Why are historians so anti Christ myth theory? (leader, document, how)

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

But Jesus of Nazereth, normal human who lived 2000 years ago, presumably was an actual person.

There's presumably a sailor that is actually a talking duck who goes by the name of Donald.

There's a religion that was supposedly founded by him.

Jesus was a Jew. He didn't found any new faith.

The part where he walks on water and rose from the dead is faith/mythology (depending on your religious views), but SOMEBODY founded Christianity. So either he was a real person, and he is the founder, or there was no Jesus, and you have to tell us who else it was that founded Christianity.

Nope.

I don't have to tell anyone who made up the middle eastern faith of Christianity. Not my concern.

[rruff]

Originally Posted by valsteele

The quotes by Josephus and Tacitus don't prove Jesus was real, all they prove is that they were aware that certain people in Rome believed he was real.

With Jesus we have absolutely zero evidence of his existence from the years he supposedly was alive.

If you haven't read it, I'd suggest "The Jesus Mysteries". As I recall they make the case that Christianity began as a mystery religion for Jews. That is why "The Passion" is the most prominent part of the gospels... it is a model for the initiation process. The initiate would basically follow the same sequence (following in Jesus' footsteps) and experience the abandonment, isolation, torture, death and resurrection.

The historicity of Jesus only became an issue when Paul was converted and ran with it. Paul is the founder of the Christianity that we have today. Paul admits he never knew Jesus in the flesh, and we know that Paul did not get along at all with the disciples. He basically had his own thing going, which involved a lot of proselytizing and missionary work. Jerusalem, the original center of the sect was wiped out not long after and only Paul's variant of Christianity survived.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

A Roman Catholic Priest of the Jesuit Order would tell you that the Bible is allegory. Their faith isn't based on the idea that Christ turned water into wine.

This is a presumptuous statement with no basis in fact. Moreover,
most Jesuits today are not ordained priests.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Finding that Jesus of Nazereth wasn't a real person would not destroy Christianity any more than did the discovery of evolution.

That will never happen, but if it did, it would destroy Christianity de facto.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I hope you realize that the Roman Catholic Church fully embraces evolution.

This is not true. Many Catholics do not believe in human evolution. The Church has never
made any statement that evolution is true.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Decided to snip the rest of my post because the subject is off topic for the thread and the history forum so I'll keep it short.

Wiping away Christianity from history would leave only a distorted fragment.

[ashpelham]

I go on the faith that just because molecular biology and algebra can be "proven", doesn't mean that there aren't things we cannot prove either. Science cannot tell us everything or make us all-knowing. Many of the miracles that Jesus was alleged to have performed could only be done by the hand of a higher power. If they are lies, then they are lies. But if they did occur, then all of our faith is well-placed.

That's all I got.

[gpurcell]

Because it is ignorant; only by ignoring all of the textual evidence from the New Testament can you even begin to make the case--and that is a standard that is used no where else in history.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Not really. Christians worship God, sir, just like the Muslims and the Jews do. If Mohammed, peace be upon him, wasn't a real person, Islam would still be there. If Abraham wasn't real there would still be Judaism. The god that these people worship is God, not Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham.

A Roman Catholic Priest of the Jesuit Order would tell you that the Bible is allegory. Their faith isn't based on the idea that Christ turned water into wine. It is based on the idea that there is a God, and they have a personal relationship with God, and this helps them love their fellow man and do good things for their fellow man. So unless you can prove that there is no God, which you can't and never will be able to, Christianity will remain intact.

Finding that Jesus of Nazereth wasn't a real person would not destroy Christianity any more than did the discovery of evolution.

I hope you realize that the Roman Catholic Church fully embraces evolution. When the State of Kansas decided they would not teach evolution in public schools, guess who continued teaching it? The Roman Catholic Church. Most of their private schools are run by the Jesuits, the same order that does mainstream secular astronomy at the Vatican Observatory. For example they have discovered planets orbiting other stars at the Vatican Observatory.

Personally I'm a Deist. To me the Bible is just a great work of literature. I don't believe in divine intervention, revelation or life after death. I see God as a Watchmaker who wrote the laws of physics (or if there is a multiverse, the laws governing the appearance of new universes with their own physical laws). So to me Jesus being a myth would have nothing to do with anything. God is still there whether the doctrine of any organized religion is correct or not.

And that's true, if there is a God, it wouldn't cease to exist because you don't believe in it or because X or Y doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church was incorrect. That's like saying gravity ceased to exist because Newton was wrong about certain things.

Decided to snip the rest of my post because the subject is off topic for the thread and the history forum so I'll keep it short.

I don't know where you got the idea that Christians don't worship Christ. Mainstream Christians all believe that he was part of the three-headed god, the Trinity. No practical person would get up early on sundays to watch some guy prance around an altar or podium, and devote their lives (supposedly) to Jesus, if he were just a wise man saying cool things about God. There have been tons of wise people down through history, around here you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one of them.

Jesuits have often gotten in hot water with the Vatican for apostasy. Nowadays they only say that the Torah is allegorical.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Mikestone8

So Christianity might not have been founded by Jesus but by another Jew of the same name?

There's a good chance. Yeshue was a variant of Joshua, who was the first messiah.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

But Jesus of Nazereth, normal human who lived 2000 years ago, presumably was an actual person. There's a religion that was supposedly founded by him. The part where he walks on water and rose from the dead is faith/mythology (depending on your religious views), but SOMEBODY founded Christianity. So either he was a real person, and he is the founder, or there was no Jesus, and you have to tell us who else it was that founded Christianity.

There isn't even any evidence that Nazareth existed 2000 years ago. In the absence of any archaeological or historical evidence, it has been suggested that the original phrase was "Jesus the Nazorean," which was a Jewish cult in the first century.

[Snowball7]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There isn't even any evidence that Nazareth existed 2000 years ago. In the absence of any archaeological or historical evidence, it has been suggested that the original phrase was "Jesus the Nazorean," which was a Jewish cult in the first century.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
new article: Nazareth, the evidence mounts..

[Mini-apple-less]

Anyway, here's my thoughts on Jesus being history vs Jesus, Julius Caesar and Alexander.

Immortal Daze