in deference to the sensibilities of his Roman protectors, is at pains to avoid any mention of Jewish Messianic hopes. The only reference to a Messiah is in the description of Jesus and Christians which first appear with Eusebius.

ca.140′s CE

Justin Martyr writes lengthy polemics against the unbelief of Jews and pagans and arguments for Christianity. No reference to Josephus. Had Josephus written about Jesus, positive or negative, could such works have remained unknown to Justin?

ca.170′s CE

Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch writes lengthy polemics against pagan refusal to believe in Christianity. No reference to Jesus in Josephus, although he cites Josephus in his Apology to Autolycus, Bk 3, ch. 23.

ca.180′s CE

Irenaeus writes at length against unbelief without any reference to a work by Josephus. “t is clear that Irenaeus was unfamiliar with Book 18 of ‘Antiquities’ since he wrongly claims that Jesus was executed by Pilate in the reign of Claudius (Dem. ev. ap. 74), while Antiquities 18.89 indicates that Pilate was deposed during the reign of Tiberius, before Claudius” (Wikipedia’s citation of Whealey’s ‘Josephus on Jesus’). Had Josephus discussed Jesus how could Irenaeus have been ignorant of the fact? Surely some knowledge of such a passage in the famous Jewish historian would have reached Irenaeus and others.

Fragment XXXII from the lost writings of Irenaeus, however, does know Josephus — see 32:53.

ca.190′s CE

Clement of Alexandria wrote extensively in defence of Christianity against pagan hostility. He knew Josephus’ works — see Stromata Book 1 Chater 21. No reference to any mention of Jesus by Josephus.

ca.200′s CE

Tertullian wrote lengthy apolegetics against unbelief and in justification of Christianity. No reference to a passage about Jesus by Josephus. But he elsewhere knows Josephus’ works — see Apologeticum ch.19.

ca.200′s CE

Minucius Felix, another apologist, no references to Jesus from Josephus, although he knows and cites Josephus — see chapter 33.

ca.210′s CE

Hippolytus wrote volumes of apologetics but appears to know nothing of a reference to Jesus by Josephus. Fragments of his works — see On Jeremiah and Ezekiel.145 — show he knows Josephus.

ca.220′s CE

Sextus Julius Africanus was a Christian historian who is not known to cite Josephus’s passage on Jesus although he did know of Josephus‘s works — see Chatper 17.38 of his Chronography.

ca.230′s CE

Origen knows Josephus: four citations of Josephus are found here, but none reference a Jesus passage in Josephus.

1. cites a passage in Josephus on the death of James “the brother of Jesus” (Book 20 of the Antiquities);

2. states Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origen in fact notes that Josephus proclaimed the Roman emperor Vespasian as the long awaited world ruler of biblical prophecy).

3. summarized what Josephus said about John the Baptist in Book 18.

4. said Josephus attributed destruction of Jerusalem to murder of James the Just (something not found in our copies of the works of Josephus) — (Josephus actually implies the destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for the murder of Ananias).

5. does not cite any reference to Jesus from Josephus.

ca.240′s CE

Cyprian (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

ca.270′s CE

Anatolius, demonstrates his knowledge of Josephus in his Paschal Canon, chapter 3. No reference to Jesus in Josephus.

ca.290′s CE

Arnobius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

ca.300′s CE

Methodius, a Church Father who opposed Origen, and cites Josephus (see On the Resurrection — the citation is misplaced at the bottom of the page) but makes no reference to a Jesus passage in Josephus.

ca.300′s CE

Lactantius (North Africa) prolific apologist with no reference to Jesus in Josephus.

ca.324 CE

Eusebius quotes a reference in Josephus to Jesus that survives today in all manuscripts:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Some expressions in the above are Josephan, but used in a way contrary to how Josephus uses them elsewhere. Some expressions are characteristic of those found in other writings of Eusebius. More on this in a future post.

Eusebius in fact cites this passage three times — in three of his works — to assert a reputable Jewish support for the good character of Jesus:

1. Demonstratio Evangelica

2. History of the Church

3. Theophany

ca.370′s CE

Jerome cites Josephus 90 times but cites the Testimonium (the Josephan passage about Jesus) only the once, and that in his Illustrious Men, 13. “It is likely that Jerome knew of the Testimonium from the copy of Eusebius available to him.” (Eddy and Boyd). The silence on the Testimonium outside De Viris Illustribus 13 may well relate to the period prior to his attaining access to the Eusebian text of Josephus.

The one reference of Jerome’s is nearly identical to that of Eusebius except that where Eusebius had “He was the Christ”, Jerome cited Josephus as saying, “He was believed to be the Christ.” From CCEL:

"In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day."

Jerome, like Origen earlier, also wrote that Josephus interpreted the fall of Jerusalem as punishment for the stoning of James the Just, an interpretation not found in our copies of Josephus.

ca.380′s CE

St John Chrysostom

1. In his Homily 76 he writes that Jerusalem was destroyed as a punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus.

2. He discusses Josephus, but makes no reference to any passage about Jesus in Josephus.

3. In his Homily 13 he writes that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to death of John the Baptist.

Read the full blog at: Vridar

What Did Jews Have to Say?

[mymistake]

They don't need to fit. Those are some of the historical men named Jesus. That they don't match the myth is expected because the myth is fiction. A myth doesn't need to have one single insperation. It can draw from multiple sources and make up details where reality was disapointing.

[Joshpantera]

Did Simon Magus exist? What's the evidence for his existence?

To my knowledge Simon Magus is in the same mythosphere as the Jesus and the disciples, supposedly a contemporary who took over for John the Baptist's cult after his beheading. I'm not aware of any contemporary source evidence for the life of any of the disciples including Paul, as I saw mentioned here earlier. We can assume that Paul and the disciples did exist, but we're assuming. They left no record of their existence. Here's the theory that one guy laid out a while back dealing with the Simon Magus and Paul myths leading into Marcion's canon. The gospels appear into the literal and historical record after Marcion:

I will give my idea about the creation of the first gospel.

In the first century some opposition developed to the orthodox Jewish religious establishment and their stringent Torah laws. An opposition began in Samaria' date=' possibly by Simon Magus of Gitta, and those opponents were called the Gnostics. They taught that the Jewish god of the old testament was an evil demiurge, and there was a more superior, unknown god who was a god of the "good". The superior god of the good sent his saviour son Chrestos (the good) to save the Jewish people from worshiping the old testament demiurge, and give the Jews the knowledge (gnosis) of the superior, unknown god. These beliefs were taught by Simon Magus (the "good" Samaritan) in Samaria and also in Rome when he went there.

The teachings were continued by Menander the Samaritan in Antioch and his student Saturninus, who then taught Gnostic beliefs to Basilides of Alexandria, who taught his student Velentinus, who later traveled to Rome at a time when Cerdo the Syrian and Marcion of Sinope were in Rome.

In the first century the Gnostic teachings started becoming popular in Antioch and also back in Palestine. After 70 CE with the fall of the temple and the loss of power by the Sanhedrin there were some Jews who tried to counter the Gnostic stories and defend the Jewish traditions, but also criticize the Sadducees and Pharisees for being too authoritarian and dogmatic.

Finally the oral stories were written down in a gospel, but which gospel and by whom? Since some of the stories in the gospel came from the works of Josephus, the gospel would have to have been written AFTER the works of Josephus were reproduced, UNLESS, UNLESS it was Josephus who wrote the gospel story that included events from his experiences in Galilee and throughout Palestine.

Which gospel would have been written by Josephus? Since Josephus did not believe in the messianic Jewish beliefs he would not have written a gospel about a Jewish messiah. Josephus never wrote about the biblical Jesus (despite the redactions added in the 4th century), but he did write about a Simon the magician who lived in the time of Felix the governor in the 50s, so he could have been familiar with the teachings of that Simon. But would he have written about a god of the "good" who was different from the old testament, Jewish warrior god?

When Jerusalem was surrounded and besieged by the Roman army in 70 CE, Josephus went around pleading with the Jewish people to surrender or else there was going to be a mass slaughter of the people in Jerusalem, but the Jews in Jerusalem did not listen to Josephus, and they suffered at the hands of the Romans. By this, Josephus demonstrated that he did not support the Jewish god of war of the old testament, which would indicate that he would have been open to an alternative god of good.

Writing a Gnostic gospel about a "good" god who sent his son as a saviour to try to get the Jewish people to turn away from their warlike ways and "turn the other cheek" would have been consistent with someone who saw repeated Jewish rebellions only leading to the slow elimination of the Jews. In opposition to the Gnostic pacifist message, some men created a story about a son of the Jewish god who was a Jewish saviour claiming he "came not to bring peace but instead a sword".

In the Gnostic gospel story there is a sacrificial execution demanded by the Jewish Sanhedrin in which the Jews are shown to be powerless in trying to kill an immortal son of the Gnostic good god, whereas in the Jewish version the Romans temporarily kill a messianic Jew, thus creating more enmity against the gentile Romans.

It seems to me the Gnostic gospel story existed many years before Marcion used it in his New Testament, along with ten letters of Paul. The Jewish biblical, gospel story was created as a Jewish version of the Gnostic saviour story, and it also used parts written by Josephus about his experiences in Palestine. Finally a merging of both the Gnostic and Jewish gospel stories created the biblical gospels used in the 4th century bibles, thus explaining why the gospel stories contain several contradictory messages.

OK, now you can start tearing my ideas apart. :-)

Rik[/quote']

[mymistake]

We can assume that Paul and the disciples did exist, but we're assuming. They left no record of their existence. Here's the theory that one guy laid out a while back dealing with the Simon Magus and Paul myths leading into Marcion's canon. The gospels appear into the literal and historical record after Marcion:

 

Well don't the half dozen or so letters widely considered "authentic Paul" count as some evidence that Paul existed? Even if Paul was an alias somebody was using the name.

[Joshpantera]

They don't need to fit. Those are some of the historical men named Jesus. That they don't match the myth is expected because the myth is fiction. A myth doesn't need to have one single insperation. It can draw from multiple sources and make up details where reality was disapointing.

Yes, so then we agree to agree in that case. That's the point several posters have driving along throughout the thread and what I've posted in support of. The gospel Jesus is a little sprinkling of all variety of things, some of then pure myth and some of them taken from the writings of Josephus and others. A little appeal to the popular mythic Gods, a little appeal to tid bits from the stories of many different Jesus's, blending with things which attributed to John the Baptist, and thus creating a mythological character named Jesus of Nazareth who himself had no real historical existence in the contemporary record keeping of the Jews or Romans.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't "christ" the greek translation of "messiah"? And there were a bunch of "messiahs" in Judea pre-70 AD? If those two claims are true (i.e facts), then there were "christs" in Judea. But if any of those two claims are false, then yeah, there were no "christ" of any kind pre-70.

I'm not sure about the number of messiah's, but you just reminded me of just how many Jesus's were mentioned by Josephus. None of them fitting the gospel Jesus aside from the blatant interpolation found in the TF.

That's why it's a bit difficult to accept a strong myth origin theory. There are many trees making a forest, therefore there are no trees? Christians claim x=1, but the strong myth position seems to be x=0. To me it sounds like x>0.

 

Basically, the strong myth position is an assumption based on circumstantial reasoning just as any other theory. We don't have the writers/authors/inventors/creators of the myth stories. We don't have evidence for their existence. We don't have birth certificates and second hand confirmation or video tapes from anyone of them. So the idea that it came solely from myth building is in itself a myth (to be a bit harsh here). It's an assumption that can be argued, but only argued based on what evidence is missing, not what we really have.

[Ouroboros]

To my knowledge Simon Magus is in the same mythosphere as the Jesus and the disciples, supposedly a contemporary who took over for John the Baptist's cult after his beheading.

Then it just continues. What's the evidence for John the Baptist or his cult?

 

I'm not aware of any contemporary source evidence for the life of any of the disciples including Paul, as I saw mentioned here earlier. We can assume that Paul and the disciples did exist, but we're assuming.

Yes, we're assuming. The myth theory is based on assumptions too, assumptions that missing evidence proves inventing of later evidence. There's no evidence for the Gospels to have been created or invented by anyone for the simple reason that we don't know who made them, or how, or when. So myth theory is just an assumption too.

 

Just by the fact that we do agree that there were many Jesus-es and many Messiahs (Christs), we can see that all the trees are making a forest, and not everything in the Gospels were just creation from myth, but at least the name "Jesus" and "Christ" did have a source in one or more people using that name and pretending to be prophets from God.

 

They left no record of their existence. Here's the theory that one guy laid out a while back dealing with the Simon Magus and Paul myths leading into Marcion's canon. The gospels appear into the literal and historical record after Marcion:

I will give my idea about the creation of the first gospel.

In the first century some opposition developed to the orthodox Jewish religious establishment and their stringent Torah laws. An opposition began in Samaria' date=' possibly by Simon Magus of Gitta, and those opponents were called the Gnostics. They taught that the Jewish god of the old testament was an evil demiurge, and there was a more superior, unknown god who was a god of the "good". The superior god of the good sent his saviour son Chrestos (the good) to save the Jewish people from worshiping the old testament demiurge, and give the Jews the knowledge (gnosis) of the superior, unknown god. These beliefs were taught by Simon Magus (the "good" Samaritan) in Samaria and also in Rome when he went there.

The teachings were continued by Menander the Samaritan in Antioch and his student Saturninus, who then taught Gnostic beliefs to Basilides of Alexandria, who taught his student Velentinus, who later traveled to Rome at a time when Cerdo the Syrian and Marcion of Sinope were in Rome.

In the first century the Gnostic teachings started becoming popular in Antioch and also back in Palestine. After 70 CE with the fall of the temple and the loss of power by the Sanhedrin there were some Jews who tried to counter the Gnostic stories and defend the Jewish traditions, but also criticize the Sadducees and Pharisees for being too authoritarian and dogmatic.

Finally the oral stories were written down in a gospel, but which gospel and by whom? Since some of the stories in the gospel came from the works of Josephus, the gospel would have to have been written AFTER the works of Josephus were reproduced, UNLESS, UNLESS it was Josephus who wrote the gospel story that included events from his experiences in Galilee and throughout Palestine.

Which gospel would have been written by Josephus? Since Josephus did not believe in the messianic Jewish beliefs he would not have written a gospel about a Jewish messiah. Josephus never wrote about the biblical Jesus (despite the redactions added in the 4th century), but he did write about a Simon the magician who lived in the time of Felix the governor in the 50s, so he could have been familiar with the teachings of that Simon. But would he have written about a god of the "good" who was different from the old testament, Jewish warrior god?

When Jerusalem was surrounded and besieged by the Roman army in 70 CE, Josephus went around pleading with the Jewish people to surrender or else there was going to be a mass slaughter of the people in Jerusalem, but the Jews in Jerusalem did not listen to Josephus, and they suffered at the hands of the Romans. By this, Josephus demonstrated that he did not support the Jewish god of war of the old testament, which would indicate that he would have been open to an alternative god of good.

Writing a Gnostic gospel about a "good" god who sent his son as a saviour to try to get the Jewish people to turn away from their warlike ways and "turn the other cheek" would have been consistent with someone who saw repeated Jewish rebellions only leading to the slow elimination of the Jews. In opposition to the Gnostic pacifist message, some men created a story about a son of the Jewish god who was a Jewish saviour claiming he "came not to bring peace but instead a sword".

In the Gnostic gospel story there is a sacrificial execution demanded by the Jewish Sanhedrin in which the Jews are shown to be powerless in trying to kill an immortal son of the Gnostic good god, whereas in the Jewish version the Romans temporarily kill a messianic Jew, thus creating more enmity against the gentile Romans.

It seems to me the Gnostic gospel story existed many years before Marcion used it in his New Testament, along with ten letters of Paul. The Jewish biblical, gospel story was created as a Jewish version of the Gnostic saviour story, and it also used parts written by Josephus about his experiences in Palestine. Finally a merging of both the Gnostic and Jewish gospel stories created the biblical gospels used in the 4th century bibles, thus explaining why the gospel stories contain several contradictory messages.

OK, now you can start tearing my ideas apart. :-)

Rik[/quote']

No, I won't tear you apart. I don't know enough to really say anything to be certain or evident one way or the other. I just think it's more likely one or more "jesus-es" and/or "messiahs/christs" influenced the first growth of the religion. Then, myths were attached, and many different legends and ideas were added on, but still, "Jesus" and "Christ" were not any names that anyone were used to before Christianity began. Someone/someones must have being the first source of such an idea. It became popular to call a person Jesus or Christ and then build stories around them. So "Jesus" did exist as some kind of historical person(s), even considering that the evidence can't point to one single one of them to be the Gospel-Bible-miracle-magical person, history still points to a plethora of "trees in the forest."

 

It's like this:

Christian: X=1, where this "1" is a magical superbeing.

Ehrman: x=1, where this "1" is just an influential speaker with some great ideas, myths building upon later

Strong myth: x=0, there are no one called Jesus, Christ, Messiah, or nothing or speaker, or cult leader or ... everything just constructed from earlier beliefs by a large amount of anonymous people working in some magical swarm behavior.

Historians (as I understand it): x>0

 

My view: x>0. there were several Jesuses, Messiahs, Christs, at least one, but more likely many of them, influenced the early cult/religion, which later expanded with myths and merged with other religions. In other words, x>0 means: x=1 or x>1 but not x=0.

 

Don't let myth theory become a new religion...

[mymistake]

Basically, the strong myth position is an assumption based on circumstantial reasoning just as any other theory. We don't have the writers/authors/inventors/creators of the myth stories. We don't have evidence for their existence. We don't have birth certificates and second hand confirmation or video tapes from anyone of them. So the idea that it came solely from myth building is in itself a myth (to be a bit harsh here). It's an assumption that can be argued, but only argued based on what evidence is missing, not what we really have.

 

Perhaps hypothesis would be a better word for it. Much of the evidence is lost so there are some things we can't test. What was the original form of Mark? We don't know. For all we know it could have been heavily edited very early on. Were there any Jesus stories before Mark and Thomas? We don't know. We can guess but does guessing make the guess a myth?

[Ouroboros]

Basically, the strong myth position is an assumption based on circumstantial reasoning just as any other theory. We don't have the writers/authors/inventors/creators of the myth stories. We don't have evidence for their existence. We don't have birth certificates and second hand confirmation or video tapes from anyone of them. So the idea that it came solely from myth building is in itself a myth (to be a bit harsh here). It's an assumption that can be argued, but only argued based on what evidence is missing, not what we really have.

 

Perhaps hypothesis would be a better word for it. Much of the evidence is lost so there are some things we can't test. What was the original form of Mark? We don't know. For all we know it could have been heavily edited very early on. Were there any Jesus stories before Mark and Thomas? We don't know. We can guess but does guessing make the guess a myth?

Guessing becomes a myth when the guess is more than just a guess for the person. Some myth believers keep the idea of strong myth source very close to their heart, and it becomes almost a religion. I've talked to a few in the past, and I just think it's healthy to keep an open mind that the myth theory is just a guess, not a new belief to hold on to.

 

If the sources were only other myths and people (in a large area) suddenly started to compile similar stories about the same fictional character without having any reason or original source to do so, is in itself a belief in a magical swarm behavior, almost like telepathy. The multiple sources of stories all compiled into one story about one unified name. How the heck did that happen at several places simultaneous without any kind of uniting reason? The myth theory doesn't explain that part very well.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

"They"? Who are "they" and is there any evidence for the existence of them?

Not that I know of, but I can't say I can confirm the historicity of them either. Or maybe I just lack the knowledge of what evidence we have of them. I don't treat it any different. We know Julius Caesar is real because we have inscriptions from his time mentioning him.

Did Simon Magus exist? What's the evidence for his existence?

I don't know if there was such a man. My knowledge and studies on Simon Magus are quite small. Not enough for me to comment jack on his historicity. Just like whether or not there was a John the Baptist behind those who say he was the messiah.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

To my knowledge Simon Magus is in the same mythosphere as the Jesus and the disciples, supposedly a contemporary who took over for John the Baptist's cult after his beheading.

Then it just continues. What's the evidence for John the Baptist or his cult?

 

I'm not aware of any contemporary source evidence for the life of any of the disciples including Paul, as I saw mentioned here earlier. We can assume that Paul and the disciples did exist, but we're assuming.

Yes, we're assuming. The myth theory is based on assumptions too, assumptions that missing evidence proves inventing of later evidence. There's no evidence for the Gospels to have been created or invented by anyone for the simple reason that we don't know who made them, or how, or when. So myth theory is just an assumption too.

 

Just by the fact that we do agree that there were many Jesus-es and many Messiahs (Christs), we can see that all the trees are making a forest, and not everything in the Gospels were just creation from myth, but at least the name "Jesus" and "Christ" did have a source in one or more people using that name and pretending to be prophets from God.

 

They left no record of their existence. Here's the theory that one guy laid out a while back dealing with the Simon Magus and Paul myths leading into Marcion's canon. The gospels appear into the literal and historical record after Marcion:

I will give my idea about the creation of the first gospel.

In the first century some opposition developed to the orthodox Jewish religious establishment and their stringent Torah laws. An opposition began in Samaria' date=' possibly by Simon Magus of Gitta, and those opponents were called the Gnostics. They taught that the Jewish god of the old testament was an evil demiurge, and there was a more superior, unknown god who was a god of the "good". The superior god of the good sent his saviour son Chrestos (the good) to save the Jewish people from worshiping the old testament demiurge, and give the Jews the knowledge (gnosis) of the superior, unknown god. These beliefs were taught by Simon Magus (the "good" Samaritan) in Samaria and also in Rome when he went there.

The teachings were continued by Menander the Samaritan in Antioch and his student Saturninus, who then taught Gnostic beliefs to Basilides of Alexandria, who taught his student Velentinus, who later traveled to Rome at a time when Cerdo the Syrian and Marcion of Sinope were in Rome.

In the first century the Gnostic teachings started becoming popular in Antioch and also back in Palestine. After 70 CE with the fall of the temple and the loss of power by the Sanhedrin there were some Jews who tried to counter the Gnostic stories and defend the Jewish traditions, but also criticize the Sadducees and Pharisees for being too authoritarian and dogmatic.

Finally the oral stories were written down in a gospel, but which gospel and by whom? Since some of the stories in the gospel came from the works of Josephus, the gospel would have to have been written AFTER the works of Josephus were reproduced, UNLESS, UNLESS it was Josephus who wrote the gospel story that included events from his experiences in Galilee and throughout Palestine.

Which gospel would have been written by Josephus? Since Josephus did not believe in the messianic Jewish beliefs he would not have written a gospel about a Jewish messiah. Josephus never wrote about the biblical Jesus (despite the redactions added in the 4th century), but he did write about a Simon the magician who lived in the time of Felix the governor in the 50s, so he could have been familiar with the teachings of that Simon. But would he have written about a god of the "good" who was different from the old testament, Jewish warrior god?

When Jerusalem was surrounded and besieged by the Roman army in 70 CE, Josephus went around pleading with the Jewish people to surrender or else there was going to be a mass slaughter of the people in Jerusalem, but the Jews in Jerusalem did not listen to Josephus, and they suffered at the hands of the Romans. By this, Josephus demonstrated that he did not support the Jewish god of war of the old testament, which would indicate that he would have been open to an alternative god of good.

Writing a Gnostic gospel about a "good" god who sent his son as a saviour to try to get the Jewish people to turn away from their warlike ways and "turn the other cheek" would have been consistent with someone who saw repeated Jewish rebellions only leading to the slow elimination of the Jews. In opposition to the Gnostic pacifist message, some men created a story about a son of the Jewish god who was a Jewish saviour claiming he "came not to bring peace but instead a sword".

In the Gnostic gospel story there is a sacrificial execution demanded by the Jewish Sanhedrin in which the Jews are shown to be powerless in trying to kill an immortal son of the Gnostic good god, whereas in the Jewish version the Romans temporarily kill a messianic Jew, thus creating more enmity against the gentile Romans.

It seems to me the Gnostic gospel story existed many years before Marcion used it in his New Testament, along with ten letters of Paul. The Jewish biblical, gospel story was created as a Jewish version of the Gnostic saviour story, and it also used parts written by Josephus about his experiences in Palestine. Finally a merging of both the Gnostic and Jewish gospel stories created the biblical gospels used in the 4th century bibles, thus explaining why the gospel stories contain several contradictory messages.

OK, now you can start tearing my ideas apart. :-)

Rik[/quote']

No, I won't tear you apart. I don't know enough to really say anything to be certain or evident one way or the other. I just think it's more likely one or more "jesus-es" and/or "messiahs/christs" influenced the first growth of the religion. Then, myths were attached, and many different legends and ideas were added on, but still, "Jesus" and "Christ" were not any names that anyone were used to before Christianity began. Someone/someones must have being the first source of such an idea. It became popular to call a person Jesus or Christ and then build stories around them. So "Jesus" did exist as some kind of historical person(s), even considering that the evidence can't point to one single one of them to be the Gospel-Bible-miracle-magical person, history still points to a plethora of "trees in the forest."

 

It's like this:

Christian: X=1, where this "1" is a magical superbeing.

Ehrman: x=1, where this "1" is just an influential speaker with some great ideas, myths building upon later

Strong myth: x=0, there are no one called Jesus, Christ, Messiah, or nothing or speaker, or cult leader or ... everything just constructed from earlier beliefs by a large amount of anonymous people working in some magical swarm behavior.

Historians (as I understand it): x>0

 

My view: x>0. there were several Jesuses, Messiahs, Christs, at least one, but more likely many of them, influenced the early cult/religion, which later expanded with myths and merged with other religions. In other words, x>0 means: x=1 or x>1 but not x=0.

 

Don't let myth theory become a new religion...

As for John the Baptist's cult:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/mand.htm

 

Maybe there was a many behind the myth, maybe there wasn't. My claim is just that, I don't have the evidence with which to say that there is.

[Ouroboros]

"They"? Who are "they" and is there any evidence for the existence of them?

Not that I know of, but I can't say I can confirm the historicity of them either. Or maybe I just lack the knowledge of what evidence we have of them. I don't treat it any different. We know Julius Caesar is real because we have inscriptions from his time mentioning him.

Correct. Which means the idea of Christianity only based on myths constructed/assembled by some mysterious group we call "they" is not completely solid. We don't know if there were anyone like "them" thinking/changing/considering what/how a Jesus should be or not based on previous myths or not. In other words, Bart Ehrman's "a historical Jesus" is not more or less speculative than the "Jesus is only based on myth" idea.

 

Did Simon Magus exist? What's the evidence for his existence?

I don't know if there was such a man. My knowledge and studies on Simon Magus are quite small. Not enough for me to comment jack on his historicity. Just like whether or not there was a John the Baptist behind those who say he was the messiah.

I think there's less evidence for Simon and John than there's for Jesus. I think there are three different Simons. And John is mostly only mentioned in the Gospels. Or something like that. So if John did exist, the Gospels did get that one right. Did he baptize Jesus? Who knows. Or maybe he didn't exist either.

[mymistake]

Guessing becomes a myth when the guess is more than just a guess for the person. Some myth believers keep the idea of strong myth source very close to their heart, and it becomes almost a religion. I've talked to a few in the past, and I just think it's healthy to keep an open mind that the myth theory is just a guess, not a new belief to hold on to.

 

If the sources were only other myths and people (in a large area) suddenly started to compile similar stories about the same fictional character without having any reason or original source to do so, is in itself a belief in a magical swarm behavior, almost like telepathy. The multiple sources of stories all compiled into one story about one unified name. How the heck did that happen at several places simultaneous without any kind of uniting reason? The myth theory doesn't explain that part very well.

 

Well we have a number of these. There is King Author who as far as I know is completely mythical. Then there is Robin Hood who went history, to legend to myth. We have Santa who started as the historical St. Nicholas. Zoro is a complete myth. (or does he count since he was intended as fiction? Personally I think he does because other myths might have started that way as well) Paul Bunyan might have easily started from bragging that got carried away but we have no record of that. So one piece of evidence we have is the general way humans build myths.

 

Even people who are making up a story from scratch get their inspiration from somewhere. There are lumberjacks and there were forest bandits. There were men who opposed the Anglo invasion of Briton. There were even crazy preachers who lived in the wilderness and a lot of men named Jesus/Yeshua/Josua.

 

But yeah I would love for archeologists to uncover more evidence. If we could find more works from the 1st Century or earlier, perhaps something like the Dead Sea Scrolls but written from a different perspective that would greatly improve our understanding.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe there was a many behind the myth, maybe there wasn't. My claim is just that, I don't have the evidence with which to say that there is.

Agree. We don't know. But like MM said, we can guess. My guess since most evidence points to many X, that at least X is one, probably more, but not zero. In other words, I think Ehrman is wrong because he thinks of "one Jesus" instead of "many Jesuses." And I think it's wrong to think "no Jesus" too since there seems to be "many Jesuses."

[Ouroboros]

Well we have a number of these. There is King Author who as far as I know is completely mythical. Then there is Robin Hood who went history, to legend to myth. We have Santa who started as the historical St. Nicholas. Zoro is a complete myth. (or does he count since he was intended as fiction? Personally I think he does because other myths might have started that way as well) Paul Bunyan might have easily started from bragging that got carried away but we have no record of that. So one piece of evidence we have is the general way humans build myths.

Right.

 

Did anyone of those examples start simultaneous at multiple places in an empire or can we for a fact see that these built upon smaller stories up to bigger stories?

 

Even people who are making up a story from scratch get their inspiration from somewhere. There are lumberjacks and there were forest bandits. There were men who opposed the Anglo invasion of Briton. There were even crazy preachers who lived in the wilderness and a lot of men named Jesus/Yeshua/Josua.

Which means that "no evidence at all" is a too strong position. There's evidence that there were several, we just don't know how much or how many influenced the story. So there is evidence for one or many Jesus, not "no evidence." We don't have evidence for how, what, when, how many, why, but "no evidence" is saying that there is nothing at all. Obviously there is something. Exactly what that "something" is, we can't say because of the lack of evidence.

 

But yeah I would love for archeologists to uncover more evidence. If we could find more works from the 1st Century or earlier, perhaps something like the Dead Sea Scrolls but written from a different perspective that would greatly improve our understanding.

It would be nice so some of the questions could be put to a rest. I think it would be great if they could find more writings from the different cults to see what the cult leaders said and believed. I kind of see Christianity as a patch-work or a puzzle with many pieces where people have added a patch/piece they liked. It's like a "goodiebag" full of whatever each person consider to be his/her personal "top 10 list of nice things." And then teach their kids, it spreads, and merges, etc. It's a "everything goes" religion to some degree.

[qadeshet]

Did Simon Magus exist? What's the evidence for his existence?

I don't know if there was such a man. My knowledge and studies on Simon Magus are quite small. Not enough for me to comment jack on his historicity. Just like whether or not there was a John the Baptist behind those who say he was the messiah.

 

Simon Magus by G. R. S. Mead

[Ouroboros]

Simon Magus by G. R. S. Mead

That book was published in 1892 by Theosophical Publishing Society. I'm not sure it constitutes evidence for the existence of Simon Magus more than Bart Ehrman writing a book about the existence of Jesus. Mead was a better historian and had more facts than Ehrman? There are many myths surrounding Simon Magus. It's not quite clear where he came from. The sources are the same ones as Jesus. Some of the "evidence" is from Acts (New Testament). Hmm... Should we assume the Bible is false with everything, but then it's right about Simon? I'm not quite clear on how that can be. The Bible is wrong about everything except the things that can help us discredit it further? It's not an honest position to be in.

 

The honest position here is that Simon probably existed but most of the stories we have are inaccurate or sometimes perhaps have some kernels of truth in them. And we can say that, while being just as honest, there are some truths in the Bible even though a lot of it is myth.

[Joshpantera]

^I see the point you're making "tail biter" (lol, I have an Ouroboros tattoo on my shoulder and I'm Pantheist, small world...), but it seems to me that you may be confused about the Christ myth theories in one aspect. As Ken Humphreys points out to apologists in debate, we're not interested in the proof that any run of the mill Jesus existed historically. No one argues that they did not. Which is why I posted a list of how many Josephus recorded.

 

But are any of these historical people who were recorded in history the basis for the Jesus of Nazareth myth? It seems that the answer is no. You can read through and find several different things from many different run of the mill Jesus's listed that seem to have been added to the Christ myth, but nothing that constitutes the beginning of the Christian movement by any one of them coming from Nazareth, which is what the gospel Jesus is. A composite of 20 people turns out to be no one in particular. And that general philosophy is a main point in the Christ Myth theorizing and mythicist movement.

[Ouroboros]

^I see the point you're making "tail biter" (lol, I have an Ouroboros tattoo on my shoulder and I'm Pantheist, small world...), but it seems to me that you may be confused about the Christ myth theories in one aspect. As Ken Humphreys points out to apologists in debate, we're not interested in the proof that any run of the mill Jesus existed historically. No one argues that they did not. Which is why I posted a list of how many Josephus recorded.

In other words, the Gospel-Jesus didn't exist (some 100% match), but there were at least one or many that most likely contributed to the origins of the myths which then later got expanded upon. Therefore, "no evidence" isn't a viable position.

 

And there are some mythicists who claim there are "no evidence". No evidence for any Jesus means no evidence for any Jesus. Having evidence for many Jesus-es is not the same as no evidence for any Jesus. I think it's important to start being more clear of what the "no evidence" really means. There's no evidence for a Gospel/Miracle-working/God-son Jesus, but there are evidence for a number of Jesus-es and Messiahs and cult-leaders. All of them contributing to the picture. So there is evidence for at least one, most likely many, "Jesuses".

 

But are any of these historical people who were recorded in history the basis for the Jesus of Nazareth myth?

In other words, a specific definition of Jesus instead of a general kernel of truth to a story. The word "Nazareth" was probably a miss in translation or tradition or whatever. It was (I think) more likely a cult name. But we were talking about Jesus, not Jesus with sandals walking to place X saying thing ABC doing this and that... There's a difference between specific and generality. We don't know what exactly might be the closest to the truth in the Gospels, but having so many messiahs around, it's kind of unlikely that not a single one of them influenced the myth at all. In essence, the hard stance of myth (meaning that there's no historical backing at all for anything in the story) is not as probable. The theory that most, but not everything, is based on myth is okay, I think, it's just that some people do take the "everything is myth" stance. I think that's not very likely considering how many cult leaders and messiahs and jesuses and christs and so on you had during that time. Not a single one influencing the myth? Really? So I think we have to be careful how we word these "no evidence for" expressions and be more specific when we don. There's no evidence for a miracle working Jesus. Sure, okay. There's no evidence for anyone called Jesus. Eh... the problem is that there are many Jesuses, so which Jesus are you talking about having no evidence? You see the difference of level of resolution?

 

It seems that the answer is no. You can read through and find several different things from many different run of the mill Jesus's listed that seem to have been added to the Christ myth, but nothing that constitutes the beginning of the Christian movement by any one of them coming from Nazareth, which is what the gospel Jesus is. A composite of 20 people turns out to be no one in particular. And that general philosophy is a main point in the Christ Myth theorizing and mythicist movement.

Sure. But my impression is different from a couple of "mythicists" I've talked to. They tend to drive the point of "no evidence" really hard. Actually, they tend to drive the idea that "the evidence is clear that there were no Jesus or Christianity before such-and-such year." So my point here isn't to you, but to anyone who feel that they've landing in that camp of strong belief instead of realizing that the puzzle is a lot more complex than just "no evidence at all" stance.

[Joshpantera]

][/b]Did anyone of those examples start simultaneous at multiple places in an empire or can we for a fact see that these built upon smaller stories up to bigger stories?

Have you read any Earl Doherty's books or articles on this specific issue? That is a very good question and one that I've faced upon stumbling into the mythicist writers.

 

Point #1 is that when dealing with Jesus of Nazareth we're entering the realm of speculation, hands down. And since I haven't seen any pro-mythicist position posters contradict that I'd say that we're treading close to a straw man by suggesting that mythicists are saying that Jesus certainly did not exist, or even could not exist. I have never heard that claim aside from straw men held up by Christian apologists in order to try and bring the mythicist down their "burden of proof" level.

 

Point #2 The mythicist is simply skeptical of the historical claims made by believers and evemerists, those who make the initial claim that Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist historically and in some way founded the movement. Mythicism is merely a rejection of the claim based on the lack of proper evidence to substantiate the beleiver or evemerist claim in the first place. It's no different than the atheist's "lack of belief" in God(s) without first establishing the claim. Unless the burden of proof has been met, the atheist will retain a lack of belief in God(s) and therefore retain his atheism. Replace God(s) with Jesus of Nazareth and there you have the mythicist argument.

 

I understand what you're saying about rogue mythicists on the web you may have come at you with a strong or positive assertion that Jesus of Nazareth was certainly not historical. But I've spoken to Price, Doherty, and Murdock privately on this issue and each of them have told me that they don't think it's impossible that a Jesus of Nazareth could have existed, it's just a matter of show me the evidence before I accept the claim. And these are some of the leading voices out there. I think that some people do miss that important point and over shoot the actual mythicist position which is simply healthy skepticism and outlining the reality of uncertainty pertaining to this particular debate. Most of the pro-mythicist posters in the thread so far have been very open about the uncertainity of the Christ Myth issue. I know I have from early on. The Christ Myth position is also a type of Agnostic stand because we simply don't know for sure whether or not Jesus of Nazareth existed due to the lack of proper evidence to substantiate the claim.

 

Not knowing, we prefer to leave this supernatural story as mythological instead of trying to weed out the supernatural elements in search of some real historical core. It's an onion so far, no one has uncovered a fixed core to date.

 

Ehrman's certainty claim about a doomsday prophet Jesus as the real historical Jesus of Nazareth is only one aspect o the myth. And when you analyze it closely it turns out that much of the doomsday material attributed to Jesus of Nazareth is actually confused with John the Baptist sayings and attributed to the Jesus character. I followed a debate on that very issue where the person using Ehrman's argument about who the real Jesus was, lost the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-historical-Jesus-Christ-was-a-doomsday-cult-leader/2/

 

I said I would remind my opponent of all the arguments he dropped in the last round. Here we go.

 

Dropped:

 

1) John's beliefs are the EXACT same as a real tribe, the Essenes, whose beliefs are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes believed in BAPTISM to wipe away sin, asceticism (fasting), AND that the world would soon come to an end. If John the Baptist and Jesus are based on real people, it seems obvious that John must have gotten his beliefs about baptism and fasting from somewhere. Obviously, the Essenes are the perfect candidates. So if John completely mimicked their first two beliefs, why wouldn't he mimic their apocalyptic beliefs as well. Thus, why should we not believe that John was the apocalyptic and not Jesus? It fits with his other beliefs.

 

2) Jesus' followers completely differed from those of John. In Mark 2:18, John's followers are fasting and Jesus' are not. We can clearly see whose followers were following in the footsteps of the Essenes.

 

3) According to one of the Gnostic gospels, the Gospel of Philip, Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. Since Jesus did not deny himself the pleasures of the flesh, he clearly differed in beliefs from John and his ascetic apocalyptic followers.

 

4) People often confused Jesus with John according to Mark 8:27-28. "On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist."" When the gospel authors took random quotes from quote books (like "Q"), they obviously made the same mistake. Or else the gospel authors borrowed from oral tradition, which would also be corrupted by people confusing Jesus with John. The concession of this point is HUGE. The gospels themselves prove that people confused Jesus with John.

 

5) Robert W. Funk and most Biblical scholars (two thirds of them) believe that Jesus was not predicting apocalypse when he predicted the coming of the "Kingdom of God." Instead, they believe he meant this in the Gnostic sense: that people would achieve paradise here on Earth through salvation of the soul by righteous practices. Two thirds of Jesus scholars believe that: the historical Jesus was merely a holy man and John the Baptist was the apocalyptic.

 

This takes out all but one of my opponent's quotes.

 

6) The concession of #5 only leaves my opponent one apocalyptic passage in Mark 8:34. I showed that in this passage, Jesus refers to himself and the Messiah as different people (so the true speaker probably wasn't Jesus, but John). My opponent answers this with a "Jesus scholar" who claims that Jesus did not consider himself the Messiah. We only have to go back 4 lines to see this isn't true: "Peter answered, "You are the Messiah."Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him."" Lastly, Mark 8:34 begins with an exhortation to the audience to "deny themselves." This is yet more evidence that the doomsday predictions in the New Testament are false attributions of quotes from John the Baptist (or another ascetic apocalyptic preacher), since we saw that Jesus did not ask his followers to fast or deny themselves (Mark 2:18).

 

ALL of the above arguments were dropped.

 

Con thus doesn't defend his original apocalyptic claims from the New Testament. As such, CON HAS NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE LEFT AT THE END OF THE ROUND PROVING A DIRECT QUOTE FROM JESUS THAT WAS APOCALYTPIC. He thus clearly fails to meet the burden of proof, especially with all his complaining that everything has to be proven by primary sources.

This was not a historicity debate, just a debate about whether or not Ehrman's version of the real Jesus of history hold any water. Both parties are assuming the existence of John the Baptist and some obscure Jesus. But it just goes to show what I mean about a layered onion with no core. Ehrman's core simply isn't a core but rather one more errant layering mixed in with everything else that he's already dismissed as historically accurate.

 

And this is the way of the mythicist. Stand back and judge the burden of proof evidence that those claiming an historical Jesus care to present us. If they succeed one day, mythicism will be finished just like that. But in 2,000 years no such evidence has ever surfaced to settle the issue. Least of all now with Ehrmans certainty claim in "Did Jesus Exist." He's earned the title "Errorman" because of this book...

[Joshpantera]

I read previously some hostility toward Murdock, but nevertheless she's an online friend of mine and I'll go ahead post what she's created to answer the question about whether or not the mythicist position involved the investigation of both historical and mythical contributions:

 

The Jesus Mythicist Creed:

The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

 

I'd advise anyone promoting the myth position to carefully consider this before claiming that there is no evidence for any Jesuses in history whatsoever. I have never encountered such a blatant ignorance from any mythicists online, but if it's circulating I'd be the first to step in and take the person or persons "to task." That requires zero knowledge of Josephus, and an ill-informed perspective of what the mythicist writers are actually promoting.

 

The real point is that composite of characters constitutes a mythological character. What was that movie a while back about the Wrestler who's story was a blend of the lives of many different historical wrestlers? I don't recall the name. But it makes a good point here because the character in the movie was a mythological character, a fiction, which was based bringing together parts and pieces of some real wrestlers, like Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage, etc. No one of actual historical wrestlers is the real man behind the mythic character. He's not Hulk Hogan from Tampa, but rather Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage and Jesse Ventura, and who ever else contributed. He himself is no one in particular. That's what a mythic character can be (a mix of history and mythology) and yet retain the status of a mythic charater.

 

You turn to the gospel Jesus, a Nazarene born at a certain time with certain followers killed by a certain group of people at a certain time in history.

 

I've found that this mythological character draws from all variety of elements which include parts from of the many Jesus's mentioned in Josephus, the Yeshua Ben Pandera / Sedata of Talmud (living circa +/- 100 BCE during the reign of Janneus), other Jewish heretics mentioned in the last debate, the Philonic Logos concept, the syro-gnostic cosmic savior, the dying and rising god themes popular in the first century, etc. etc.

 

This is how the New Testament Jesus (Paul / pseudo-Paul, the gospels, and Revelation) can be all myth and yet touch on some history because the tid bits of history sprinkled in don't make the story any less mythological. Listen, I present it like this because I've gone from knowing zero about the argument (not even knowing there was such an argument, no different than Ehrman when he approached it) to finding myself right in the middle of it all with the leading voices as facebook friends and fellow mods and admins. I defend their positions because I feel very strongly about the right for this argument to be voiced.

 

These people arguing the case for mythicism are generally all former Christians just like me, and just like all of you I would assume. They are now atheists, agnostics, humanists, pantheists, panentheists, deists and even liberal Christians who retain the title. And we all mix in together under the common opinion that the NT Nazarene Jesus lacks proper historical credibility. If you come across aggressive and hostile types that's mainly because we're a minority of former Christians who were raised zealous for the faith and then turned away from it. Some of that zealousness remains and is directed at the new cause, which is to promote the Christ Myth theory as the rational and logical position to take. Unfortunately some of that Christian residue can taint the cause as you've pointed out. I just wish that I could have observed the tainting in action because I'm sure that I could have ended it swiftly with a few breif quotes....