did the historical Jesus exist? a growing number of scholars don't think so

[still_one]

http://mobile.rawstory.com/home/2014-08-30-did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so#

"Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are 'mythologies history'

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/?onswipe_redirect=never

[Warpy]

1. Well, the story is obviously cobbled together from a lot of hero myths

that were current in the eastern Mediterranean of that time.

I think there was likely an itinerant preacher of one name or another who managed to found a cult that lasted a few generations after his death, turning it into first a sect and then a religion, and that those myths were hung on him after the fact to make his cult the equal to any of the great imperial religions.

And it worked.

[still_one]

2. I thought Constantine decided what books to inclde

[okasha]

3. No.

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to decide between Arius' teaching that Christ had a singular hunan nature and Athanasius' contention that he was both human and divine. Constantine's side lost.

The Biblical canon had already solidified through use and custom.

BTW, this topic is a very dead horse.

[ZombieHorde]

6. "BTW, this topic is a very dead horse."

Why do you think that? The topic seems relevant to Western culture.

[okasha]

16. The topic is indeed relevant to Western culture.

But there's little profitable discussion to be had if the proponents of the "never existed" argument rely on popular novels and/or crank "scholars" like S. Acharya.

In the present case, the thread title doesn't even reflect the content of the article it cites, and the post itself is a garbled version of "mythologized history." Most if not all non-fundamentaliist scholars would certainly agree that the gospel narratives havd been embelished with mythic/archetypal elements. But it's a far leap of illogic.from that position to the twaddle produced by many "mythicists."

[LiberalAndProud]

69. Would you classify Richard Carrier in the same class as S. Acharya?

I'm not familiar with Acharya's work, but I did find Richard Carrier's argument for doubt rather convincing.

[still_one]

9. I disagree. it is simply a thread to discuss it

[Warren Stupidity]

12. because the relgionists have decided that all topics in this group they find offensive are

no suitable for discussion. Why they simply don't stay out of such discussions is unknown. Instead they rush in not to discuss, but to admonish others for discussing.

[Leontius]

25. Why is it so important to you to continue insulting believers?

Its sad stupid and not helpful if you actually wanted discussions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. There was no insult there; however, "sad" and "stupid" are tending towards insults

Maybe it would be better for you to examine your own wording before posting.

[Leontius]

56. I examined the words carefully and they were a fit for what I was expressing

Insulting people and then saying you can't understand why they don't engage you in meaningful discussion is exactly the way I described it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Point out the insult(s) you feel you see, specifically

I've pointed out your insulting words - 'sad' and 'stupid'. I see no sign you've been at all 'careful'. That you intended to be insulting is not an excuse for doing it.

[sgtbenobo]

53. Perhaps, because....

....believers as you state are fundamentally deficient in cognitive relevance?

In a word.

Sheep.

[rug]

26. Tsk, too bad you can't block religionists from the DU Religion Group.

Life is so much simpler when there's only silence and echoes.

Oh wait, you can't read this, allegedly.

[Leontius]

21. Constantine supported Athanasius even though he was most likely Arrian.

[okasha]

27. Constantine's sympathies were indeed with Arius.

The Council's outcome forced him to exile Arius, but he recalled him very quietly only two years later.

[Leontius]

28. One rather curious thing is his principle adviser on the faith was Orthodox so

you must wonder how Constantine formed his belief or how deeply held his faith was.

[Warpy]

14. The Council of Nicea decided it

Constantine presided over an array of church bishops but the latter did get their way in a few niggling details here and there. But yes, Constantine turned the rather touchy-feely sect of the first century into a formal religion that would serve Empire well.

[okasha]

18. They did not.

This assertion is itself a myth, which owes its current popularity to The Da Vinci Code. Look it up.

[Warpy]

19. I did look it up, just not on believer hogwash "refutation" sites

I also grew up Catholic, where the Nicean Creed is still recited.

[okasha]

23. Where did you look it up?

Because even Wikipedia gets this right. See its article on Council of Nicae and scroll down to "Misconceptions."

The Nicene Creed does not contain a single word regarding the Biblical canon.

[Leontius]

45. You might get some argument from eastern Christians about the RCC creed.

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. If the writers of the New Testament were going to make up a story,

it would have been a more culturally plausible one than what they wrote. A crucified messiah was obviously unacceptable to the majority of Jewish people then, which is why the gentile population came to dominate the church.

[intaglio]

8. On the contrary

The writers of the New Testament had to add the gloss to the events in the life of the putative Messiah.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. Are you saying that Jesus actually was crucified, and the writers

had to work around that, or that the crucifixion was the "gloss"?

[intaglio]

34. No, I'm saying that the person to whom the stories about Jesus were applied died

If he was tried by the Sanhedrin his punishment would have been death by stoning; if he was tried by the authorities either Roman or Royalist then he would have been crucified, another method would be if he died as part of an abortive rebellion. Jewish followers of the founding figure would prefer him to be crucified because condemnation by the Sanhedrin would not place him as a devout Jew and death as part of a revolt was hardly the mark of an exceptional leader.

No matter what the manner of death the important part of the tale, the one that puts him above other messiahs/prophets, is the resurrection. Chronologically the first account of a risen Christ is 1 Corinthians; in this Paul does not tell of a physical resurrection but of a spiritual one, equating the appearances to all those who claimed a sight of the messiah to his own vision.

Erhman makes a persuasive case that this resurrection was not a part of the prophet's preaching but was a tale told post mortem by followers who needed to believe that their leader was the messiah; whether the appearances of the risen Christ were fabrication or delusion is neither here nor there. The problem with this survival following death is that the messiah was a mortal creature whereas a raised being was a God or a child of God. Of course I am grossly oversimplifying Erhman's case and missing many of the caveats he includes.

[Htom Sirveaux]

38. Except that according to Mark, Jesus WAS condemned by the Sanhedrin.

Is that story likely to be authentic since it is counterproductive to claims of Jesus as Jewish messiah?

[intaglio]

55. Exactly, so why the idea that he needed to go before Pilate for sentencing?

For the Jewish followers the idea that the Sanhedrin could find him guilty yet not act on that verdict on it gives a subtext that the Sanhedrin was under the control of the Romans and hence not a true ruling council. Next Jewish readers would see that the Sanhedrin would have had to have met and passed judgement at night during Passover was illegally constituted. Now add in the citation of Joseph of Aramathea and (in John) Nicodemus (both members of that same Sanhedrin that, unanimously, found Jesus guilty) and this would indicate to Jewish followers that the Sanhedrin was not following the Laws but was appeasing the Romans.

In actual practise the Sanhedrin part of the tale and that of the crowd calling for the release of Barabbas was used to show to Latin and Greek followers it was the Jews not the Romans who were responsible of the death of the prophet.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. It isn't counter-productive at all, really.

The Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, around the same time the Gospel of Mark was written. Making the Sanhedrin complicit in the crucifixion of Christ explains why God would have allowed this to happen.

[okasha]

40. I don't think one can assume

that condemnation by the Sanhedrin/High Priest would be detrimental to Jesus's memory. The Temple hierarchy were widely viewed as collaborators with the Roman occupation forces. Some 20-25 years later Jesus's brother Jacob (James) was put to death on the order of the High Priest, and the incident raised popular anger to the point that the High Priest was deposed by the Romans.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. or the gentile population outnumbered the jewish population by 100x or more or

the stories were made up not by jews but by ethnic greeks to appeal to the general population of the roman empire.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. The first is irrelevant and the second is bare assertion.

Only Romans interested in the God of Israel (so-called "God fearers&quot would have been relevant, and that population was likely much smaller.

Paul is Jewish, he's is clearly upset that his fellow Jews haven't accepted Jesus as the messiah, he clearly acknowledges the importance of the mother church in Jerusalem by defending his mission to the gentiles before them, Jewish Christians were eventually kicked out of the synagogues...all of these things are better explained if Jesus was supposed to be a Jewish messiah for Jews (but they rejected him because the messiah was not supposed to be crucified) and only secondarily for gentiles (to fulfill passages from the Hebrew scriptures which prophesy that the gentile nations will recognize the authority of the Jewish god in the end times).

[intaglio]

5. Ok, the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist but ...

There was probably an apocalyptic prophet of that name; such prophets were pretty common in Judea and Jesus/Joshua/Judas was a very common name. This leaves other questions such whether he drew many followers and if he was executed by crucifixion or by stoning or was killed in a revolt or even died of natural causes.

Whoever it was whose name was used by Paul, James and Peter they did not cause much of a stir at the time

[Manifestor_of_Light]

7. I thought this was settled fact.

The guy didn't exist and the religion is an amalgamation of various pagan myths. Nothing new about it. Mithra, Osiris, Apollo and many other ancient gods were born of a virgin on December 25th, worked miracles and rose from the dead.

[okasha]

11. Wrong on almost all counts.

Mithras' "mother" was a rock, and all the others you cite were produced by sexual intercourse. Osiris is the only god on your list who was believed to have died.

[Igel]

58. It was also settled fact that the Trojan war was entirely mythical.

Until there was evidence found that really said otherwise. That's sort of the problem with arguments from silence.

When there was evidence, there was a lot of butt covering.

Is every iota in the Iliad actual fact? Probably not.

Did the various actors actually live? I have no basis in fact for an opinion.

However, I also know that my opinion is pretty meaningless. The things happened or they didn't.


It's often the same with predictions. In 1989 it was "established fact" that the USSR would go on for decades more. Only crazies could possibly think otherwise, and to do anything to help end the USSR was itself crazy.

Then the USSR collapsed.

By 1992 it was established fact that nearly every researcher had been convinced that the USSR would collapse within a very few years.

[edhopper]

60. Actually

It wasn't thought to be entirely mythical. Just Homer's poem.
And since Scheilmann found it in the mid 1800s, I don't think the phrase, "most modern scholars" is applicable.

[okasha]

67. Sorry, but not only the war,

but Troy itself, was thought to be mythical until Schliemann found it. So was Wabar (Ubar) in the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia, and it, too, has been found.

[edhopper]

68. We are talking about the 1700s

Last edited Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

And before,
Not exactly modern archeology.

Anyway, an interesting dichotomy.
For 3000 yea5s Troy is thought a myth, but existed.
For 2000 Yeats, Jesus thought to exist, but is really a myth.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

15. Here's a handy comparison chart of some gods:

[okasha]

20. Here's a ripe example of mythicist twaddle.

Just for starters, whoever compiled this nonsense doesn't seem to know what a virgin is.

[mr blur]

36. It's interesting how you mock the POV of anyone who doesn't defer to yours,

where's this respect and civility you're always insisting on?

[okasha]

39. It's not particularly to my credit,

but I haven't been among those calling for respect and civility. Too much experience with your good buds to consider that a realistic prospect.

Your sad attempt to school anyone on this subject--given your own history here--is, well, it's, oh, dear, I just can't help it---

[cbayer]

50. I think Okasha is generally very civil.

You want to compare records of hides with her?

I thought not.

[trotsky]

70. okasha's lack of civility was one of the major reasons she isn't a host of this group today.

Your attempt at historical revisionism is weak sauce, cbayer.

[rug]

29. There was no December 25, 3000 BCE, 1200 BCE, 900 BCE or 500 BCE.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. That is true. They used different calendars then.

Now we use BCE for that to be consistent. They use a different calendar in the Muslim world today that Omar Khayyam invented.

How about for "December 25" we use "three days after the Winter Solstice"?

The solstice can be measured accurately for a particular year and it moves slightly.

[rug]

31. We'd have to redo this chart then.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. Why are you so nitpicky about the dates? Using BCE is the standard that we can agree on.

I don't think it's worth my while to learn about ancient calendars when we can express the dates in an agreed-upon standard.

[rug]

33. That's just off the top of my head.

If you wanted to list all the dissimilarities among them, you'd need a graphic the size of a webpage.

It reminds me of a poster for Zeitgeist: The Movie.

Here's a critique of that movie.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/12/zeitgeist-of-zeitgeist-movie.html

[okasha]

35. Suppose you produce actual Egyptian, Greek and Hindu sources

assigning the births of these gods to "three days after the winter solstice?" And why weren't tthe solar deities born on the actual solstice? After we settle that, we can worry about calendars.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

42. Three days later is when the sun appears to start moving north again.

That's why it's three days later.

[okasha]

43. Irrelevant to the question of the sun's birth.

The "birth" takes place at the Solstice.

Now, how about those original sources?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. I'm talking about astronomical observation.

I do not understand what you mean by the "sun's birth". Ancient civilizations were very good at astronomy. It was the first science taken up by ancient peoples. They recorded the fact that the sun's apparent motion starts to go north from its southernmost point at 3 days after the winter solstice, if you are in the Northern Hemisphere.

From Wikipedia: Solstice:

The term solstice can also be used in a wider sense, as the date (day) that such a passage happens. The solstices, together with the equinoxes, are connected with the seasons. In some languages they are considered to start or separate the seasons; in others they are considered to be centre points (in England, in the Northern Hemisphere, for example, the period around the northern solstice is known as midsummer, and Midsummer's Day is 24 June, about three days after the solstice itself). Similarly 25 December is the start of the Christmas celebration, and is the day the Sun begins to return to the Northern Hemisphere.


You're sidestepping the question. I've already explained about the 25th of December.

why don't you dig up original sources if you are so certain about whatever-it-is that you're talking about? Aren't you an expert now?

[okasha]

48. You're attempting, not very successfully,

to associate the birthdays of various deities with the winter solstice to "prove" that the gospel narratives were derived from the myths of various pagan gods.

The burden of proof is on you to show that such parallels actually exist. For that, you need to produce original sources--not the fourth-hand mythicist woo you're posting here.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

49. You haven't produced any factual historical sources about the existence of Jesus.

Because there are none.

[TheDebbieDee]

17. I'm no antiquities scholar but I agree. I think he was an invented character that was talked about

Like urban legends are talked about today and finally written about 2 or 3 generations after his supposed death. Anybody nexomes greater than life with the passage of enough time....

[rug]

24. Who was Nero executing in 64 CE?

I hope you realize the flip side of this theory requires a conspiracy, the size of which dwarfs 9/11, and which took hold within thirty years, thousands of kilometers from its origin, in an age of sails and hooves, across diverse languages and cultures.

Occam applies equally well here.

[okasha]

37. Sails and hooves and feet.

Very sore feet.

[Viva_Daddy]

41. to those who wish to explore this question IN DEPTH, I recommend:

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Just google it.

[okasha]

44. And google Paul Daugherty's

"scholarly credentials" while you're at it.

[Iggo]

46. Obvious myth is obvious.

[Half-Century Man]

51. Here are a few quick questions I always wanted answered.

If you start at a G*d who is singular and omnipotent;
Why would a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and a Tree of Life be placed in a confined space with children (or the mental equivalent of), unless at some point they were to be allowed to eat?
Why would an eternal curse be levied for doing something that had to be predestined to happen anyway early? (as is claimed by the majority of the sects of christianity).
Why would a G*D who has outlawed human sacrifice for 2000+ years suddenly decide that was the way to make a statement?
Why would a G*D who has been a singular entity for over two thousand years decide to become something like a cosmic s'more with three constituent parts; which could be worshiped separately or as a collective whole?
Why would a complete set of Good, Evil, lesser, gods suddenly appear around a G*D who has jealously maintained his singularity for thousands of years?


As a start.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Why would god allow the talking snake in the garden?

Why would god allow the evil thing driving the snake to exist in the first place?
Why would god leave adam an eve alone in the garden together with the snake?
Does god know his 'you are cursed to crawl in the dust on your belly' curse for the snake is ineffective, as there is at least once species of snake that can fly?

I can add a few more as well.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. Conflicting creation stories.

"Male and female created he them" and the rib story.

And Lilith who was too uppity, so she is ignored.

And where did Cain and Abel's wives come from?

Lots of good questions.

[Bohunk68]

54. S(P)aul wrote well within the timeline

of the cult he persecuted. Those folks were the same generation or the first generation of disciples. We know that his writings are the earliest currently in the New Testament and not just pulled from his ass. Yes, there is a whole lot of shit that is assumed from older religions, but that is what always occurs. Reread or read the series by Joseph Campbell on Mythology. You will find that all religions have similar threads. To extrapolate that into Jesus never lived lends little credence to those claiming it. Judaism is based on the Sumerian and Egyptian traditions. It's all over the place for anyone with eyes to read. The divinity things are later additions (I'm thinking Gospel of John) and detract from the basic message that a Rabbi from Nazareth taught. BTW, Nazareth was in Samaria, which was the area of the 10 Lost Tribes. In Mark, it is specifically stated that he came for the lost tribes. This is also the passage used by Gentiles to claim that he also spoke for them.

[edhopper]

59. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter

Is true, because we know Abrahasm Lincoln lived.

[goldent]

61. The article reads like evangelizing - fine by me

Christians and other religious groups have been doing it for a long time, no reason other groups can't.

My favorite part is about the absence of a birth certificate for Jesus - Biblical birthers!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

64. another post source.

Will the Real Jesus Stand Up? Guest post by David Fitzgerald, author of the upcoming Jesus:Mything in Action by David Fitzgerald.



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/

Who Do Men Say That I am?



Albert Schweitzer in his From Reimarus to Wrede: A History of Research on the Life of Jesus (1906), was already discovering that every scholar claiming to have uncovered the “real” Jesus seemed to have found a mirror instead; each investigator found Jesus was a placeholder for whatever values they held dear. Over a century later, the situation has not improved – quite the contrary. To say there is still no consensus on who Jesus was is an understatement. A quick survey (Price presents excellent examples in his Deconstructing Jesus, Prometheus, 2000, pp. 12-17) shows we have quite an embarrassment of Jesi:

Cynic Philosopher, Liberal Pharisee, Charismatic Hasid, Conservative Rabbi, Antinomian Iconoclast, Magician/Exorcist/Faith Healer, Violent Zealot Revolutionary, Nonviolent pacifist Resister, Apocalyptic Prophet, First Century Proto-Communist, Earthy Hedonist, Family Man, Early Feminist, Home Wrecker, Savior of the World, Savior of Israel (only), Radical Social Reformer.

Could Jesus have been a Stealth Messiah?
Is it possible that despite our total lack of reliable documentation, there could still have been a real Jesus who lies buried underneath centuries of legendary accretion? It’s certainly possible. Is it plausible? Maybe. Do I think that’s what happened? Not really. As I say in the final chapter of Nailed, “Can Jesus be Saved?”:



“There comes a point when it no longer makes sense to give Jesus the benefit of a doubt. Even if we make allowances for legendary accretion, pious fraud, the criteria
of embarrassment, doctrinal disputes, scribal errors and faults in translation, there are simply too many irresolvable problems with the default position that assumes there simply had to be a historical individual (or even a composite of several itinerant preachers) at the center of Christianity.”

Other Candidates: John the Baptist, Apollonius of Tyana, The egyptian, Judas of Galilee and Theudas the Magician, Athronges the Shepherd, Simon of Perea, An Impostor, The Taheb, Jonathan the Weaver, Yeshua ben Hananaiah, Simon bar Glora.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/01/will-the-real-jesus-please-stand-up/#ixzz3C2gNacng

[Starboard Tack]

66. I like this response from the link

If only they had been issued wearable cameras, this whole thing would have been cleared up.

[edhopper]

71. This might be

Of interest to some here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject