Christ myth theory

Red1966 · Mar 23, 2016

ThickStemz said:
Please explain to me how I've proven the anonymous writers of the gospels were contemporaries of jesus?

The link you provided to disprove it actually confirmed it. I quoted the pertinent line.

Red1966 · Mar 23, 2016

ThickStemz said:
Red, I'm troubled by your view that you think I'm a liar and arrogant. I actually don't try to be. I apologize if I've given you cause for offense.

I think I can clear up some of that right here.

I'm passingly familiar with Ehrman, the blog of the PhD professor in new testiment I linked to...

I think you're confusing the gospels with the epistles.

The first 4 books are called the gospels. They are the story of the life of Jesus. And if you read the rest of the NT carefully, no other books actually speak of or about the life of jesus.

Most of the NT is comprised of letters by Paul, a man that Christian tradition claims never even met jesus. He was converted by a vision of him on the Damascus road, correct?

There are two books attributed to Peter. They do not mention jesus as a living breathing human being. They discuss his message. But they don't discuss his life.

That's the distinction I've been talking about.

People just assume that Peter would have met jesus since he is a central figure in the gospels. But read those books, I know you have, or likely are to have, but read them again with this thought fresh in mind. 'Is this coming from someone who was an apprentice to his master, or someone claiming to have their knowledge by some other means.'

It doesn't say. Peters books never say things like 'and all those years I walked with him he taught me this and that.'

They read much more like Paul's books that could have only come from revelation becuase jesus, by tradition, died before Paul converted.

Now, the importat bit that is cusing our argument here. Peter does not serve as a contemporary source for the life of Jesus. Here is why. Becuase he never mentions jesus as someone who was alive. It's just not in there. There is no 'proof of life' so to speak in either Peters 2 books or Paul's 13.

The only books that could claim to be a source for the actual life of jesus are the gospels. And they're anonymous and far too late to be contemporary.

Pretty sure Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Wasn't Paul the prosecutor at Jesus trial? Never read much of the Bible, none since I was maybe 8 years old. Don't intend to restart now. When I was a young child, I was deadly ill. Whether it was a hallucination or a real event, I don't know, but an angel came to me and told me I would get better. I did start getting better. Today, I only have scar tissue in heart and a slight murmur to show for the illness I had. Was the hallucination/real event coincidental? I really don't know.

ThickStemz · Mar 23, 2016

Red1966 said:
See, this is an example of your arrogance. I was perfectly clear. You added words to my statement to get it to mean what you wanted me to say, not what I actually said. I know about triangulation, you don't have to explain it to me. You claimed such photos existed, yet you now say me asking for one is absurd? I'm not a creationist, nor a Christian, but I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus existed. You provided a link to rebut that contemporaries wrote about him that actually confirmed that they did. You are to trying to argue shit I didn't say, because you have no argument to what I did say. Why should I provide a photo of Jesus? I never claimed one existed. You did claim a photo of the Big Bang existed.
It pisses me off when people can't rebut my statements and then try to pretend I said something different and argue with that.

I don't think you can find me saying anywhere here that there is a photograph of the big bang.

I might have said infrared photography/astronomy can be used to gather evidence of the big bang. Those are two different statements. Maybe I didn't word something well, but I doubt I would be so sloppy as to say they have a picture of the big bang.

ThickStemz · Mar 23, 2016

Red1966 said:
Pretty sure Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Wasn't Paul the prosecutor at Jesus trial? Never read much of the Bible, none since I was maybe 8 years old. Don't intend to restart now. When I was a young child, I was deadly ill. Whether it was a hallucination or a real event, I don't know, but an angel came to me and told me I would get better. I did start getting better. Today, I only have scar tissue in heart and a slight murmur to show for the illness I had. Was the hallucination/real event coincidental? I really don't know.

Peter would have been a disciple. Paul was an apostle. The difference between a disciple and an apostle is that an apostle never met the person in question, while the disciple probably did.

Paul never met Jesus. The trial as described in the NT would not have been in line with what we know of Roman justice. IF you read acts, Paul was someone who persecuted the early Church. He was on his way to Damascus when he was converted by the spirt of Jesus. It made him blind and he met a man there who was a Christian and the rest is history.

ThickStemz · Mar 23, 2016

Red1966 said:
The link you provided to disprove it actually confirmed it. I quoted the pertinent line.

Red, Ive gone back and read every post you've made in this thread. I see no place where it looks like you're quoting anything from off site.

I have a hunch you might be referring to something I linked to the Ehrman blog. Ehrman is a half ally to this point. He is an atheist, but he believes in a historical jesus beyond doubt in his mind. I wouldn't have linked to him to prove that jesus is myth.

Be that as it may, Ehrman is a NT expert and one of the most respected. I would have linked to him to cite evidence that Paul didn't meet or write during the life of Jesus.

This one statement is true and no secular scholar disagrees with it as far as I know.. "Outside of the bible, NT, there are no writings that independently verify the life of Jesus Christ."

Christians point to two mostly, Tacitus and Josephus. The Josephus entry is widely thought to be a forgery, a later addition to his wording. He was a Jew in the service of the Emperor, he is supposed to have said something like this "And then a man named Jesus appeared, who did thousands of wondrous things beyond description, and a tribe of Christians so named after him exists to this day." That's not an exact quote, but a fair representation from memory. In all his works that's it, since he was writing about 60 years after Jesus execution, his source wouldn't have been independent even if he did write it, he would have just written what Christians were telling him.

Tacitus wrote even later, and I cant remember, but its so late as to not be contemporary.

Independent verification of many figures less famous than Jesus was supposed to have been exists from this time and well before. There were people active who lived in that time and place who would have taken interest.

Nothing they might have written survives. Either they didn't write anything or it didn't survive. If they had written it but it didn't survive it is most likely because the 2000 years of Christian dominance since then condemned those writings.

dashcues · Mar 24, 2016

ThickStemz said:
Peter would have been a disciple. Paul was an apostle. The difference between a disciple and an apostle is that an apostle never met the person in question, while the disciple probably did.

An Apostle is a messenger.A disciple is a student.
Jesus' inner circle was called both interchangeably.
Most churches refer to the original 12 followers as Apostles(capital 'A'),and Paul they designate as an apostle(small 'a').
"Disciple" was originally reserved for his followers before ,and soon after his death.Something like 70 disciples were sent out to nearby churches after the great commission.Now,"disciple" is used by most churches to mean any devout follower.

ThickStemz said:
Paul never met Jesus. The trial as described in the NT would not have been in line with what we know of Roman justice. IF you read acts, Paul was someone who persecuted the early Church. He was on his way to Damascus when he was converted by the spirt of Jesus. It made him blind and he met a man there who was a Christian and the rest is history.

The Sanhedrin(sorta like a Jewish court) held the trial,not the Romans.
The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy.They were under the law at the time to not sentence a capital punishment,so they took Jesus to the Roman governor(Pontius Pilate) to be crucified.There's more to it than that,but you get the gist.
And yeah,the trial was anything but formal.

dashcues · Mar 24, 2016

ThickStemz said:
I have a hunch you might be referring to something I linked to the Ehrman blog. Ehrman is a half ally to this point. He is an atheist, but he believes in a historical jesus beyond doubt in his mind. I wouldn't have linked to him to prove that jesus is myth.

Ehrman's not an atheist.He's agnostic.
Why is he a "half ally"?

ThickStemz said:
Christians point to two mostly, Tacitus and Josephus. The Josephus entry is widely thought to be a forgery, a later addition to his wording. He was a Jew in the service of the Emperor, he is supposed to have said something like this "And then a man named Jesus appeared, who did thousands of wondrous things beyond description, and a tribe of Christians so named after him exists to this day." That's not an exact quote, but a fair representation from memory. In all his works that's it, since he was writing about 60 years after Jesus execution, his source wouldn't have been independent even if he did write it, he would have just written what Christians were telling him.

There are two quotes in Josephus,referring to Jesus.One is considered completely authentic by scholars,the other is acknowledged to have been redacted by later Christians.But even the questionable passage still mentions Jesus,despite the redactions.
This is the quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
I've bolded the alleged interpolations.The rest of the passage is considered authentic by most scholars.
Josephus was a Jew,working for the Romans,writing Jewish history.Much of what we know of Jewish history in the 1st century comes to us through Josephus.
Considering the relationship of the Romans,Jews,and Christians at the time,it's a wonder there's any mention at all.

ThickStemz said:
Tacitus wrote even later, and I cant remember, but its so late as to not be contemporary.

Independent verification of many figures less famous than Jesus was supposed to have been exists from this time and well before. There were people active who lived in that time and place who would have taken interest.

Again.Jesus preached to small villages in backwater Judea.When the entire area was under Roman rule and on the brink of war.
The Jews were awaiting their 'messiah' and there was no shortage of claimants.The people that would have eye-witnessed any miracles or deeds would have circulated it from village to village,but I can imagine any second or thirdhand tales would have been quickly dismissed under fear of charges of blasphemy.
It wasn't until after his death that word traveled beyond the smaller Jewish settlements.Once the inclusion of the gentiles began,his story spread like wildfire.

ThickStemz said:
Nothing they might have written survives. Either they didn't write anything or it didn't survive. If they had written it but it didn't survive it is most likely because the 2000 years of Christian dominance since then condemned those writings.

This was a time that shortly preceded the Jewish-Roman war.The Romans destroyed the 2nd temple and eradicated almost all of the Jewish populace.
There is very little that would have survived.Throughout history,the Romans were very thorough in their actions.
Ever hear of damnatio memoriae? If they erased members of their own political elite from their history books,can you imagine how much would survive of their enemies?
Christianity began in secrecy.Amid two great powerhouses(Judaism and Rome's mystery religions) and a hellish war.Early Christians held assembly(ekklesia) at their own homes.Out of public eye for fear of persecution.
Not until the 4th century does it gain complete acceptance by the Roman Empire.

shishkaboy · Mar 27, 2016

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
Historical analysis.

So,we are to exclude all other professionals,because of a perceived agenda,but allow Carrier's work? And you believe Carrier doesn't have an agenda?

His "accepted methods"(Bayesian analysis) is mathematical probabilities.Still requiring subjective input.
Carrier begins with the presupposition that Jesus never existed.In my opinion,Carrier's conclusion is no less tainted than the academic standard that he opposes.

Hey Dash...Very long time no see (UM). I did not know you are a Pot smoker, and I assumed you were a Xtian sympathizer not an actual Xtian.

Anyway I'm going to rebut your posts, and some of them have been previously on UM.

Carrier started off trusting the consensus that Jesus existed. So no presupposition on his part, and he explains his change of thinking in OHJ.

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.

The James that Paul met was the "Brother of the Lord" in a fictive kinship of all Baptized Christians. Paul was also differentiating James from a racist James that did not behave in a spiritual family.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=291478

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
"knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.

I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her until she bore Jesus.
I'll let the Catholics (and others alike) defend Mary's perpetual virginity.My interests are with the historical aspects.

Who says it's "the best evidence"? Not I.
Dig long enough and hard enough and you'll find that it's not just one piece of evidence that places Jesus within history.It's the most logical explanation to the type of (internal evidence) and amount of (historical references) evidence that we do have.
When added together,the case of historicity becomes likely.Not "knowable",and certainly not "absolute",but again,history doesn't work that way.

Jesus preached to the poor,downtrodden,and illiterate of backwater Judea in the 1st century.Educated writers would have been scarce and papyrus expensive.
What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.

It's a wondrous tale(though not without controversy).The story of a pious Jew who healed the sick,fed the hungry,and preached against the corruption of his day.Falsely accused of sedition.Scourged,ridiculed,and crucified for his practices.All the while,forgiving his executioners for their actions.
His tale was of such profound influence that it set a chain of events into motion that we see reflected in society still today.
If the story ended there it would be no less fascinating.But it was just beginning.

Every time Paul makes a theological point he refers to Old Testament scripture (He does not talk of a Jesus that was on Earth with a mother & father). Mark the first Gospel is heavily allegorical using the Old Testament. The later Gospels heavily repeat verbatim from Mark, but correct geographical, and theological mistakes. Meanwhile the last Gospel John takes more free license, and heavily contradicts the earlier Gospels.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

New Testament Interpolations & Forgeries

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html?m=1

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Legends2

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.

Wrong wrong wrong....

Let's start with your "Zion" misinformation. Paul does not say crucified in Zion. He's using Zion as a metaphor for the Jewish people. Paul is referring to the Old Testament. Jacob is the Biblical patriarch who after wrestling with God was named Israel by God. Paul refers to OT prophecy that says polytheism will be purged out of Jacob (Israel).

Romans 11:26 (NRSV)

"And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.”"

Numbers 24:17 (NRSV)

17 "I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near—
a star shall come out of Jacob,
and a scepter shall rise out of Israel;
it shall crush the borderlands of Moab,
and the territory of all the Shethites."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob

Paul does not talk about an Earthly man born of a woman. Paul uses rich allegory, and metaphor using Abraham's wife as the nation of Israel. Jesus fulfills the law of the free woman, not descended from her.

Galatians 4 (YLT)

"4 and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come of a woman, come under law,
5 that those under law he may redeem, that the adoption of sons we may receive;
6 and because ye are sons, God did send forth the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, `Abba, Father!'"

"22 for it hath been written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid-servant, and one by the free-woman,"

"25 for this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and doth correspond to the Jerusalem that now [is], and is in servitude with her children,
26 and the Jerusalem above is the free-woman, which is mother of us all,"

"31 then, brethren, we are not a maid-servant's children, but the free-woman's."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=YLT

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
An Apostle is a messenger.A disciple is a student.
Jesus' inner circle was called both interchangeably.
Most churches refer to the original 12 followers as Apostles(capital 'A'),and Paul they designate as an apostle(small 'a').
"Disciple" was originally reserved for his followers before ,and soon after his death.Something like 70 disciples were sent out to nearby churches after the great commission.Now,"disciple" is used by most churches to mean any devout follower.

Show actual evidence of this. No assertions, and no apologetic websites.

dashcues said:
The Sanhedrin(sorta like a Jewish court) held the trial,not the Romans.
The Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy.They were under the law at the time to not sentence a capital punishment,so they took Jesus to the Roman governor(Pontius Pilate) to be crucified.There's more to it than that,but you get the gist.
And yeah,the trial was anything but formal.

Bullshit! Julius Caesar gave the Jews special autonomy to conduct their own laws including capital punishment.

The Jews holding a trial Passover eve, and an execution on Passover is a farce historically among many other things.

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

dashcues said:
There are two quotes in Josephus,referring to Jesus.One is considered completely authentic by scholars,the other is acknowledged to have been redacted by later Christians.But even the questionable passage still mentions Jesus,despite the redactions.
This is the quote:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man [if indeed one ought to call him a man.] For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. [He was the Christ.] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him.] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
I've bolded the alleged interpolations.The rest of the passage is considered authentic by most scholars.
Josephus was a Jew,working for the Romans,writing Jewish history.Much of what we know of Jewish history in the 1st century comes to us through Josephus.
Considering the relationship of the Romans,Jews,and Christians at the time,it's a wonder there's any mention at all.

The only mention of Jesus outside of Xtian sources within the 1st century is in two different passages of Josephus. Xtians cling on to these with much desperation.

The thing is these are accidental scribal insertions from copying margin notes. Copyists would make notes next to passages on the scroll. Sometimes these notes would be added to the very passages by a future copyist.

All you have to do is read the last sentence in the James reference. The "About this time" passage, just read the first sentence of the next passage.

Without the Josephus reference to Jesus there's no mention of Jesus outside Xtian sources in the first century. The Pagan mentions of Jesus in the 2nd century just prove that there were Xtians (which nobody doubts), and what they believed.

dashcues said:
Again.Jesus preached to small villages in backwater Judea.When the entire area was under Roman rule and on the brink of war.
The Jews were awaiting their 'messiah' and there was no shortage of claimants.The people that would have eye-witnessed any miracles or deeds would have circulated it from village to village,but I can imagine any second or thirdhand tales would have been quickly dismissed under fear of charges of blasphemy.
It wasn't until after his death that word traveled beyond the smaller Jewish settlements.Once the inclusion of the gentiles began,his story spread like wildfire.

We have many writings from this period, and region that survived. Yet no contemporary mention of Jesus that the Gospels portray as uber famous.

dashcues said:
This was a time that shortly preceded the Jewish-Roman war.The Romans destroyed the 2nd temple and eradicated almost all of the Jewish populace.
There is very little that would have survived.Throughout history,the Romans were very thorough in their actions.
Ever hear of damnatio memoriae? If they erased members of their own political elite from their history books,can you imagine how much would survive of their enemies?
Christianity began in secrecy.Amid two great powerhouses(Judaism and Rome's mystery religions) and a hellish war.Early Christians held assembly(ekklesia) at their own homes.Out of public eye for fear of persecution.
Not until the 4th century does it gain complete acceptance by the Roman Empire.

LOL! The Romans made examples of their enemies.

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

shishkaboy said:
View attachment 3642896

Do not get caught up on Pagan parallels (there's a reason for this), but there are some exceptions.

Ancient Greek pottery ( 4th century BCE) depicting women performing a passion play for Dionysus (God of Wine). They are in ritual "Omophagia" consuming the flesh (pulp/skins), and blood (wine) of the God depicted on a Tropaion (Trophy). Starting off the annual festival priests put casks of water in the God's temple which turn into Wine the next day. ;-)

justugh · Jul 4, 2016

ThickStemz said:
With all the similarities between the jesus story and lots of older religions and mythical figures there have long been those who have drawn those comparisons and said jesus was the myth too.

Becuase mainstream scholors have long held to the story that, son of god or not, there is a man behind the story of jesus. Why?

Academic inertia.

Western civilization descends from a very christian past. In fact, many who are professionals in this field have to sign statements of faith even today. That means their paychecks depend on holding to this traditional story.

With the professionals excluded, it had been left up to amateur historians to make this case. And it has shown.

Enter dr. Richard Carrier

He has peer reviewd books that have passed that process, using accepted methods to draw the conclusion that Jesus never existed.

I'm very impressed with his work.

no odds are the guy did live .........just the stuff that would make him look like a normal person was hidden by the church rem the bible as u know it was not out until 312 ad .........the info they allowed in it has been proven right and wrong so many times i lost count

it comes down to something a person said to me long time ago
the church is the first lvl of control on the human race

the idea of heaven is a trick for the rich to keep acting the way they do .........if u go with out if u fight to live u will have a better life once u die becuase u did it right u fallowed our rules u get to enter in heaven

hell the idea of orginal sin is to pressure ppl into fallowing them

oswizzle · Jul 4, 2016

Fairy tales.. snakes can't speak and walking on water isn't possible... and looking like a supermodel with blue eyes with fair skin from that region is hilarious at best

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

justugh said:
no odds are the guy did live .........just the stuff that would make him look like a normal person was hidden by the church rem the bible as u know it was not out until 312 ad .........the info they allowed in it has been proven right and wrong so many times i lost count

it comes down to something a person said to me long time ago
the church is the first lvl of control on the human race

the idea of heaven is a trick for the rich to keep acting the way they do .........if u go with out if u fight to live u will have a better life once u die becuase u did it right u fallowed our rules u get to enter in heaven

hell the idea of orginal sin is to pressure ppl into fallowing them

No. The odds are the guy did not live. You are working off assumptions with no scrutiny to the evidence other than the magic parts.

Dalek Supreme · Jul 4, 2016

oswizzle said:
Fairy tales.. snakes can't speak and walking on water isn't possible... and looking like a supermodel with blue eyes with fair skin from that region is hilarious at best

The Bible predicts the movie Shrek with a talking Donkey.

Bible for the win.

justugh · Jul 4, 2016

Dalek Supreme said:
No. The odds are the guy did not live. You are working off assumptions with no scrutiny to the evidence other than the magic parts.

i think a man of that name lived .......do i think he did what he did no........
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

the man did live the man did do some stand up things .......over the next 312 years more stories told and other cultures mixed into it ....group of elites go this belong this out this belongs bang u have the bible that had control of good 1/3 of the ppl on the planet at the time now it has what 1/8 1/6 of the world under it control

the whole islam thing is based off the same idea ........guy went into a cave 40 days later he came out with a book inspired by god

Christ myth theory

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member