Reconstructing ancient Christ-myth theory

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

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.

I use the Johnny Appleseed myth.

He was a real documented person. But, he was/is not the myth.

Myths are often based on a real person, but they're still myths. Just a story.

originally posted by: joelr
Archaeologists cannot and will never be able to show the Bible as a historical fact.

I agree with your post 100% as archaelogy is raising more questions about the historicity of the Bible stories.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
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.

If one day we'll find the evidence that shows Jesus of the NT was indeed a real man, I'll put my hands up and accept I was wrong. But, as of today, we have nothing.

originally posted by: joelr

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...

The First Council of Nicea occurred in 325 AD. The earliest Christian papyri that we have have been dated about 200 years before then. The purposes and conclusions of the First Council of Nicea are historically documented and did not involve the setting of the canon of scripture. The Second Council of Nicea occurred in 787 AD and also did not set the canon as it had already been set by then. The Roman Empire had also fallen (in 476 AD). The idea that the Roman Empire created the current version of the New Testament is laughable.

St Paul and St John wrote both about early Gnostic heresy in their letters in the New Testament (all written before AD 70). Gnosticism was around for a long time, no-one is arguing that. However, the earliest Gnostic papyri we actually have preserved are the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which, as previously noted, are hundreds of years after Christ.

Orthodox Christianity has over 60,000 papyri and fragments supporting its assertions. Elaine Pagels has written a number of books based upon 37 papyri and fragments, the oldest of which are the 12 Nag Hammadi scrolls which were buried in 367 AD and probably written in the previous century.

originally posted by: joelr

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...

Elaine Pagels has had a number of appearances in "documentaries" aired on the History Channel.

The truthbeknown website claims to have definitive proof on a number of topics which have been debated for centuries without adequate resolution, one way or the other. As such it is an opinion site, not scientific or historical fact. It makes sweeping assumptions from the slenderest of "clues' and ignores volumes of data contradictory to its assumptions.

a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism was called by the early Christian church that rejected the Holy Bible accepted by the politician Empower Constantine. The early Christians then as usual slaughtered and destroyed all that disagreed.
Such as the crusades hundreds of years later.

However, this was a harsh time and the ways of life back then were different to today. Kinda, we just know how to accumulate knowledge better hence better weapons.

So Christianity, as harsh as its past, so not that much different to the others of that time/s. Could say that its no better or just the same as the Islamic State. But again no different to the times.

Coomba98

a reply to: eight bits

Two suspiciously silent contemporaries of the infamous Jesus of Nazareth were Philo of Alexandria, who was an Hellenized Jewish Rabbi who hypothesized that the Hebrew "Angel of the Lord" was their cultural version of Plato's LOGOS, and , Plutarch, who devoted his scholarship to recording and opining on ancient and contemporary religions, customs, rituals, belief origins, etc, and dissecting their men and women, heroes and deities, gods and goddesses.

Yet, not a peep from either of these philosophical intellectual giants of their day about Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ's supposed virgin birth, miracles, death, resurrection, transfiguration or atonement for sins.

Curious..........

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Gnosticism was called by the early Christian church that rejected the Holy Bible accepted by the politician Empower Constantine. The early Christians then as usual slaughtered and destroyed all that disagreed.
Such as the crusades hundreds of years later.

However, this was a harsh time and the ways of life back then were different to today. Kinda, we just know how to accumulate knowledge better hence better weapons.

So Christianity, as harsh as its past, so not that much different to the others of that time/s. Could say that its no better or just the same as the Islamic State. But again no different to the times.

Coomba98

Gnostic heresies began very early in the Christian churches. Both Peter and Paul wrote letters identifying individuals who were to be avoided because they were spreading incorrect Gnostic teachings. The letters, were written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Constantine did not rule until about 312 AD.

It is interesting to note that the first major ecumenical council, The First Council of Nicea, was set up by Constantine to resolve a very specific Gnostic heresy. While many say that the canon of the Bible was set at Nicea, this is entirely untrue. The details of the Council were very thoroughly and clearly documented and the outcome was the Nicene Creed which identified the doctrinal differences that Christianity had with the ideas of Arius (who was present at the council to plead his case). Arius was voted against nearly unanimously (approximately 315 votes to 3) and was banished (to Greece).

For those (nearly) 300 years before Rome became Christian, Christianity was oppressed and persecuted by Rome, as was (probably) Gnostic belief because it is unlikely that Rome would make the distinction. Despite this oppression (which involved arrest, detention, torture and execution) Christianity spread throughout the empire. No doubt Gnosticism spread with it.

When Rome accepted Christianity as the state religion under Emperor Constantine, it continued to rule in the Roman way. Its oppression of all but the state religion and militaristic style remained. Rome itself, however, soon fell to the Goths who deposed the Emperor in 476 AD.

The first Crusade began in 1096 AD, 620 years after the Roman Empire fell.

Prior to 1100 AD the Roman Catholic Church dealt with heresy by excommunicating and censuring heretics, their followers and their works, they did not torture and execute but they may have destroyed writings deemed to be heretical.

The Inquisition, the systematic attempt to remove heresies (primarily in France), occurred from about 1250 AD and continued until the 1400's here the Roman Catholic Church tortured and executed heretics.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The truthbeknown website claims to have definitive proof on a number of topics which have been debated for centuries without adequate resolution, one way or the other. As such it is an opinion site, not scientific or historical fact. It makes sweeping assumptions from the slenderest of "clues' and ignores volumes of data contradictory to its assumptions.

That's really wrong. D.M. Murdock sources all her material and among other things has spent time as a trench master in Egypt. Some of her sources are original hieroglyphics. She also speaks many relevant languages so can do research beyond Google and Christianity's altered version of history.


She may have some opinions of course but her basic thesis is all fact. Pick something, go ahead. You are just making sweeping generalizations here. Go to her forum and challenge her, you will lose.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

The truthbeknown website claims to have definitive proof on a number of topics which have been debated for centuries without adequate resolution, one way or the other. As such it is an opinion site, not scientific or historical fact. It makes sweeping assumptions from the slenderest of "clues' and ignores volumes of data contradictory to its assumptions.

That's really wrong. D.M. Murdock sources all her material and among other things has spent time as a trench master in Egypt. Some of her sources are original hieroglyphics. She also speaks many relevant languages so can do research beyond Google and Christianity's altered version of history.


She may have some opinions of course but her basic thesis is all fact. Pick something, go ahead. You are just making sweeping generalizations here. Go to her forum and challenge her, you will lose.

Well, one thing is the amount of time she expends in suggesting that "the son of God" sounds like "the sun of God". This homophone only works in English, not in the original languages of the Bible. We can therefore dismiss a large chunk of her work without even delving into specifics.

She then goes on to use the inscriptions at Luxor describing the birth of Horus, suggesting that the birth of Jesus Christ was taken from this story. At the time of Jesus birth, hieroglyphic writing had been unused for millennia and was not properly decoded until the 1800's. There is no way that those around at the time of Jesus birth would have any knowledge of the Horus birth story.

Bart D Ehrman (himself no friend of orthodox Christian belief such as mine) says "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book "is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious." Taking her as representative of some other writers about the Christ myth theory, he generalizes that "Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them."

I also cannot pose questions to Dorothy on her website because she passed away from breast cancer last December.

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.

What was found is 52 texts including the gospel of Thomas, Truth Phillip, Egyptians, and other books and letters.
Scholars do debate this but some are very likely to be from 120-150 ad and a Harvard University Professor shows some may be even older than the New Testament writings.

They for sure show a very different Christianity.

The First Council of Nicea occurred in 325 AD. The earliest Christian papyri that we have have been dated about 200 years before then. The purposes and conclusions of the First Council of Nicea are historically documented and did not involve the setting of the canon of scripture. The Second Council of Nicea occurred in 787 AD and also did not set the canon as it had already been set by then. The Roman Empire had also fallen (in 476 AD). The idea that the Roman Empire created the current version of the New Testament is laughable.

It's been proven that the early Christianity were very diverse until the end of the second century. Bishop Irenaeus confirmed this and was the one who decided his version was universal (catholic) and then gained support from Rome in the 3rd century, military support.
As for laughing at the idea of Rome influencing christianity Pope Leo the Great condemned the Gnostoc Acts of John and said it should have been burned.
Because Christians were still copying and sharing this text the 2nd Nicene Council had to state that no one can own or copy the text.

The New Testament is only supported by the gospels it contains. Archeology has shown all of it's mythology to have been pre-existing in older mythology.

Even the Christians at The Jesus Seminar voted much of the NT writings to be not actually said by Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: joelr

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.

What was found is 52 texts including the gospel of Thomas, Truth Phillip, Egyptians, and other books and letters.
Scholars do debate this but some are very likely to be from 120-150 ad and a Harvard University Professor shows some may be even older than the New Testament writings.

They for sure show a very different Christianity.

The First Council of Nicea occurred in 325 AD. The earliest Christian papyri that we have have been dated about 200 years before then. The purposes and conclusions of the First Council of Nicea are historically documented and did not involve the setting of the canon of scripture. The Second Council of Nicea occurred in 787 AD and also did not set the canon as it had already been set by then. The Roman Empire had also fallen (in 476 AD). The idea that the Roman Empire created the current version of the New Testament is laughable.

It's been proven that the early Christianity were very diverse until the end of the second century. Bishop Irenaeus confirmed this and was the one who decided his version was universal (catholic) and then gained support from Rome in the 3rd century, military support.
As for laughing at the idea of Rome influencing christianity Pope Leo the Great condemned the Gnostoc Acts of John and said it should have been burned.
Because Christians were still copying and sharing this text the 2nd Nicene Council had to state that no one can own or copy the text.

The New Testament is only supported by the gospels it contains. Archeology has shown all of it's mythology to have been pre-existing in older mythology.

Even the Christians at The Jesus Seminar voted much of the NT writings to be not actually said by Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

The attendees at the Jesus Seminar were "critical scholars" and "laymen". This means that some were scholars, but the others, according to the definition linked to on Wikipedia, were "a person who is not qualified in a given profession and/or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject". The article does not explain the balance of attendees.

A person who does not acknowledge the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ falls outside the definition of a Christian. I doubt that any of those who believed the gospels to be a fabrication, were Christians in any sense of the word.

As per the "Criticism" section of the Wikipedia article, there were many scholars who objected to the conclusions and the process of the seminar. The details of each objection are noted in the article.

Also the Nag Hammadi library was not 52 full texts but contained excerpts from those texts in 12 papyrus codices.

Wikipedia- Nag Hammadi library

originally posted by: chr0naut



Well, one thing is the amount of time she expends in suggesting that "the son of God" sounds like "the sun of God". This homophone only works in English, not in the original languages of the Bible. We can therefore dismiss a large chunk of her work without even delving into specifics.

Wait, you think that Astrotheology is based on a homophone...................? Face palm.


There is a whole e-book and thread on the subject on her forum.


freethoughtnation.com...

"Like so many of the ancient gods, Christ is principally a personification of the sun, representing light and immortality, demonstrated by the numerous correspondences between his "life" and that of other solar heroes, as we have already seen abundantly. This fact can also be established through iconography, as well as the scriptures themselves, in which we find the "foreshadowing" (blueprint) for the "sun of righteousness," as in the final chapter of the last Old Testament book, just preceding the New. In that book, Malachi ("my messenger") says:
Quote:
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings…

The solar imagery could not be clearer: The sun of the resurrection, with his life-bestowing beams, rising or being born again each morning, awaking from the darkness, with the night fearing his light and ceding to his day. Furthermore, "sleepless light" or daylight pervades, and the west "gives credence to the east," as Jesus the Righteous Sun rises, in his chariot, the same as Apollo, Mithra, Krishna, Helios, etc.


The crucifixion, the two thieves and the resurrection are astrotheological motifs that one would expect to find in the mysteries of a solar priesthood. And mysteries they have remained, as books containing them continue to be mutilated and destroyed. The carpenter motif is likewise solar in origin, and a number of gods, including Krishna, Christ and Hesus, were said to have been carpenters, sons of carpenters and/or woodcutters, such as the Druidic sun god Hesus. As noted, Fohi/Buddha is incarnated at least once as a carpenter and is evidently the spiritual head of the carpenter's guild in China, as "in Chinese mythology Fuxi holds a carpenter's square." In Sumero-Babylonian mythology, dating back centuries and millennia before the common era, appeared a sun-carpenter correspondence in the god "Nin-ildu," the "carpenter-god that carries the pure axe of the sun."

She then goes on to use the inscriptions at Luxor describing the birth of Horus, suggesting that the birth of Jesus Christ was taken from this story. At the time of Jesus birth, hieroglyphic writing had been unused for millennia and was not properly decoded until the 1800's. There is no way that those around at the time of Jesus birth would have any knowledge of the Horus birth story.

Except it's a fact that Mithra and Horus were 2 of the MANY Gods worshiped in Rome B.C. Most people did not read ANYTHING, it was word of mouth.

Bart D Ehrman (himself no friend of orthodox Christian belief such as mine) says "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book "is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious." Taking her as representative of some other writers about the Christ myth theory, he generalizes that "Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them."

Murdock rebutted all of Ehrmans critique, there is a thread on it here:
He later admitted to "knowing nothing about the Mythicist position" and then on NPR radio in 2012 acknowledged:

"Mythicists’ arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus’ death, written by people who never saw the man…. Most importantly…these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again…. The mythicists have some right things to say… The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

He was also caught at having a student read the D.M. Murdock book for him which is dealt with in the thread.

No scholar has been able to debunk her work, many have tried on the forum.

I also cannot pose questions to Dorothy on her website because she passed away from breast cancer last December.

That's too bad, she did great work on the orgins of Christ and Xianity. But her forum is still open and has lots of great free information.

originally posted by: chr0naut

The attendees at the Jesus Seminar were "critical scholars" and "laymen". This means that some were scholars, but the others, according to the definition linked to on Wikipedia, were "a person who is not qualified in a given profession and/or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject". The article does not explain the balance of attendees.

A person who does not acknowledge the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ falls outside the definition of a Christian. I doubt that any of those who believed the gospels to be a fabrication, were Christians in any sense of the word.

As per the "Criticism" section of the Wikipedia article, there were many scholars who objected to the conclusions and the process of the seminar. The details of each objection are noted in the article.

Well there is a better breakdown here:
www.christiananswers.net...

but the point is that many of the scholars agree that the Bible is not a literal word for word truth.
Doesn't matter to me, I'm just saying even the Christians don't agree.

Also the Nag Hammadi library was not 52 full texts but contained excerpts from those texts in 12 papyrus codices.

Wikipedia- Nag Hammadi library

They are a great insight to what early Xianity was like.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

The attendees at the Jesus Seminar were "critical scholars" and "laymen". This means that some were scholars, but the others, according to the definition linked to on Wikipedia, were "a person who is not qualified in a given profession and/or does not have specific knowledge of a certain subject". The article does not explain the balance of attendees.

A person who does not acknowledge the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ falls outside the definition of a Christian. I doubt that any of those who believed the gospels to be a fabrication, were Christians in any sense of the word.

As per the "Criticism" section of the Wikipedia article, there were many scholars who objected to the conclusions and the process of the seminar. The details of each objection are noted in the article.

Well there is a better breakdown here:
www.christiananswers.net...

but the point is that many of the scholars agree that the Bible is not a literal word for word truth.
Doesn't matter to me, I'm just saying even the Christians don't agree.

Also the Nag Hammadi library was not 52 full texts but contained excerpts from those texts in 12 papyrus codices.

Wikipedia- Nag Hammadi library

They are a great insight to what early Xianity was like.

As I posted (perhaps elsewhere), both St Peter and St Paul made reference, in their pastoral letters, to the rise of Gnostic ideas. They clearly opposed these ideas and their perpetrators and wrote many of their later letters to clearly counter such ideas.

I think that Christianity at its core, and in the majority, rejected Gnostic ideas from very early on. There was, no doubt, a fascination with the heterodox but this did not equate with acceptance.

originally posted by: chr0naut

As I posted (perhaps elsewhere), both St Peter and St Paul made reference, in their pastoral letters, to the rise of Gnostic ideas. They clearly opposed these ideas and their perpetrators and wrote many of their later letters to clearly counter such ideas.

I think that Christianity at its core, and in the majority, rejected Gnostic ideas from very early on. There was, no doubt, a fascination with the heterodox but this did not equate with acceptance.

You like to use criticism so why not here?
The Pastoral letters are doubted by MOST scholars so it's not even the Mythicist writers on this one.

en.wikipedia.org...

But that's really just quibbling, the Gospels are not historical data anyways.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

As I posted (perhaps elsewhere), both St Peter and St Paul made reference, in their pastoral letters, to the rise of Gnostic ideas. They clearly opposed these ideas and their perpetrators and wrote many of their later letters to clearly counter such ideas.

I think that Christianity at its core, and in the majority, rejected Gnostic ideas from very early on. There was, no doubt, a fascination with the heterodox but this did not equate with acceptance.

You like to use criticism so why not here?
The Pastoral letters are doubted by MOST scholars so it's not even the Mythicist writers on this one.

en.wikipedia.org...

But that's really just quibbling, the Gospels are not historical data anyways.

Some of the pastoral letters are questioned but none have definitively been ruled out. For instance, as per the Wikipedia article, only half of the 14 Pauline epistles are doubted, the other seven are considered beyond reproach.

And similarly the four Gospels are considered historical data by some. Here's a Wikipedia link on the historical reliability of the Gospels

originally posted by: chr0naut

Some of the pastoral letters are questioned but none have definitively been ruled out. For instance, as per the Wikipedia article, only half of the 14 Pauline epistles are doubted, the other seven are considered beyond reproach.

And similarly the four Gospels are considered historical data by some. Here's a Wikipedia link on the historical reliability of the Gospels

No text in the Bible is beyond reproach as there is no other evidence outside of the gospels.

Pliny and Tacitus and other writers of the time do not mention Jesus like the apologists like to say.
www.truthbeknown.com...

The gospel dates are likely around 180:

www.stellarhousepublishing.com...

www.truthbeknown.com...

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons wrote a 5 volume refutation of gnostic heretics around 180. This tells us that they were a major part of Christianity at that time.
Gnostic gospels found have countless references to the "fools who take the resurrection as a literal thing and not a spiritual transformation". The only way the Bishops could retain power was to use the idea that the resurrection was a real physical thing and the ones who Jesus came to afterwards would be the church leaders. They would then pass their authority on to relatives of the next generation. Except for Mary and the part that says Jesus was seen by hundreds.
They had to come up with a reason to say that didn't count.

The Gnostics were saying that Jesus taught that each person has Christ within him and to find God through ourselves. Irenaeus, or any Bishop or church leader wasn't going to have this situation that wouldn't allow them power and control over people.
Once Rome jumped in the church had military support.

a reply to: windword

Greetings, windword

Plutarch's lifetime (45-120 CE) didn't overlap Jesus', so he'd be more likely to have found out about Jesus from Tacitus (55-117 CE) or Suetonius (70-130) ... neither of whom was much impressed.

As to Philo (~25 BCE-50 CE), IMO, we can pretty much treat the theological aspects of Jesus' life as later accretions, added after Jesus had died. The earliest we read about the virgin birth, for example, is Matthew, which is dated from 80 CE or later, based on the non-ideological dating estimates at early Christian writings.

earlychristianwritings.com...

All Philo would have known about any plausible historical Jesus was that yet another nice Jewish guy with a few friends and big ideas was killed miserably. Even then, Jesus may very well have worked in the shadow of John the Baptist.

In short, there's not a lot there for Philo to write about, Carabbas was much more interesting.

a reply to: Agartha

You could say the same about 90% of england's monarchs, Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Homer, Lycurgus of Sparta, Pythagoras, Sun Tzu, William Tell, Budda, Zoroaster, Shakespeare... I could probably make a smaller list of people who we can confirm actually existed.

Outside of a few books, there are no bodies. Who is to say?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Agartha

You could say the same about 90% of england's monarchs, Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Homer, Lycurgus of Sparta, Pythagoras, Sun Tzu, William Tell, Budda, Zoroaster, Shakespeare... I could probably make a smaller list of people who we can confirm actually existed.

Outside of a few books, there are no bodies. Who is to say?

Old chestnuts such as above are symptomatic of dumbing people down (religious based academia is well known for it). I have heard similar claims from "scholars". Yet those who do this are often not really historians anyway and have no genuine training as historians, are unfamiliar with the methods and research real secular historians would use, are rarely versed in other areas of history anyway and thus, some of them push utterly ridiculous fallacies such as this. If they have training as historians and make these claims, their training (as well as common sense) has obviously failed them massively.




Coins struck during Alexander's lifetime with his likeness on them.

The link will take you to extant contemporary accounts of Alexander and part of his military campaign, including an account of his death. These are only a couple of the conclusive and overwhelming pieces of contemporary evidence for his existence. There are also many mentions to works no longer extant, that cross reference (and did exist) including works by his own generals and other officers, also his own historian. Not to mention contemporary inscription...

www.livius.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.coinsoftime.com...

In the link are a couple of plays in which Socrates appears, written by contemporaries during his lifetime. One of them was thought to have contributed to him being executed. There are also works by other contemporaries, Plato and Xenophon.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

All of this many centuries before jesus was claimed to have existed in 1st century Palestine (one of the better documented times and places in ancient history).


Whether you believe any of it is up to you, but comparisons to jesus are utterly ridiculous, not to mention a rather dishonest representation. Rather than debunking every such diversion, fallacy and half @rsed claim, I will wait for you to offer your research and individual basis for making such claims. If you do this, you might find your list shrinks quite dramatically. Some of them might not have existed, yet the same skepticism turned to jesus, won't work out so well. For jesus there is simply no contemporary evidence of any type, to indicate that he existed. You can make all the excuses and fallacious comparisons you like, but it won't change that.

When you consider the magical and obviously mythical nature of what is claimed, it might be fairer to compare jesus to figures such as Merlin the magician, Romulus or Paul Bunyan.

Are there any major historical figures that have equivalent evidence for their existence as jesus (none, with the much later hearsay based on the supernatural), yet are not considered mythical characters?