Reconstructing ancient Christ-myth theory

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.

That is the single most interesting and, probably relevant, thing I have ever seen in discussions such as this. I've done some research myself and there's some fascinating literature out there.
Something that has been forgotten about and needs more recognition.
Cheers.

Agatha

Yes, I like the way Bertrand Russell put it. Tom Paine did a pretty good job, too, IMO.

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?

A rhetorical fallacy is not a bad thing, it is just something whose conclusion may be denied while accepting its premise. That doesn't make the conclusion wrong, but it does make it a dicey argument to change the mind of somebody who doesn't believe the conclusion.

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

Who's you in that sentence?

a reply to: Agartha

Almost every scholar assumes and believes there were earlier copies as well...so I'm in good company. Currently there are 5,686 greek manuscripts in existence...and you seem to think we have them all....there couldn't possibly be 5,687...nope...not possible....LOL PLEASE.

We do not possess the originals of nearly any ancient text....almost everything we have is a copy of a copy...so dating tends to be slightly inaccurate...

A2D

originally posted by: misskat1
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.

The Nag Hammadi 'library' was only 12 papyri, sealed in a single clay jar. The writings were openly antagonistic against orthodox Christianity and have been dated to hundreds of years after Christ. I would not really think that they have anything to tell us that could resolve issues as to the existence or non-existence of a historical Jesus Christ. A red herring in this this topic thread.

All the writings of Paul make up only 20% of the New Testament, he didn't write "most of it" as you stated. Similarly, Christianity as a faith was persecuted against by authorities for nearly 400 years. Paul himself was purported to have been beheaded outside of Rome under the reign of Emperor Nero, who openly persecuted and executed Christians for their faith (a fact noted by contemporary, non-Christian, Roman historians). For hundreds of years, the Roman Empire demanded the destruction of the Christian faith and did not "promote" it in any way - this is a historical fact. The idea that Imperial Rome directed the beliefs of Christian Church is farcical.

Paul may not have met Jesus, but he did meet, and was friends with, Jesus brother, James. They had some disagreements but ultimately resolved them (according to Luke who wrote about it in Acts).

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.

The Amanita Muscaria mushroom is not native to the Middle East.

Are you suggesting that psilocybin was involved in the origins of Christianity?

If so, please provide some support for the idea. Preferably something more contemporary to the rise of Christianity than a picture that looks a bit like a mushroom from the wall of a 12th century French chapel.

originally posted by: Agartha
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.

Its interesting that historians (Jewish historian Josephus) do write of John the baptist and bones said to be of John the baptist date from the first century. Some scholars believe that Jesus was a disciple of John. So perhaps it was John the baptist that really gave birth to Christianity explaining why NT quotes John as the greatest person born of women. Some writers even suggest that John the Baptist and Jesus were one and the same which is an interesting thought.

Clearly if Jesus carried out half the miracles claimed in NT there should be solid evidence of his existence from historians so its impossible to refute your argument with present day knowledge.

originally posted by: eight bits
Who's you in that sentence?

That would be you and/or anybody else who is a believer.

Funny how the Romans used to document every little thing that was happening, and yet there is no record of Herod's killing every male child born when Jesus was born, no record of the census they carried out when Jesus was a baby and the resurrection! They never wrote that one of the men they killed came back to life? (from Ehrman, Forged (2011) p256-257).

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Almost every scholar assumes and believes there were earlier copies as well...

Looking forward to seeing the evidence you have to back up your statement above.




a reply to: glend

Absolutely! How comes John the Baptist was mentioned by Flavius Josephus but Jesus was not? Considering how many people witnessed his miracles and preaching?

originally posted by: glend
Clearly if Jesus carried out half the miracles claimed in NT there should be solid evidence of his existence from historians so its impossible to refute your argument with present day knowledge.

Right off the top of my head I can think of two things that completely invalidate your argument...

One, history is nothing more than a VERY effective form of mind control and has just as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

Two, miracles identical to the ones in the NT have been occurring daily since the beginning of time.

I have personally experienced several myself.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out who has an agenda to maintain and who does not.

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

"History is more or less bunk." ~ Henry Ford

"The falsification of history has done more to impede human development than any one thing known to mankind" ~ Rousseau

Rewriting history was the first step in achieving the New World Order. Source

Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses. Historical, religious and political truths have been withheld from the general public in order to perpetuate armed conflict," he continues.

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History

a reply to: Agartha

Do I really need evidence when almost every archaeologists on the planet will tell you that they don't think we are in possession of the original NT manuscripts? You have to be trolling me, right?



A2D

Agatha

That would be you and/or anybody else who is a believer.

I am not a religious believer, for whatever difference that makes.

I sense you would be happier if the article had called the fallacy a heursitic. The point of mentioning the matter at all in the article, however, was that we would be suprised to find the heuristic "there is no historical knowledge about Jesus, therefore Jesus definitely didn't exist" in a small sample of survivng ancient arguments, most of it coming to us second-hand.

That contrasts with the position of believers (some mentioned in the article) who use the identical fallacy, "there is no historical knowledge of any ancient 'enemy of Christianity' denying the existence of Jesus, therefore no ancient critic did deny the existence of Jesus."

I sense you have no problem at all with my calling that a fallacy, and yet it is the same argument.

gland

I think the root of the "contemporaneous documentation" problem is that Jesus didn't do much of anything unusual until after he died (umm...), did whatever it was he did in an out-of-the-way place, and that place was razed by the Roman army before any "real-life adventures of Jesus" books were written or widely used by Christians.

In particular, Jesus didn't do anything at all in life (the only part of the story that raises any historical issue about him) that his disciples didn't supposedly also do, plus Paul who wasn't even a disciple. Peter did a better trick, a miraculous jail break. Now wouldn't that little number have come in handy while Jesus was awaiting trial?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
Do I really need evidence when almost every archaeologists on the planet will tell you that they don't think we are in possession of the original NT manuscripts?

Yes, please, show me evidence to confirm 'almost every archaeologist on the planet' state the gospels were written earlier than the 2nd century.

You have to be trolling me, right?
A2D

I have been really polite to you and provided evidence of my statements. You, on the other hand, have not provided one shred of evidence and also asked me if 'I am taking medication'. If one of us is trolling, it's clear that person is not me.


a reply to: eight bits

I get what you are saying, the lack of evidence can actually work both ways and I agree. But, so far, there's no proof Jesus was a real historical figure and everything points to him having been created in the 2nd century. My own conclusion after a critical analysis of the evidence we have.

a reply to: Agartha

I asked if you're taking medication because you're denying the simplest of things. You are either in denial, or ignorant of the facts. This will get you started. Ask an Archaeologist

Be sure to tell them you think we're in possession of the original NT manuscripts.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Agartha

I asked if you're taking medication because you're denying the simplest of things. You are either in denial, or ignorant of the facts. This will get you started. Ask an Archaeologist

Be sure to tell them you think we're in possession of the original NT manuscripts.

A2D

You either don't know how to provide evidence, or you are really trolling.
Your last sentence and the link you have provided suggest the latter. You go ask an archaelogist, I don't need that, I can provide evidence for my claims. You, on the other hand, have not provided one single piece of evidence to back up your statements.

I'm out, I don't have time for silly games.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I agree with your points about history 100% and if Rome did fear Jesus it wouldn't be in their interest to advertise his existence. Personally I believe Jesus existed because Gospel of Thomas seems to have been written with advanced knowledge from my perspective but proving his existence to atheist is near impossible given that the only historic reference is the NT.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Murgatroid

I agree with your points about history 100% and if Rome did fear Jesus it wouldn't be in their interest to advertise his existence. Personally I believe Jesus existed because Gospel of Thomas seems to have been written with advanced knowledge from my perspective but proving his existence to atheist is near impossible given that the only historic reference is the NT.

You might like this then:

Acts of Thomas

The various apocryphal acts of the apostles all demonstrate the living word. It is all adherent to Christ philosophy. it is often in regard to the transcendental aspect of Christ's way:

"But before all things it is needful that the believer should look before at his ending and understand it in what manner it will come upon him, whether it will be vigorous and sober and without any obstacle, or disturbed and clinging to the things that are here, and bound down by desires."

No one ever talks about these guys, The Jansenist's. Viewed by Thousands yet, we hear very little about them.

The would be hurled off of brick walls, hit with giant stones and absolutely Nothing hurt them.
The Jansenist Miracles

a reply to: Agartha

I told you archaeologists will back my claims. I gave you a link in which you can contact archaeologists. It's not my fault you are unwilling to contact them and/or accept the fact that the original NT documents are probably still unearthed or totally destroyed.

A2D

originally posted by: chr0naut


The Nag Hammadi 'library' was only 12 papyri, sealed in a single clay jar. The writings were openly antagonistic against orthodox Christianity and have been dated to hundreds of years after Christ. I would not really think that they have anything to tell us that could resolve issues as to the existence or non-existence of a historical Jesus Christ. A red herring in this this topic thread.

All the writings of Paul make up only 20% of the New Testament, he didn't write "most of it" as you stated. Similarly, Christianity as a faith was persecuted against by authorities for nearly 400 years. Paul himself was purported to have been beheaded outside of Rome under the reign of Emperor Nero, who openly persecuted and executed Christians for their faith (a fact noted by contemporary, non-Christian, Roman historians). For hundreds of years, the Roman Empire demanded the destruction of the Christian faith and did not "promote" it in any way - this is a historical fact. The idea that Imperial Rome directed the beliefs of Christian Church is farcical.

Paul may not have met Jesus, but he did meet, and was friends with, Jesus brother, James. They had some disagreements but ultimately resolved them (according to Luke who wrote about it in Acts).

Rome put the current version of the Bible together during the council of Niciea in the 3rd century. This is well known fact.

The Gnostic gospels are not dated to hundreds of years after Christ, Christian apologists do often spread lies like that around.
I'm reading The Lost Gospels by Elaine Pagels right now. The Gnostic text has been shown to be from the 1st century and shows a much different version of Christianity than what we have in the current Bible.
Many Christians at the time believed the resurrection was not actual but metaphorical and in the texts they criticize people for adding useless supernatural aspects to the teachings of Jesus.

An archeologist who has endless amount of sourced work that clearly shows the mythicist position to be true can be found here:
truthbeknown.com...

anyone can go debate her on her website if you want to put your knowledge to the test.
truthbeknown.com...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Agartha

I told you archaeologists will back my claims. I gave you a link in which you can contact archaeologists. It's not my fault you are unwilling to contact them and/or accept the fact that the original NT documents are probably still unearthed or totally destroyed.

A2D

Archaeologists cannot and will never be able to show the Bible as a historical fact.


www.pbs.org...
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years and authored almost as many books on the subject. In the following interview, Dever describes some of the most significant archeological finds related to the Hebrew Bible, including his own hot-button discovery that the Israelites' God was linked to a female goddess called Asherah.

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.
But perhaps we were asking the wrong questions. I have always thought that if we resurrected someone from the past, one of the biblical writers, they would be amused, because for them it would have made no difference. I think they would have said, faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them.
The fact is that archeology can never prove any of the theological suppositions of the Bible. Archeologists can often tell you what happened and when and where and how and even why. No archeologists can tell anyone what it means, and most of us don't try.

originally posted by: Agartha
so far, there's no proof Jesus was a real historical figure and everything points to him having been created in the 2nd century. My own conclusion after a critical analysis of the evidence we have.

Agree there. There is better quality evidence to suggest that Robin Hood was a historical figure.

In the end it is a bit like arguing for the existence of a lumberjack called Paul Bunyan. Whether a real person was in some way an inspiration for the myth doesn't matter, the Paul Bunyan as outlined in the resulting mythology didn't exist. Neither did Jesus.