Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I disagree with his thread, he believes what he posts, just as you believe what you post about your beliefs. And neither of you can prove your belief.
There's an old expression,â€If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.â€
This expression is very applicable to Jesus Christ.
“If Jesus looks like a myth, and walks like a myth, and quacks like a myth then he is a myth.â€
Disclaimer: When I speak of Jesus I am referring to the Jesus Christ of the gospels and Acts. I acknowledge there may have been an earthly character upon which the legend of Jesus Christ was based. Most scholars accept this although they have no historical proof for such.
I can give you a few dozen credible reasons—let's call them “facts†why the Jesus of the New Testament is a myth. Plain and simple, he never existed. That many credible reasons adds up to a mountain of proof.
Christians cannot give you a single credible reason why the Jesus of the New Testament was and is real. The one possible “fact†they can offer is that Josephus is reputed to have written a single phrase in his Antiquities of the Jews:
“...so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ...â€
That's it. In the entire 1st century when Christianity was supposedly spreading like wildfire across the Mediterranean, a single historian supposedly says a single phrase about a Jesus so-called the Christ and Christians say “Ah ha! You see? That's proof Jesus was real.â€
But there are a lot of problems with this phrase:
It does not identify which Jesus is the brother of James, since Jesus was a common name in that era, (there are 20 so-named in Josephus), and no secular scholars believe Josephus ever wrote that any Jesus was “Christâ€.
It is inconsistent with the other non-Josephan accounts of James' death. In other accounts, historians write of a large gang of Jews collectively murdering him as well as their leaders (with no reference to Ananus as in Josephus).
It would be one of only 2 places in the entire catalogue of Josephus’s works where he says someone was said to be a Messiah or Christ — not even other clearly would-be messiahs were so described by Josephus
For brevity I've left off four other important reasons why it is wise to question the authenticity of this phrase as being written by Josephus. Most secular scholars believe it is an interpolation by Eusebius 4th century henchman to Constantine to make Jesus look real. Interested parties can read the other reasons here:
Bart Ehrman, noted Bible historian had this to say about Jesus:
“In the entire Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religious scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!â€
— Bart Ehrman (c.2012)
John Remsburg, an American skeptic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in his 1909 book, The Christ, lists forty-two ancient writers who did not mention Jesus.
Barbara G.Walker, noted author:
"One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus' existence in any contemporary source."
Clement, Bishop of Rome c. 100 CE mentions not a single detail of Jesus' life in his 1st Epistle. His 2nd Epistle is a known forgery.
Paul, the apostle doesn't mention any details of Jesus earthly life prior to his supposed crucifixion.
That would be enough to make most sensible question whether the Jesus of the New Testament really existed, but there are more—many, MANY more reasons why I can definitively say the Jesus of the New Testament was a myth.
One of the most powerful proofs is what we find in something called the Rank-Raglan mythotype scale. This is a scale devised by, Otto Rank, a contemporary psychiatrist of Carl Jung and an archeologist, Lord Raglan.
“Otto Rank and Lord Raglan noticed that mythical characters often share similar biographical traits. They attempted to score people against biographical criteria that supposedly allowed mythical and historic characters to be distinguished. Jesus's biography fits Lord Raglan's hero pattern remarkably well, with Jesus having a score of 18 to 20 out of 22. This makes him comparable with several legendary heroes, like Romulus and King Arthur (both 19) and Hercules (17).â€
Here are the 22 traits. You will readily notice nearly all of them in the story of Jesus as it appears in the gospels:
Mother is a royal virgin(Jesus' mother Mary was a descendant of David)
Father is a king
Father often a near relative to mother (Joseph was 2nd cousin to Mary)
Unusual conception (Jesus' mother, Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit)
Hero reputed to be son of god(Jesus was the son of God)
Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather (Herod tried to kill Jesus when he was a baby)
Hero spirited away as a child (Jesus, Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt)
Reared by foster parents in a far country (Jesus reared in Egypt until Herod dies)
No details of childhood (Jesus' childhood is a complete blank)
Returns or goes to future kingdom (Jesus goes to temple and proclaims himself fulfillment of Isaiah prophecy)
Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast (Jesus defeats Satan)
Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
Becomes king (“This is Jesus, King of the Jewsâ€)
For a time he reigns uneventfully
He prescribes laws (Jesus' teachings on how one should live)
Later loses favor with gods or his subjects (Jews deliver Jesus up to be crucified)
Driven from throne and city
Meets with mysterious death (Jesus, declared by Pilate to be innocent, is still crucified)
Often at the top of a hill (Jesus on Golgatha)
His children, if any, do not succeedhim
His body is not buried (Jesus not thrown in a pit as per custom)
Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs (Jesus buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb)
Note a list of the other mythical heroes who share nearly all the same traits as Jesus: Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), Moses (20 points) Dionysos (19 points), Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points),, Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), , Elijah (9 points)
Is it likely that the Jesus of the gospels lived his life out coincidentally nearly exactly the way Romulus and Hercules lived out theirs,
OR did the gospel writers borrow traits from other mythical heroes' lives who preceded Jesus because these kinds of traits were familiar to the audience of the day?
Just these two facts—no historical record for Jesus, and Jesus' life reading like that of a dozen mythological heroes—should be enough to convince most logical-thinking people that the Jesus of the New Testament wasn't a real person, he was a myth.
But if that doesn't convince you, there is more—much MUCH more than can be squeezed into this tiny space called an OP that would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the Jesus of the New Testament never existed.
So a Christian is confront with this question: "Am I going to continue believing in this Jesus Christ character for whom there isn't the slightest bit of evidence he ever existed, or am I going to continue to believe in Jesus based solely on the warm fuzzy feeling I get in my heart whenever I think of him?"
Bart Ehrman who is a well respected though controversial Bible scholar and I might add an atheist disagrees with you.
"Ehrman said he had long received occasional emails from atheists and others asking him if he thought Jesus actually lived. Then last year, he accepted an award at a meeting of the American Humanist Association in Cambridge, Mass. While there, he was dismayed to find many humanists, who describe themselves as "good without God," adhered to widely discredited notions that Jesus never lived." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-j...rman_n_1400465
"Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions." -https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465
It may be difficult for Christians to hear that Jesus is not God but there are some Scriptures in the Bible that suggest that very idea. Similarly it may be difficult for atheists to believe that Jesus actually existed but neither should be afraid of exploring the truth. It's not an earth shattering idea that Jesus actually existed. Just don't accept Wiki or You Tube or whatever tripe is on the internet as the "gospel." Examine the source that its coming from before you conclude Jesus never existed.
Bart Ehrman who is a well respected though controversial Bible scholar and I might add an atheist disagrees with you.
"Ehrman said he had long received occasional emails from atheists and others asking him if he thought Jesus actually lived. Then last year, he accepted an award at a meeting of the American Humanist Association in Cambridge, Mass. While there, he was dismayed to find many humanists, who describe themselves as "good without God," adhered to widely discredited notions that Jesus never lived." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-j...rman_n_1400465
"Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions." -https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465
Apparently Ehrman also agrees that Paul says Jesus was a pre-existent angel in Galatians 4:14.
Ehrman also definitely accepts that parts of the gospels are non-historical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
It may be difficult for Christians to hear that Jesus is not God but there are some Scriptures in the Bible that suggest that very idea. Similarly it may be difficult for atheists to believe that Jesus actually existed but neither should be afraid of exploring the truth. It's not an earth shattering idea that Jesus actually existed. Just don't accept Wiki or You Tube or whatever tripe is on the internet as the "gospel."
It should not be earth shattering that gospel Jesus did not exist, even if based on an actual man that did not do anything mentioned in the NT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Examine the source that its coming from before you conclude Jesus never existed.
I just want to point out that this post of yours is reasonable, while the original poster's is not. The original poster's point of view in the first sentence of his title is fine...as a point of view. It's the "and I can prove it" part that makes his post inappropriate. We could take almost any position on almost any topic and state our point of view on it and find some 'experts' on the web to agree with us. And then we could also find 'experts' on the web to disagree with us. What the OP has said in his title is a point of view shared by some, not shared by others...and no one has PROVEN either position . And I say that as an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
Excellent post, eddie. I cannot rep you. Thank you for getting the thread back on track. To what you said I would like to add the following:
I am dealing with levels of evidence here called "direct" and "circumstantial". No historical data for a person would be direct evidence, defined as "that which speaks for itself". No historical record for a person is direct evidence the person didn't exist. We haven't a body. We haven't any eyewitnesses outside of Paul's claims which wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on if some prosecutors were allowed to cross-examine Paul in court. We haven't any written accounts from disinterested persons. We haven't any artifacts of Jesus. We haven't any reliefs or drawings. We don't have the tomb, even though we have plenty of other shrines for other holy figures. We haven't the cross. We have absolutely nothing to prove Jesus was real, even though the gospel writers claim Jesus' fame spread far and wide beyond the borders of Israel. Most damning of all we have a Roman empire completely complacent about a man they crucified only days earlier walking around and appearing to hundreds of people while Roman authorities twiddle thumbs not caring at all. That simply is not believable. Neither is there a single mention of Jesus' trial in any of the well-preserved Roman trial documents.
Against all this we have some loose writings floating around in isolated parts of the Mediterranean not until a hundred years after the man-god Jesus' supposed crucifixion. And we have no complete copies of these writings until a few hundred years after that. Churchmen and scribes were free to write the story any which way they chose in a time span that large. And they did. We see the changes in the gospels between Mark and John. That's why the gospel accounts are so diverse and the details so contradictory. If Christians tried to carry this "evidence" into court they'd be laughed out the front door.
The other evidence I offered, the striking similarities between Jesus' life and the lives of other mythical man-gods would be considered circumstantial evidence--evidence which doesn't in itself prove guilt but which in combination with other evidence would be enough to convince any group of rational unbiased adults in a jury pool. Remember folks, we're not trying to establish "proof" on a scientific hypothesis level, we're establishing "proof" for a jury of 12 rational individuals. If they say, "sufficient proof to establish guilt" that's what I am after--the way a prosecutor would stand in front of a jury and say, "I will prove to you that the defendant did this act." That's my use of the word "prove" which phetaori objects to, and which he has no good reason to.
I'd like to point out to readers that while phetaroi has been very vocal about me not having proved the gospel jesus is a myth, his responses never amount to more than 1, 2 or 3 sentence blurbs so it's impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with him. Just once I'd like to see him write 3 or 4 solid PARAGRAPHS like I just did to explain what it would take to convince him the gospels Jesus is a myth. There has to be SOME amount of evidence that would convince him if we're to believe his claim he's an atheist. Personally I think he's a closet theist.
I'd like to point out to readers that while phetaroi has been very vocal about me not having proved the gospel jesus is a myth, his responses never amount to more than 1, 2 or 3 sentence blurbs so it's impossible to have a meaningful dialogue with him. Just once I'd like to see him write 3 or 4 solid PARAGRAPHS like I just did to explain what it would take to convince him the gospels Jesus is a myth. There has to be SOME amount of evidence that would convince him if we're to believe his claim he's an atheist. Personally I think he's a closet theist.
I look at it very differently. You have written multiple posts (multiple is an understatement) that are so long that few people here will read all of any one post, or all your posts. I don't think too many here would say that you don't appear to be 'obsessed' about this topic. And I'm using that word -- obsessed -- after giving it quite a bit of thought.
You seem to think that someone can predict in advance what will be a convincing argument or evidence to something. I don't believe that's true at all. In fact, it's clear that you believe that since you are not at all open-minded about the topic. You seem to think -- like one of our fundie posters -- that if you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over that suddenly someone will say, "Eureka!" You're wrong. I've been hearing the same arguments about christianity on both sides of the equation for decades now. And yes, I really do mean decades. And frankly, I don't hear anything new from either side. Do you think there's something that you have droned on about that's actually new? You just rehash, rehash, rehash, rehash your obsession.
Frankly, Scarlett, I don't care whether you think I'm an atheist or a theist. But just for the record, I'm an independent-thinking Theravada Buddhist. I see no conclusive evidence that there is or is not a god, so at best I ignore the slight possibility when I even think about it (other than on this board). I don't believe in prayer. I think it's hokum. I think our destiny is what we make of it, without any imaginary daddy up in the sky who is confused about his powers, abilities, and intents.
I had several prophetic events in my life. No specific spiritual entity was involved. i just received information...
I'd like to hear some of this info.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
