Why The Gospels Are Myth

[Sextus]

 

 

I'm not seeing the holes in "Jesus is fiction and certain passages from Josephus and Paul were altered after the fact".

I see more holes in that than a slice of Swiss cheese. A fiction invented by who? When and why? Why invent a dying Messiah when there was no expectation of anything like that? Why invent a crucified saviour when that idea was utterly absurd to most people? Why invent a Messiah from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem? And what "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact"? Altered by who and why? And what actual evidence (textual, linguistic, stylistic) do you have for these "alterations"? Because I'm afraid "I need them to be altered otherwise my contrived story falls apart" won't cut it.

 

You have a lot of work to do if this vague thought bubble is going to get even close to viable, let alone parsimonious.

 

 

I know this wasn't directed to me, but see my above comment on the basic irrationality of religion to answer all your questions. Religion doesn't need to "make sense," only to persuade, and persuasion to most people is accomplished through their emotions, not their intellect.

 

Sorry but that's just an excuse for not presenting a coherent answer to my questions. Religions may not "make sense" in that they are not strictly rational but they do tend to make sense within their social and cultural contexts. If you live in a culture that believes that angry gods can be placated by sacrifice, then you are likely to be able to persuade people that burying an unchaste Vestal alive will ward off the threatening invasion by Gauls, for example. And if you live in a culture that accepts that a Messiah will soon come to allieviate their oppression, you are likely to be able to persuade at least some of them that you are said Messiah. But if you live in a culture that doesn't expect a crucified Messiah or a Messiah that dies at all, it doesn't make much sense to invent one and try to convince them about him.  

 

There may not have been any expectation of a dying messiah (much less a "dying and rising Messiah") in Judaism.

No. Yet that's the context in which the Jesus sect arose.

 

 

All the more reason to posit a Gentile origin for this un-Jewish concept.

Except, contary to what some New Agers still believe, there wasn't a dying and rising saviour concept in the Gentile world either. So if the Jesus sect wasn't made up of the surviving followers of a man who they thought was the Messiah and who got crucified and who they believed "rose" in some sense, where did all this unprecedented stuff come from? 

 

Why a crucified savior? Why not? It's not "absurd" if the people (according to the mythology) doing the crucifying were "the Jews" and recipients of God's recognition were the Gentiles. This is over-rationalizing the ancient religious imagination. ALL ancient savior figures are "absurd" in some way. People didn't join religious cults to discuss Euclidean Geometry.

Flapping your hands and saying "Oh who cares - they were just irrational so they made up crap out of nothing all the time" is not an argument. We know these ideas grow out of earlier ideas. So - where are they?

[Sextus]

 

 

If you think the synoptic gospels and all the works of Paul were not written until centuries after Jesus died that would solve the problem.  That would place the death of Jesus somewhere around 150 BCE.

And what reason would we have to think this very strange thing?

 

 

I didn't say that.  I don't understand your response.

 

 

You seemed to say exactly that. What does your stuff above about 150 BC mean then?

 

 

Do you agree or disagree that the death of historical Jesus might have happened around 150 BCE?

Disagree. Completely. Nothing in the evidence indicates any such thing. I have no idea why you've even introduced this weird idea.

 

 

I did not say that it could not have happened.  I simply find it more likely to have taken a longer time.

Why? Some actual reasoning would be good around about now. 

 

 

Strange how the Jews in his vicinity while Jesus was alive were either completely illiterate or simply didn't bother with writing anything down.

Such as who?

 

And the Greek aristocrats who couldn't be bothered with Jesus when he was alive were so taken with the story later that they wrote the rest of the New Testament and even forged a few letters in the name of Paul for good measure.

Some of the pseudepigraphical Pauline material was written by "Greek aristocrats"? Yet another remarkable baseless assertion. There were people taken with the story later. That's what happens with things grow - they slowly become more prominent. This crappy argument of yours isn't getting any less crappy the further you drag it.

 

Historic Jesus would have had to have been "just right".  He would have to be just popular enough to start one of the greatest religions in the world ...

It didn't become "one of the greatest religions in the world until centuries after his death, due to a number of historical accidents that had zero to do with him. So, irrelevant and pointless. No matter how long you try to drag this out, this crappy argument is still just crap.

 

Give up. Seriously.

[mymistake]

 

I'm not seeing the holes in "Jesus is fiction and certain passages from Josephus and Paul were altered after the fact".

I see more holes in that than a slice of Swiss cheese. A fiction invented by who? When and why? Why invent a dying Messiah when there was no expectation of anything like that? Why invent a crucified saviour when that idea was utterly absurd to most people? Why invent a Messiah from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem? And what "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact"? Altered by who and why? And what actual evidence (textual, linguistic, stylistic) do you have for these "alterations"? Because I'm afraid "I need them to be altered otherwise my contrived story falls apart" won't cut it.

 

You have a lot of work to do if this vague thought bubble is going to get even close to viable, let alone parsimonious.

 

 

We don't need to know who wrote a piece of fiction in order to realize that an idea is fiction.  Same goes for the motive of the author.  For some fiction it is impossible to know the author's intent.  Date of writing is also not required to realize an idea is fiction.

 

Are you sure these are holes?

 

 

 

"Why invent a dying Messiah when there was no expectation of anything like that?"

 

I don't have that information but I don't see how not knowing makes Jesus real.

 

 

 

"Why invent a crucified saviour when that idea was utterly absurd to most people?"

 

Well if you have polled first century Roman citizens I would love to see the data.  Still, knowledge of the author's intent is not required to realize an item is fiction.

 

 

 

 

"Why invent a Messiah from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem?"

 

Now that is a question I can guess at.  I suspect it was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew concept of Nazarite.  The Gospel authors often misunderstood hebrew concepts.

 

 

 

And what "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact"? Altered by who and why? And what actual evidence (textual, linguistic, stylistic) do you have for these "alterations"? Because I'm afraid "I need them to be altered otherwise my contrived story falls apart" won't cut it.

 

There is nothing contrived here but I do wish you would stop distorting.  I accept the possibility that Paul and Josephus were not altered and also not mistaken regarding James having a brother named Jesus.  If that is so then there was an historical Jesus.  I accept this as a possibility.  However I find this evidence to be very thin considering how much rewriting was done first by various sects competing against each other and then later by Rome.  Don't you find the amount of evidence you can bring to support the positive claim is rather underwhelming?

 

 

.

[mymistake]

 

Disagree. Completely. Nothing in the evidence indicates any such thing. I have no idea why you've even introduced this weird idea.

 

I got it from your words.  You said centuries.  I took that to mean that you were saying the gospel of Mark was written 200 years after Jesus died.  So I wanted to get clarification.

 

In post 82 your wrote:

"What difference does the fact that people centuries later attributing "cosmic powers" to Jesus make?"

 

Personally I think Mark was written a few decades after Paul's "ministry" so I have no idea why you would call it centuries.  But I'm not you so only you can explain that.

 

I don't see how the author of Mark could get away with blatant lies about Jesus if the people who knew the truth were still alive.

 

 

 

Such as who?

 

There had to be somebody in first century Judea who was not illiterate.

 

 

Yet another remarkable baseless assertion. 

 

Because the New Testament is written in French?  Russian?  Chinese?  The King James English?

 

I can't remember what language it was written in.  You are right.  It was silly of me to think it was written by Greeks or even Romans.

 

 

 

 

It didn't become "one of the greatest religions in the world until centuries after his death, due to a number of historical accidents that had zero to do with him. So, irrelevant and pointless. No matter how long you try to drag this out, this crappy argument is still just crap.

 

Give up. Seriously. 

 

So Jesus must have been real because Christianity became popular due to a number of historical accidents that had zero to do with Jesus.

 

I'm sorry but I just don't see the weight of the evidence for your positive claim.  Paul (if he wasn't edited) said James had a brother.  Josephus (if he wasn't edited) said James had a brother.  Plenty of loose ends there.

[Overcame Faith]

I am not making these remarks to anyone in particular. Rather, my remarks are directed at the general tenor and tone of this thread. And most importantly, especially considering the overall purpose of ExC, they are directed in favor of those who are either newly deconverted and need help or those who may still be Christians but have some serious doubts about their religion.

The issue of whether Jesus is a mythical character or a real person can be very important to the two categories of people I described above for whom ExC is primarily designed and intended to serve. If Jesus was mythical, then the very basis of Christianity has been demolished. On the other hand, if the Jesus character of the four Gospels in particular and the Epistles to a lesser degree was based on a real person but not the Son of God, born of a Virgin, miracle worker, crucified and risen messiah/savior then that is another piece of information that would be important to our newly deconverted or doubters who may still be clinging to Christianity.

Here is what I ask, most particularly of our members who are posting on this thread who are trained scholars. Please write your opinions, express your ideas, and make your arguments with our members in mind. Scholars tend to write in a language all their own and many of the folks who come here for help are not scholars. I can tell you that much of what has been written on this thread has been done, I am sure unintentionally,in a way that many of our members are having a hard time following, even though I am sure there is some interest by them. If you use what I call "a term of art" which is not widely known by the general population we serve on ExC, please, please explain the term in a way that the average, but intelligent, person who has not been trained in your areas of expertise can understand. Otherwise, all we have here is a debate among scholars, which is best left to a website dedicated to that purpose.

Now, I direct these remarks to our members who are still struggling with Christianity. You are our top priority on ExC. I want to encourage any and all of you who have an interest in this area to post your thoughts, comments, and, most importantly, your questions on this topic. I am sure that you will be treated with respect and your thoughts, comments, and questions will be addressed with kindness and respect.  In fact, I know they will be because I, as moderator, will be watching carefully to ensure that is the case.


 

[Orbit]

 

I'm not seeing the holes in "Jesus is fiction and certain passages from Josephus and Paul were altered after the fact".

I see more holes in that than a slice of Swiss cheese. A fiction invented by who? When and why? Why invent a dying Messiah when there was no expectation of anything like that? Why invent a crucified saviour when that idea was utterly absurd to most people? Why invent a Messiah from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem? And what "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact"? Altered by who and why? And what actual evidence (textual, linguistic, stylistic) do you have for these "alterations"? Because I'm afraid "I need them to be altered otherwise my contrived story falls apart" won't cut it.

 

You have a lot of work to do if this vague thought bubble is going to get even close to viable, let alone parsimonious.

 

See "Arguments for partial authenticity" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_in_favor_of_partial_authenticity

 

Carry on.

[mymistake]

Okay with that in mind the four gospels are complete myth; just like the Gospel of Thomas and the dozens of other gospels that were not selected for the New Testament - they are all myth.

 

The book of Acts is a novel.  It wasn't the only one.  There were many other acts style books that also didn't get selected for the New Testament.  Again all myth.

 

About half the letters in the New Testament attributed to Paul were written by the same author (meaning the rest are forgeries) but some of the spiritual stuff Paul describes might as well have been hallucinations.

 

And yes there are books in the New Testament that are blatant forgeries such as Titus and the Timothies.  The authors knew they were lying but they claimed to be Paul anyway because there was no God to inspire Paul's original writings or to protect the New Testament when it's books were being chosen.

 

Jesus might have been made up.  Or Jesus might have been the brother of James.  If Jesus was the brother of James the stories about Jesus are still myth.  Jesus might have had a priest sprinkle some oil on his head.  That was all Christ meant back then.  It meant anointed, as in anointed with oil.  It's from an older tradition when Hebrew Kings would have a priest anoint them with oil.  If Jesus was real then he died before his brother.  Beyond that we don't know much about Jesus.  All of our other sources are religious propaganda which do not even agree with each other, or historians who were writing about the Christian movement long after the supposed time of Jesus.

[Blood]

Sorry but that's just an excuse for not presenting a coherent answer to my questions. Religions may not "make sense" in that they are not strictly rational but they do tend to make sense within their social and cultural contexts. If you live in a culture that believes that angry gods can be placated by sacrifice, then you are likely to be able to persuade people that burying an unchaste Vestal alive will ward off the threatening invasion by Gauls, for example. And if you live in a culture that accepts that a Messiah will soon come to allieviate their oppression, you are likely to be able to persuade at least some of them that you are said Messiah. But if you live in a culture that doesn't expect a crucified Messiah or a Messiah that dies at all, it doesn't make much sense to invent one and try to convince them about him. 

 

 

It was intended as a serious answer, not an excuse. 

 

We don't actually know that the people who wrote the texts actually lived in a culture expecting or not expecting "the Messiah." No information on the gospel writers, their location, their sources, and their motives is available at all. But this idea that they must have actually lived in, or been connected intimately with, Galilee or Palestine, is not at all supported by the gospels. Quite the opposite. Mark has no idea where anything is in Galilee and doesn't care. Mark has to explain to his non-Jewish readers the peculiar habits of the Jews in chapter 7. And of course they all write in Greek, not Aramaic, which would be the historical expectation for the vast majority of people in that area. Not to mention that all of their theology and quotations are based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Tanakh. 

 

Roman soldiers didn't live in areas where people were "expecting" a Persian savior figure. That doesn't make any sense in their social or cultural context. Yet they venerated Mithras anyway. 

[Blood]

The book of Acts is a novel.  It wasn't the only one.  There were many other acts style books that also didn't get selected for the New Testament.  Again all myth.

 

Yes, even American theologians teaching in seminary schools have come around to admitting that "Acts of the Apostles" is a second century fictional novel with little to no history at all. See the results of the Acts Seminar. So, Luke is a lying sack of crap who has no compunction making shit up if it serves the cause  -- doesn't bode well for the authenticity of the "L" material in the gospel of Luke. The actual "history" of the Christian church was mostly just some celibate Gentiles sitting around a room reading the Septuagint as if it were "The DaVinci Code." Not exactly thrilling history, so Luke invented one. 

[Orbit]

I posted on this way upthread, but am going to post again for the lurkers.

 

Let's say Jesus was a person. Does it make him Divine? No. Does it mean the stories about miracles were true? No. 

 

Ancient cultures created myths to suit their purposes, and did it all the time. They made up stories about actual people after they were dead, just like Americans made up the story that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree (it never happened, it was made up).

 

From this point of view it doesn't matter whether Jesus lived or not because what you are left with are mythical stories, and it's those stories that you're worried about. The stories are myth--secular historians agree on that.

 

Jesus was not a supernatural being, that's what matters.

[Blood]

The phenomenon works in both directions. Gods and heroes also became historicized and rationalized. The people who worshipped Asklepios or Hercules or Theseus assumed these had been real people long ago. And you know what? If we apply the same "criteria" to those gods and heroes that we do to Jesus, something magical happens. They, too, cease to be mythological figures! So Asklepios was really just a doctor who healed some people who then made him into a god after his death. Hercules was just a really strong dude. Theseus didn't kill a Minotaur -- the Minotaur was just a man wearing a bull headdress (like in Fellini's Satyricon). Historians like Plutarch wrote about these figures as if they were real, and historians can't be wrong. 

 

See how easy that was? 

 

[directionless]

I posted on this way upthread, but am going to post again for the lurkers.

 

Let's say Jesus was a person. Does it make him Divine? No. Does it mean the stories about miracles were true? No. 

 

Ancient cultures created myths to suit their purposes, and did it all the time. They made up stories about actual people after they were dead, just like Americans made up the story that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree (it never happened, it was made up).

 

From this point of view it doesn't matter whether Jesus lived or not because what you are left with are mythical stories, and it's those stories that you're worried about. The stories are myth--secular historians agree on that.

 

Jesus was not a supernatural being, that's what matters.

I agree with all that except for a subtle difference on the last line. You seem to be saying that the gospels are myths therefore Jesus was not a supernatural being. I agree that the question of a supernatural Jesus is the most important issue, but learning that the gospel stories are myth doesn't answer that question for me. Maybe nothing will answer that question for me, but I have been hoping that history might help. I want to increasingly satisfy myself that Jesus was a normal human that had a lot of mistaken ideas. I want to trace the evolution of Judaism through its polytheistic Canaanite origins, neo-Babylonian influences, and Hellenistic influences. I want to understand all the dumb Jewish practices and beliefs at the time of Jesus (such as animal sacrifice). Then I want to show that Jesus was a fairly conventional Jewish exorcist, healer, prophet who expected the Kingdom of Heaven in the near future, etc.

 

So I'm trying to show that Judaism was just another stupid religion and Jesus was not inspired enough to challenge the stupidity of Judaism. I think that might help me get over my stubborn belief that Jesus is a divine, loving, son of God that I need to pray to all the time, etc.

 

EDIT: Even if I succeed in the above goal, I would still need to debunk the possibility that higher power utilizes certain religious practices and beliefs to interact with humans. My strategy for that possibility is to debunk supernaturalism somehow.

[Orbit]

 

I posted on this way upthread, but am going to post again for the lurkers.

 

Let's say Jesus was a person. Does it make him Divine? No. Does it mean the stories about miracles were true? No. 

 

Ancient cultures created myths to suit their purposes, and did it all the time. They made up stories about actual people after they were dead, just like Americans made up the story that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree (it never happened, it was made up).

 

From this point of view it doesn't matter whether Jesus lived or not because what you are left with are mythical stories, and it's those stories that you're worried about. The stories are myth--secular historians agree on that.

 

Jesus was not a supernatural being, that's what matters.

I agree with all that except for a subtle difference on the last line. You seem to be saying that the gospels are myths therefore Jesus was not a supernatural being. I agree that the question of a supernatural Jesus is the most important issue, but learning that the gospel stories are myth doesn't answer that question for me. Maybe nothing will answer that question for me, but I have been hoping that history might help. I want to increasingly satisfy myself that Jesus was a normal human that had a lot of mistaken ideas. I want to trace the evolution of Judaism through its polytheistic Canaanite origins, neo-Babylonian influences, and Hellenistic influences. I want to understand all the dumb Jewish practices and beliefs at the time of Jesus (such as animal sacrifice). Then I want to show that Jesus was a fairly conventional Jewish exorcist, healer, prophet who expected the Kingdom of Heaven in the near future, etc.

 

So I'm trying to show that Judaism was just another stupid religion and Jesus was not inspired enough to challenge the stupidity of Judaism. I think that might help me get over my stubborn belief that Jesus is a divine, loving, son of God that I need to pray to all the time, etc.

 

EDIT: Even if I succeed in the above goal, I would still need to debunk the possibility that higher power utilizes certain religious practices and beliefs to interact with humans. My strategy for that possibility is to debunk supernaturalism somehow.

 

You can't prove that something doesn't exist--you'll just run around in circles. Instead look at the evidence for what does exist--and we don't have evidence for Jesus being the Son of God. That's actually very simple. You seem to have the default belief that god and Jesus exist--try looking at it from a neutral position and weigh the evidence.

[Blood]

Except, contary to what some New Agers still believe, there wasn't a dying and rising saviour concept in the Gentile world either. So if the Jesus sect wasn't made up of the surviving followers of a man who they thought was the Messiah and who got crucified and who they believed "rose" in some sense, where did all this unprecedented stuff come from? 

 

 

"Dying and Rising" is a Frazerian construction (I believe he used "dying and reviving" -- at least, that's what it says in my 1959 edition of The New Golden Bough) that over-generalized discrete religious concepts from different cultural contexts, which may or may not be related. Scholarship has moved on since Frazer, as you are aware, so there is no need to continue using his construction as if it were still the leading paradigm. 

 

Your question is purely an argument from personal incredulity. And it doesn't help solve the Jesus problem at all, since there is no precedent in Judaism for not only a "dying and rising god" but also for turning a man into the co-equal to God. And of course, the idea that the Jews would commit Deicide, and that this was all "predicted" in the Law and Prophets, would have been insane, unthinkable blasphemy to a first century Jew. 

[directionless]

You can't prove that something doesn't exist--you'll just run around in circles. Instead look at the evidence for what does exist--and we don't have evidence for Jesus being the Son of God. That's actually very simple. You seem to have the default belief that god and Jesus exist--try looking at it from a neutral position and weigh the evidence.

That is true. Maybe I'm weird, but for me it's not as easy as weighing some evidence and deciding that atheism makes the most sense. All my adult life (other than a couple of years when I was having hallucinations) I have been convinced intellectually that atheism is probably correct. That conviction hasn't prevented me from continuing to believe in Christianity at some deeper psychological level that unconsciously shapes much of thoughts, worries, behaviors. I keep feeling the need to try Christianity again and again every few years to make sure I didn't overlook something. It seems like there is no way to erase the childhood programming.

[mymistake]

To further explain:

 

There is an idea called "burden of proof".  That basically means we should start off with doubt.  

 

A claim can be either positive or negative.  A positive claim is when you say something exists.  For example if you claim cars are real that is a positive claim.  If you say "I have a baseball" that is a positive claim.  "Jesus was real" is also a positive claim.  Even if you think Jesus was a mere man who was crazy, homeless and a con artist saying he was real is still a positive claim.

 

Negative claims are the opposite - something doesn't exist:  Cars are not real.  I do not have a baseball.  Jesus was not real.  Negative claims do not have a burden of proof.  This is because it would take special and rare circumstances to prove a negative.  If your only contact with me is over the internet there is no way I could prove to you that I do not have a baseball.  This is why we say positive claims have a burden of proof.  All you have to do is take a picture of a car to prove they exist.

 

With that in mind the side that claims a Jesus, brother of James actually lived has the burden of proof.  The idea "Jesus was never real" is the default position.  We should doubt Jesus simply because that is the starting position.  We need evidence to move from no Jesus to maybe he was a real person.  And we should require even more evidence to move from maybe to probably.  It would take even more evidence to get to Jesus was definitely a historical person.

 

And what evidence do we have to go from complete doubt, to maybe, to probably or even definitely?

 

Just two documents that we know have been edited by Church leaders in order to make it look like Jesus was real.  One of them is the Book of Galatians which was written by Paul who's entire career was based on the Jesus religion.  So Paul could have lied, could have been mistaken or could have been edited.  There are a lot of question marks there.  The other document was written by Josephus who was basically impartial to Christianity.  Josephus claims that James had a brother named Jesus.  It is implied that Jesus was dead and Jesus had been anointed.  But again there are several question marks.  Is this an edit Church leaders made later?  Was Josephus misinformed?

 

We have doubts.  And due to the burden of proof doubt is the default position until evidence demonstrates the idea is reasonable.

 

Without those passages there is no evidence of a real Jesus at all.

 

When I look at all the unanswered questions I conclude that maybe James had a brother named Jesus.  However it seems more likely that Jesus was a fictional character that people told folk stories about until the stories became as amazing as what we see in the synoptic gospels where Jesus has more magic that a sorcerer.  In literature there are millions of fictional characters that grow in all kinds of ways.  The way one author can take a character in one direction and then later a completely new author can expand on that character and develop it even more looks a lot like the way Jesus grew from the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of Paul to the Jesus we see in Mark, Luke, Matthew.  And then the Jesus story grew even more in John where Jesus became one with God the Father.  Then a short time after that in the second and third centuries there were dozens of more gospels written about Jesus and the character just kept growing.  Most of those other gospels were not selected for the New Testament because the had become too wild to be believed (or they did not align with the Catholic agenda).

 

Example:

"In the gnostic "Second Treatise of the Great Seth" Christ himself provides a first-hand description of how he descended into the man Jesus's body, occupied if for the length of his ministry, and then died only in appearance."

-Lost Scriptures,  Books that did not make It into the New Testament  by Bart D. Ehrman,  page 82,  2003 by Oxford University Press

 

Jesus looks very fictional and there is so little to establish that he was ever a living, breathing brother of James.  We should be left with much doubt.

[qadeshet]

I think this bears repeating, often. The Gospels are MYTH and Jesus as he is portrayed in them almost certainly did not exist.

 

Glory!

 

The Yeshua portrayed in the Gospels certainly did not exist. One, or even several men, may have contributed to the Gospel accounts. If Jesus was a small town carpenter, who had a few followers and got himself executed, how can he be said to be the historical "Jesus"?

[directionless]

To further explain:

 

There is an idea called "burden of proof".  That basically means we should start off with doubt.  

 

A claim can be either positive or negative.  A positive claim is when you say something exists.  For example if you claim cars are real that is a positive claim.  If you say "I have a baseball" that is a positive claim.  "Jesus was real" is also a positive claim.  Even if you think Jesus was a mere man who was crazy, homeless and a con artist saying he was real is still a positive claim.

 

Negative claims are the opposite - something doesn't exist:  Cars are not real.  I do not have a baseball.  Jesus was not real.  Negative claims do not have a burden of proof.  This is because it would take special and rare circumstances to prove a negative.  If your only contact with me is over the internet there is no way I could prove to you that I do not have a baseball.  This is why we say positive claims have a burden of proof.  All you have to do is take a picture of a car to prove they exist.

 

With that in mind the side that claims a Jesus, brother of James actually lived has the burden of proof.  The idea "Jesus was never real" is the default position.  We should doubt Jesus simply because that is the starting position.  We need evidence to move from no Jesus to maybe he was a real person.  And we should require even more evidence to move from maybe to probably.  It would take even more evidence to get to Jesus was definitely a historical person.

 

And what evidence do we have to go from complete doubt, to maybe, to probably or even definitely?

 

Just two documents that we know have been edited by Church leaders in order to make it look like Jesus was real.  One of them is the Book of Galatians which was written by Paul who's entire career was based on the Jesus religion.  So Paul could have lied, could have been mistaken or could have been edited.  There are a lot of question marks there.  The other document was written by Josephus who was basically impartial to Christianity.  Josephus claims that James had a brother named Jesus.  It is implied that Jesus was dead and Jesus had been anointed.  But again there are several question marks.  Is this an edit Church leaders made later?  Was Josephus misinformed?

 

We have doubts.  And due to the burden of proof doubt is the default position until evidence demonstrates the idea is reasonable.

 

Without those passages there is no evidence of a real Jesus at all.

 

When I look at all the unanswered questions I conclude that maybe James had a brother named Jesus.  However it seems more likely that Jesus was a fictional character that people told folk stories about until the stories became as amazing as what we see in the synoptic gospels where Jesus has more magic that a sorcerer.  In literature there are millions of fictional characters that grow in all kinds of ways.  The way one author can take a character in one direction and then later a completely new author can expand on that character and develop it even more looks a lot like the way Jesus grew from the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of Paul to the Jesus we see in Mark, Luke, Matthew.  And then the Jesus story grew even more in John where Jesus became one with God the Father.  Then a short time after that in the second and third centuries there were dozens of more gospels written about Jesus and the character just kept growing.  Most of those other gospels were not selected for the New Testament because the had become too wild to be believed (or they did not align with the Catholic agenda).

 

Example:

"In the gnostic "Second Treatise of the Great Seth" Christ himself provides a first-hand description of how he descended into the man Jesus's body, occupied if for the length of his ministry, and then died only in appearance."

-Lost Scriptures,  Books that did not make It into the New Testament  by Bart D. Ehrman,  page 82,  2003 by Oxford University Press

 

Jesus looks very fictional and there is so little to establish that he was ever a living, breathing brother of James.  We should be left with much doubt.

I agree with that except I think the question is different. We know Christianity and the belief in Jesus exists. The question is: what are the origins of Christianity and this belief in Jesus? The negative claim is equivalent to the atheists who simply lack belief in God - i.e. you are not convinced by any proposed explanation for the origins of belief in Jesus. The people who claim that Jesus originated as a myth need to have some arguments just like the people who claim that Jesus originated from a historic Jewish preacher or any other proposal.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to take Orbits position of not caring or having an opinion about the exact explanation for the belief in Jesus - that is a negative claim. I find the historical Jewish preacher more convincing than the myth, but I haven't read much on these questions.

 

BTW: What do you guys think about Paul being a myth or Mohammad being a myth? I've seen some authors have written books on those possibilities that look interesting.

[Joshpantera]

As to some of the questions raised about why some a nonsensical dying and rising messiah story was told when it doesn't gel with what Jews expected, well that's really one of the main tenants of mythicism.

 

Hellenized Jews or judaized Gentiles are the culprits here. The gospels are not eye witness accounts, they are anonymous. They tend to lean towards mix matching pagan ideas with Jewish ideas.

 

Ta da!!!

 

You guessed it folks, Jesus is a mix of Jewish messianic ideas mixed with pagan ideas such as the dying and rising god motif. Doesn't make 100% sense to Jews or pagans. But to people who dabble in both, an intellectual group familiar with both, perhaps wanting to blend the two worlds so that they can have what they think is the best of both, you find Christianity.

 

How was that for a layman summary?

 

Now the 2 leading ideas so far is that all if this Hellenizing based itself on the story of a real mans ministry and death as a template for the hybridizing of paganism and Judaism or that they simply had the urge to create such a figure along the lines of a hero myth.

 

Nazareth?

 

This has been lightly passed back an forth but not with explanation as to why the response was that they were probably playing around with the Nazarene sect, as in the sect that Samson belonged to. You have two things, one a Nazarene and two writers also including Bethlehem, both allowing to include Jewish references as part of the hybridizing effort.

 

Once again, either they used an obscure story about a man who lived and died as the template from which to mythologize or they made up the character from bits and pieces of biographical information about prophet types that seemed to fit the story well.

 

The truth is that no matter how astrological, mythological, pagan, or any of the famous mythicism accusations go, the story still could have started with the template of a real man and then got hellenized like that.

 

Mythicists can not prove that Jesus never existed, nor should even try.

 

Folks, I take this all the same way that I take theism in general. People say that a God created the universe. I don't believe that.

 

Some of those people say that the God who created the universe came down to earth to sacrifice himself, uh, well to himself in order to save us from our sins. His name, wait for it, Jesus Christ, meaning anointed savior. I don't believe that either.

 

In both cases the burden of proof is on those who make the claim. And in both cases neither of these parties have met that burden of proof.

 

In the case of Jesus the best proof available, as you can see by browsing Tim's posts, is the likelihood of whether not a Jesus of Nazareth did exist per the non-contporary evidence that ancient history depends on.

 

That means that not only can it not be proven that a God exists, or that he came to earth by the name of anointed savior, but neither can it be proven that this anointed savior guy from the story either did or did not exist in the early 1st centry.

 

So by default I don't believe any of it. I'm atheist and agnostic across the board.

 

Tim's made the best case for an historical, though not divine Jesus that I've come across in years of debating with people about it. He has me almost convinced that the historicism model is the most likely, after years and years of arguing against that very model.

 

However, I'm not totally convinced. However likely it may be the fact still remains that skepticism of the entire claim is well founded due to the uncertainty involved with the issue.

 

The next question is "what does this matter?"

 

If an obscure prophet from desolate Nazareth told every one who would listen that the world would end, and then got himself executed and no such thing happened, what does it matter whether or not I believe or even care if he existed 2 centuries ago or not?

 

Is this a very damaging thing, my skepticism and lack of believe or confidence in the status quo?

[mymistake]

 

I agree with that except I think the question is different. We know Christianity and the belief in Jesus exists. The question is: what are the origins of Christianity and this belief in Jesus? The negative claim is equivalent to the atheists who simply lack belief in God - i.e. you are not convinced by any proposed explanation for the origins of belief in Jesus. The people who claim that Jesus originated as a myth need to have some arguments just like the people who claim that Jesus originated from a historic Jewish preacher or any other proposal.

 

The negative claim is that there was no Jesus - that Jesus is a myth.  There is no need to prove Jesus is a myth because negative claims do not have the burden of proof.  We should start by assuming this is true unless enough evidence demonstrates otherwise.

 

Claiming there was a historic Jewish preacher is a positive claim which does have the burden of proof.  If that burden can't be met then it is okay to keep this as a hypothesis - a hunch that you toy with unless evidence comes along that proves it was impossible.  However nobody should take a positive claim seriously unless it can be backed up with evidence.

 

 

It's perfectly reasonable to take Orbits position of not caring or having an opinion about the exact explanation for the belief in Jesus - that is a negative claim. I find the historical Jewish preacher more convincing than the myth, but I haven't read much on these questions.

 

Not caring or having no opinion is not taking a position.  This is neither positive nor negative.  Of course it is reasonable to not care.  If it were not for all the harm done by Christianity then nobody would care about James or any of his brothers.

 

 

 

BTW: What do you guys think about Paul being a myth or Mohammad being a myth?

 

I don't know anything about Mohammad (I'm not talking a position) but examining the texts shows that at least 7 (and perhaps a few other) Pauline letters were written by the same person.  If so then that person is Paul even if Paul is simply the pen name he gave to himself.  Of course this doesn't make Paul right regarding spiritual matters.  He could have been lying or hallucinating.

[Sextus]

We don't need to know who wrote a piece of fiction in order to realize that an idea is fiction.

You've "realised" it's fiction? I can't see any basis for this "realisation". You seem to have simply assumed it's fiction because this idea appeals to you emotionally. Sorry, but I'm a rationalist, so emotional assertions without an evidential basis don't do much for me. Where is the evidence and reasoning that supports your claims?

 

 

Same goes for the motive of the author.  For some fiction it is impossible to know the author's intent.  Date of writing is also not required to realize an idea is fiction.

 

Are you sure these are holes?

Yes. The biggest one is that you don't seem to have any basis for this "it's fiction" idea other than some wishful thinking on your part.

 

 

"Why invent a dying Messiah when there was no expectation of anything like that?"

 

I don't have that information but I don't see how not knowing makes Jesus real.

If you want to actually present an argument that makes sense and is more parsimonious than the much simpler and more likely idea that the stories of Jesu are based on what they say they are based on - a man from the early first century - you need to actually do just that; i.e. make an argument. Making a baseless assertion and then fending off any question about it with restatements of your assumption is not an argument.

 

"Why invent a Messiah from Nazareth when he was supposed to be from Bethlehem?"

 

Now that is a question I can guess at.  I suspect it was a misunderstanding of the Hebrew concept of Nazarite.  The Gospel authors often misunderstood hebrew concepts.

 

They did? Examples please. the writer of gMatt in particular gives good evidence of being very clear on things Jewish. And if Jesus was a Nazarite, how does this fit with Jesus not existing?

 

"And what "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact"? Altered by who and why? And what actual evidence (textual, linguistic, stylistic) do you have for these "alterations"? Because I'm afraid "I need them to be altered otherwise my contrived story falls apart" won't cut it."

 

There is nothing contrived here but I do wish you would stop distorting.

 

Pardon? You made the claim that "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact", so how on earth is asking you to back that assertion up with evidence and argument in any "distorting"? If you make a claim and expect to be taken seriously, you need to back it up. So, can you?

 

I accept the possibility that Paul and Josephus were not altered and also not mistaken regarding James having a brother named Jesus.

Great. But earlier you stated that you believed "passages from Josephus and Paul" were "altered after the fact". So I asked you to back that up. That is not "distorting" anything.

 

If that is so then there was an historical Jesus.  I accept this as a possibility.  However I find this evidence to be very thin considering how much rewriting was done first by various sects competing against each other and then later by Rome.  Don't you find the amount of evidence you can bring to support the positive claim is rather underwhelming?

I find it to be about what we'd expect and more than sufficient to make the existence of this Jewish preacher by far the most likely eventuality. And the overwhelming majority of people who have devoted their professional careers to studying this stuff agree with me. Perhaps you should look at why you don't find this perfectly sensible, entirely rational and wholly scholarly conclusion easy to accept. Is it rationality that is the cause of this reluctance, or is it emotion? I suspect it's the latter.

[Sextus]

See "Arguments for partial authenticity" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_in_favor_of_partial_authenticity

 

Carry on.

Thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the scholarship on the TF. The textual and stylistic evidence makes it pretty clear that the additions to the passage are the ones that bolster Christian theological claims about Jesus - i.e. that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead. They don't support the idea that he was somehow "a fiction". Quite the opposite.

[Orbit]

 

See "Arguments for partial authenticity" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_in_favor_of_partial_authenticity

 

Carry on.

Thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the scholarship on the TF. The textual and stylistic evidence makes it pretty clear that the additions to the passage are the ones that bolster Christian theological claims about Jesus - i.e. that he was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead. They don't support the idea that he was somehow "a fiction". Quite the opposite.

 

I posted that for the lurkers.

Carry on.

[Sextus]

We don't actually know that the people who wrote the texts actually lived in a culture expecting or not expecting "the Messiah." No information on the gospel writers, their location, their sources, and their motives is available at all. But this idea that they must have actually lived in, or been connected intimately with, Galilee or Palestine, is not at all supported by the gospels.

Where did I say they lived in or were even intimately connnected with Galilee or Palestine? Or that they needed to be?

 

 

Quite the opposite. Mark has no idea where anything is in Galilee and doesn't care. Mark has to explain to his non-Jewish readers the peculiar habits of the Jews in chapter 7. And of course they all write in Greek, not Aramaic, which would be the historical expectation for the vast majority of people in that area. Not to mention that all of their theology and quotations are based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Tanakh.

Yes, the gospels seem to have been written in the context of Greek-speaking Jews, "God Fearers" and converts to the new Jesus sect. But the focus, content, message, background and context are all firmly Jewish. 

 

Roman soldiers didn't live in areas where people were "expecting" a Persian savior figure. That doesn't make any sense in their social or cultural context. Yet they venerated Mithras anyway.

Since the only things "Persian" about Mithras were his name, his trousers and his hat, that's not a very good analogy.

[Sextus]

Your question is purely an argument from personal incredulity.

No, it's an argument from parsimony. We have evidence of first century Jewish men claiming to be the Messiah and being acclaimed as such. We have evidence of Jewish prophets proc,aiming the coming apocalyptic kingdom of God. We have evidence of a belief in both a coming general resurrection and of executed prophets being thought to rise from the dead as a precursor of this. Put all that together and you have a context in which an executed prophet who was thought to be the Messiah could also be thought to have risen from the dead. Enter Christianity. Your "dying and rising Messiah", on the other hand, doesn't have this evidential context and is pure suppostion. Occam's Razor doesn't favour hypotheses that are based on pure supposition.

 

And it doesn't help solve the Jesus problem at all, since there is no precedent in Judaism for not only a "dying and rising god" but also for turning a man into the co-equal to God.

But that later stage of the progression didn't happen within Judaism. It only arose much later, after the Jesus sect had sufficiently drifted from its Jewish roots. And we do have precendents for exalted mortals being recognised as gods in the non-Jewish context in which the Jesus sect then found itself a part. Again, this idea has an evidential context. Your's doesn't. And Occam's Razor comes into play.

 

 

And of course, the idea that the Jews would commit Deicide, and that this was all "predicted" in the Law and Prophets, would have been insane, unthinkable blasphemy to a first century Jew.

The people who first came up with idea of Jesus as a sacrifice and his death as atonement didn't believe he was God. You're reading later developments into the earlier material.