Reconstructing ancient Christ-myth theory

Very little well-informed counterapologetics survives from the first four Christian centuries, none of it from the First Century. Except for brief snide remarks about Christians (e.g. Marcus Aurelius or Galen) and for some letters of Emperor Julian (~ 362 CE), all we have is the Christian reply to the critic, not the unimproved criticism itself.

There is no question that counterapologetic literature was intentionally destroyed. The Empire decreed more than once that all copies of Porphyry's Against the Christians, from about 300 CE, be burned. Not only is the book "lost," but rebuttals that might have extensively quoted from it have also been misplaced.

A survey and assessment of what does survive was recently blogged here,

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

Ancient critics aggressively attacked the supposed factual basis of Christianity. Although no surviving work says "Jesus was made up," it sure looks like "Everything you say about Jesus was made up" actuallly was argued.

It's a bold claim Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em.

A2D

a reply to: eight bits

I agree with Bertrand Russell. This snippet from your link:

Here is a modern illustration. In his 1927 essay, “Why I am not a Christian,” Bertrand Russell described his disbelief in a knowable historical Jesus this way, " Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him…". Russell’s harsh judgment of what we know about Jesus is disputable, but if granted to be his estimate, then his doubt about Jesus’ existence is predictable and needs no further explanation. “We do not know anything historically about Jesus, but I have no doubt he existed” would call for an explanation. However, “We don’t know anything historically about Jesus, so he didn’t exist” is both an obvious fallacy and a wretched argument.

Not a fallacy at all, there is no contemporary evidence for a historical Jesus. Why should I believe in someone who has left no proof of his existence?

I respect your faith and your need to believe in supernatural figures, but I need real evidence before I can say Jesus was real.

a reply to: Agartha

2000 years from now there probably won't be proof of your existence....just sayin....i think you're not real.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree


2000 years from now there probably won't be proof of your existence....just sayin....i think you're not real.

A2D

Yes, but I am not 'the daughter of God' who has come to forgive all your sins with the power of healing, resurrection and walking on water. There is lots of contemporary evidence of other people who lived when he was alive, but not of the 'son of God'?

a reply to: Agartha

Only a few believed he was the "son of God"...hence why he was killed you know...so no...why would there be a bunch of contemporary evidence for a guy that the majority of people thought was just some insane lunatic claming to be god?

My point is that evidence for the existence of a regular person like you...is not likely to survive...just like the evidence for a "crazy person"... If your neighbor thought he was god would you document his life so that 2000 years from now people could read about him? Not likely....only his followers would document his life....and this is exactly the case we see.

His followers documented his life because they believed...Those that thought he was just a lunatic had no reason to document anything...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Agartha

Only a few believed he was the "son of God"...hence why he was killed you know...so no...why would there be a bunch of contemporary evidence for a guy that the majority of people thought was just some insane lunatic claming to be god?

My point is that evidence for the existence of a regular person like you...is not likely to survive...just like the evidence for a "crazy person"... If your neighbor thought he was god would you document his life so that 2000 years from now people could read about him? Not likely....only his followers would document his life....and this is exactly the case we see.

His followers documented his life because they believed...Those that thought he was just a lunatic had no reason to document anything...

A2D

Show me a contemporary document made by his followers?
I'm sure you can't as there are none. None of his alledged disciples wrote/documented/recorded anything about their amazing Jesus. None.

Also, according to Acts, Jesus was very famous for his miracles whilst alive and hundreds witnessed them, and yet there's no record of them anywhere? None of the Greek and Roman authors alive heard about the incredible Jesus who was alledgedly followed by big crowds? And if he was such a pain for the Romans, how comes they never recorded his name? There are hundreds of Roman records from that era, but total silence on Jesus.

a reply to: Agartha

Don't put words in my mouth...i never said contemporary. and I already answered your questions...no one had a reason to document the life of a crazy man....(if he was so incredible and famous, surely the people would not have let him be crucified...he would have been set free instead of Barabbas...who was, in all probability, not well liked at all....)

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Don't put words in my mouth...i never said contemporary. and I already answered your questions...no one had a reason to document the life of a crazy man....

A2D

You never said contemporary, but you said 'only his followers would document his life' and yet they didn't.
None of his followers documented his life.

a reply to: Agartha

You've never heard of John? The disciple who Jesus loved? Who authored a gospel? (If you want to argue that a disciple named John never existed or that someone else authored the book...I'd like to see your evidence before you begin to blather on a bunch of nonsense i've heard 9 billion times before...)

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Agartha

You've never heard of John? The disciple who Jesus loved? Who authored a gospel? (If you want to argue that a disciple named John never existed or that someone else authored the book...I'd like to see your evidence before you begin to blather on a bunch of nonsense i've heard 9 billion times before...)

A2D

The gospels were not written by the disciples, they were written long after.
Evidence? Sure: the oldest copy of the gospel of John is from the 2nd century. That John could not have been alive at the time of Jesus. (LINK)

Now you show me evidence of John having written the gospel before the 2nd century.

The Aminita Muscaria is an interesting and somewhat infamous fungus...I propose to you, any and all of you, to consider the origins of this particular religious cult known widely as 'Christianity'. Jesus was a man, true, he lived and died like the rest of us, and that's where the fairytale ends.

a reply to: Agartha

So you're saying because the oldest copies we have are dated after the guy that wrote it...there couldn't have possibly been an older copy? Are you taking medications?

I wrote poems in highschool...I can make copies of them tonight and throw the old ones away...That doesn't mean that my poems were written today......

(Not to mention it is almost unanimously agreed upon that what we do have are COPIES...NOT ORIGINALS...so of course the dates are off)


Tupac Shakur, famous rapper, released SEVEN albums after his death in 1996...based on your logic....it couldn't have been Tupac's music...it must have been someone else..

Need any more examples of why your logic is deeply flawed? I have plenty.

A2D

The Jesus most people believe in today, never existed. The early nag hammadi library, and the gnostic gospels, paint a much different picture of him. He was a Jew, who practiced Judaism, he was not a christian. He kept the Sabbath, and all the Jewish laws and festivals and lived as a Jew lived.

Paul reinvented Jesus. He wrote most of the new testament. The Romans under the guise of the Christian Church came along and robbed, killed and destroyed any alternative belief system and literature. All in the name of controlling the masses. He reinvented a Jesus that reflected what the Roman Empire demanded. There is a reason that massive numbers of Gospels were left out of the Holy Roman Empires version of the Sacred Holy Bible. And instead Pauls version was made into Scripture. And remember Paul never met Jesus.

However I do find it interesting that there is much more historical information about his brother James. And if you want to know who Jesus was, you should take a really good look at his brother, they taught the same things. I promise that you will find a different Jesus.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

So you're saying because the oldest copies we have are dated after the guy that wrote it...there couldn't have possibly been an older copy?

Yes. There is no evidence of previous copies. In fact early Christian fathers like Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) talks about Jesus and mentions the Old Testament hundreds of time, but not once he acknowledges the gospels. He never even mentions the names of John, Mark etc. Isn't that strange?

So you may assume and believe there were earlier copies, I will not because there is no evidence and they are not mentioned anywhere, not even by the early Christian fathers.

Are you taking medications?

^^wow... this shows a lot about your character......

edit on 13-2-2016 by Agartha because: (no reason given)

Judge Jesus and His Father with what is happening in the world today.

Using his own words (supposedly) 'Always judge a person (& entity) by the fruits that it bares'.

What has Jesus or Yahweh done for the poor people of this world since, lets say, the end of World War 2 ?
Answer: NOTHING.

In fact both Jesus and Yahweh have allowed the elite to steal more money from the poor making billions of people suffer.

Yahweh, supposedly got super grumpy when the guy buried his one single talent in Matthew 25:18. Yet Yahweh has done sweet f*ck all to lightning bolt the elite who have outsourced millions of talents from USA to China.

So obviously, either Yahweh and Yahushua is a complete lie or they are both pure evil and hate the poor people.

originally posted by: leastofthese
The Aminita Muscaria is an interesting and somewhat infamous fungus...I propose to you, any and all of you, to consider the origins of this particular religious cult known widely as 'Christianity'. Jesus was a man, true, he lived and died like the rest of us, and that's where the fairytale ends.

This is the actual truth of it all.

Great book written by Allegro who translated the Dead Sea scrolls.
The early Christian cult was a psychedelic mystery cult.

Santa Claus is the mushroom and also the "body" of God.

a reply to: Rapha

So obviously, either Yahweh and Yahushua is a complete lie or they are both pure evil and hate the poor people.

Is that so?

Let us examine these options:

1. a complete lie:

Other cosmologies stemmed from (some say paralleling) this one are therefore also lies. What's left? Dismissal of metaphysics, or cosmologies based upon things like "in the beginning nothing/something exploded into everything and then jellyfish become peaches, bats, and Ban Ki Moon because my lab soup has amino acids and rock formation is unobserved by my school". This eases considerations of good and evil.

2. pure evil:

Perhaps that's why the fruit of the tree of science of good and evil was originally intended as something to be left hanging. Yet we yearn for this knowledge, and because we are willing to break a comfortable rule to form our own views of good and evil. Those views are then subject to change over circumstance, experience, thought & c. Those who consistently hold this view find solace in death. I suggest exploring further.

3. Neither good nor evil:

Much as the air conditioning machine is neither cold nor warm: it makes both.
One can only imagine the intentions behind creation, and may be the purpose was perspective, or "self knowledge", hence the "in his image" translation.

4. Good:

Just god with an extra o: allowing criticism. This is the basis for "now you ate the fruit of the tree of science of good and evil, make your own garden and suffer procreation". As in A&E had been raised to where they valued their perception of good and evil above that of their maker, which is paralleled in teenagers even now.
World is more complex than experience explains, in some instances. Bad luck to good people is one.
Yet is it not the hunger that makes food soothing, is it not the question that makes the answer meaningful?
The loneliness that makes woman worth to man the bone over his heart?

Cheers

a reply to: wisvol

Other cosmologies stemmed from (some say paralleling) this one are therefore also lies. What's left? Dismissal of metaphysics, or cosmologies based upon things like "in the beginning nothing/something exploded into everything and then jellyfish become peaches, bats, and Ban Ki Moon because my lab soup has amino acids and rock formation is unobserved by my school". This eases considerations of good and evil.

There's a difference between acknowledging a supernatural or spiritual realm that is not completely grasped by mankind, and claiming that mysterious energy as a vengeful, jealous and blood thirsty deity flying around in a Pillar of Fire barking commandments and ordering murders.

a reply to: windword

There's a difference between acknowledging a supernatural or spiritual realm that is not completely grasped by mankind, and claiming that mysterious energy as a vengeful, jealous and blood thirsty deity flying around in a Pillar of Fire barking commandments and ordering murders.

Thank you for pointing that out.
I hope if anyone claimed that mysterious energy as a vengeful & c., their opinion that there would be no difference between such claim and the acknowledgement of a supernatural or spiritual realm not completely grasped by mankind is now corrected.