Jesus was a political revolutionary, not a religious leader

[The Coup]

That's a matter of opinion. I consider it a spectacular Robin-Hood-level bullseye.

Fair enough. I'd say modern theology is a bit more involved than just that.

Being able to read Ahramaic and Ancient Greek etc is pretty handy when interpreting all the most important books by number of fans. then applying it to modern settings, or even trying to extrapolate the language to try and find the true meaning of the words...

Very handy if you ask me. Moreso than investment banking, for example.

 

[Partridge]

Being able to read Ahramaic and Ancient Greek etc is pretty handy when interpreting all the most important books by number of fans. then applying it to modern settings, or even trying to extrapolate the language to try and find the true meaning of the words...

Don't disagree with that at all. All the scholars I've read that can read the Bible in its original form (Old Testament in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek) hold it in even more contempt than I do.

 

[Norwood1878]

Not only that, but I'm sure others here have done History subjects at Uni. You know what happens when you claim something as 'fact' with only one source? You get bitchslapped. One source is hearsay and nothing more. If there isn't any corroborating evidence then IT IS NOT FACT.

That's exactly what it is, hearsay. A small note of someone referred to as the "anointed". Written around 80 years after Jesus was supposed to have died. Hardly a contemporary of Jesus'.
In conclusion we have no evidence that a man called Jesus performed the miracles claimed, was crucified and after 3 days rose again ever existed.

 

[The rabbi]

Contemporary proof means at the time in and around the time said to be of Jesus' . You seem like a smart guy, i thought that it was a given. Again, i mean the contemporaries of Jesus.
How can it be scientifically legitimate? What field of science is used to verify this? What is the actual scientific evidence?

"James' execution is mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities XX.9.1, where he is identified as "brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah". Josephus was a younger contemporary of James' and lived in the same small city as he did. James was executed when Josephus was 25 years old. Given that this execution triggered the deposing of the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan and that Josephus was from a priestly family, this execution was part of one of the most significant political events of the young Josephus' life.

So James definitely existed. And Josephus identifies him by reference to his more famous brother, Jesus. All this makes things very difficult for those who try to claim Jesus never existed. This is why scholars don't take that contrived idea seriously."

Is it any wonder that atheists like Tim O'Neill compare those that deny that Jesus was a historical figure with science denying creationists.

On the Testamentum Flavium:

"Despite Fitzgerald's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the only writer of the period who seems to have had any interest at all in people like Jesus was Yosef ben Matityahu or Flavius Josephus. This means that if Josephus did not mention Jesus while mentioning other such figures like Theudas and John the Baptist, people like Fitzgerald would actually be able to make a real argument from silence. The problem is that Josephus does mention Jesus - twice. So any Myther book or article has to spill a lot of ink trying to explain these highly inconvenient mentions away.

Getting rid of the first reference to Jesus, the one in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII.3.4 is made a little easier by the fact that at least some of it is not original to Josephus and was added by Christian scribes later. The textus receptus of the passage has Josephus saying things about Jesus that no Jewish non-Christian would say, such as "He was the Messiah" and "he appeared to them alive on the third day". So, not surprisingly, Fitzgerald takes the usual Myther tack and rejects the whole passage as a later addition and rejects the idea that Josephus mentioned Jesus here at all.

He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists". This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage. As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists". This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works. But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today. This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection. This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah". The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him. So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence? Well, he doesn't. He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

There are two references to Jesus in the writings of Flavius Josephus as well as the synoptic gospels, which scholars universally see as containing historical information about the historical Jesus when the layers of theological interpretation are peeled back. The Jewish scholars also see the Jesus of the synoptic gospels as a figure who fits into the 1st century Palestinian/Jewish Milieu. The 4th gospel is considered by a number of critical scholars to contain little historical information.

 

[Norwood1878]

"James' execution is mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities XX.9.1, where he is identified as "brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah". Josephus was a younger contemporary of James' and lived in the same small city as he did. James was executed when Josephus was 25 years old. Given that this execution triggered the deposing of the High Priest Hanan ben Hanan and that Josephus was from a priestly family, this execution was part of one of the most significant political events of the young Josephus' life.

So James definitely existed. And Josephus identifies him by reference to his more famous brother, Jesus. All this makes things very difficult for those who try to claim Jesus never existed. This is why scholars don't take that contrived idea seriously."

Is it any wonder that atheists like Tim O'Neill compare those that deny that Jesus was a historical figure with science denying creationists.

On the Testamentum Flavium:

"Despite Fitzgerald's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the only writer of the period who seems to have had any interest at all in people like Jesus was Yosef ben Matityahu or Flavius Josephus. This means that if Josephus did not mention Jesus while mentioning other such figures like Theudas and John the Baptist, people like Fitzgerald would actually be able to make a real argument from silence. The problem is that Josephus does mention Jesus - twice. So any Myther book or article has to spill a lot of ink trying to explain these highly inconvenient mentions away.

Getting rid of the first reference to Jesus, the one in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII.3.4 is made a little easier by the fact that at least some of it is not original to Josephus and was added by Christian scribes later. The textus receptus of the passage has Josephus saying things about Jesus that no Jewish non-Christian would say, such as "He was the Messiah" and "he appeared to them alive on the third day". So, not surprisingly, Fitzgerald takes the usual Myther tack and rejects the whole passage as a later addition and rejects the idea that Josephus mentioned Jesus here at all.

He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists". This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage. As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists". This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works. But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today. This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection. This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah". The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him. So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence? Well, he doesn't. He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it."

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html

There are two references to Jesus in the writings of Flavius Josephus as well as the synoptic gospels, which scholars universally see as containing historical information about the historical Jesus when the layers of theological interpretation are peeled back. The Jewish scholars also see the Jesus of the synoptic gospels as a figure who fits into the 1st century Palestinian/Jewish Milieu. The 4th gospel is considered by a number of critical scholars to contain little historical information.

This has been known by historians to be a forgery for centuries. You'll have to do better than Josephus as evidence cited.

 

[The rabbi]

This has been known by historians to be a forgery for centuries. You'll have to do better than Josephus as evidence cited.

Bullshit. It is excepted by scholars that there is a clear interpolation in the text that clearly puts a Christian confession into the mouth of Josephus. It is also excepted that once those interpolated words are removed we have a clear reference to Jesus in Josephus.

I note that you did not comment on this part of the quote. Why not? Because it does not fit with your thesis. Nor did you happen to mention the discovery of the Arabic version which substantiates the T.F. with the interpolation removed. You have ignored the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian that also supports the TF with the interpolation removed. Nor have you dealt with the other text in Antiquities XX.9.1 where there is no Christian confessional insertion.

"He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists". This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage. As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists". This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works. But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today. This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection. This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah". The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him. So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence? Well, he doesn't. He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it."

 

[Norwood1878]

Yes, fantastic, confirmation bias.

Bullshit. It is excepted by scholars that there is a clear interpolation in the text that clearly puts a Christian confession into the mouth of Josephus. It is also excepted that once those interpolated words are removed we have a clear reference to Jesus in Josephus.

I note that you did not comment on this part of the quote. Why not? Because it does not fit with your thesis. Nor did you happen to mention the discovery of the Arabic version which substantiates the T.F. with the interpolation removed. You have ignored the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian that also supports the TF with the interpolation removed. Nor have you dealt with the other text in Antiquities XX.9.1 where there is no Christian confessional insertion.

"He does acknowledge the alternative idea, that Josephus' mention of Jesus was simply added to, but yet again he attributes this to "wishful apologists". This is a total distortion of the state of academic play on the question of this passage. As several surveys of the academic literature have shown, the majority of scholars now accept that there was an original mention of Jesus in Antiquities XVIII.3.4 and this includes the majority of Jewish and non-Christian scholars, not merely "wishful apologists". This is partly because once the more obvious interpolated phrases are removed, the passage reads precisely like what Josephus would be expected to write and also uses characteristic language found elsewhere in his works. But it is also because of the 1970 discovery of what seems to be a pre-interpolation version of Josephus' passage, uncovered by Jewish scholar Schlomo Pines of Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Professor Pines found an Arabic paraphrase of the Tenth Century historian Agapius which quotes Josephus' passage, but not in the form we have it today. This version, which seems to draw on a copy of Josephus' original, uninterpolated text, says that Jesus was believed by his followers to have been the Messiah and to have risen from the dead, which means in the original Josephus was simply reporting early Christian beliefs about Jesus regarding his supposed status and resurrection. This is backed further by a Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian which also has the passage saying "he was believed to be the Messiah". The evidence now stacks up heavily on the side of the partial authenticity of the passage, meaning there is a reference to Jesus as a historical person in precisely the writer we would expect to mention him. So how does Fitzgerald deal with the Arabic and Syriac evidence? Well, he doesn't. He is either ignorant of it or he conveniently ignores it."

Standard practice when quoting sources is to link to those same sources for review. Who knows, you could be quoting some bibletard website.

Also, the correct word is accepted not excepted in the context of your sentence.

 

[The rabbi]

Yes, fantastic, confirmation bias.


Standard practice when quoting sources is to link to those same sources for review. Who knows, you could be quoting some bibletard website.

Also, the correct word is accepted not excepted in the context of your sentence.

Confirmation bias!!!! What are you talking about? I have quoted an Atheist.
So you could not see the link in my first post to Amariummagnus blog page but you could see a spelling error. Interesting!

And for your information the site that I linked the article to is written by an Australian atheist skeptic and certainly is no "bibletard". But the problem with the rabid new atheist fan boys who love this Jesus myth bullshit is that when they come across a real skeptic, like the author of this blog, they find his conclusions so different to what they read in ideologically driven mythic web pages that they accuse him of being a religious apologist. Never mind the fact that he has been an atheist for around 30 years.

Never mind that his conclusion that Jesus was a historical figure is backed up by an almost universal opinion of Professional Classical scholars, NT scholars and scholars of the Historical Jesus regardless of whether they are Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, Islamic or Non-Religious-Atheist.

You do realize that the Jesus Myth, although popular on the internet gets no traction amongst real professional scholars. You know, kinda like Creationism. There maybe one or two like Robert Price. But then again you can find a Geologist with a Ph.D like Kurt Wise or a Biologist like Raymond G. Bohlin who is a Creationist. It should not surprise us that a field of research will have at least someone who is ideologically driven or even a bit of a lunatic.

But you just carry on with what your are doing. But don't criticize Creationists when they carry on with their ideologically driven anti-science bullshit. Take the beam out of your own eye first.

When you finish reading the link provided you in the first post then you could read a real skeptics 2nd part to that article.
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

 

[Norwood1878]

Hahahaha, too funny. You actually think by doing this !!!!!!!! you're making your point stronger and your language shows a real lack of genuine attempt for proper discourse.
Josphesus was not a contemporary of Jesus thus any reference to a historical Jesus of Nazereth is second hand at best and hearsay and in his writings he mentions numerous Jesus'. You're gonna need to supply stronger evidence. If you're happy with that week evidence then good for you.

 

[The rabbi]

Hahahaha, too funny. You actually think by doing this !!!!!!!! you're making your point stronger and your language shows a real lack of genuine attempt for proper discourse.
Josphesus was not a contemporary of Jesus thus any reference to a historical Jesus of Nazereth is second hand at best and hearsay

But he was a contemporary of Jesus' brother Jacob and was aware of the events surrounding his death.

and in his writings he mentions numerous Jesus'. You're gonna need to supply stronger evidence. If you're happy with that week evidence then good for you.

See I can correct poor spelling too!

But the passage in Antiquities XX.9.1 clearly defines the Jesus who Josephus means.
The text reads:

"AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

This reference to Jacob as the brother of Jesus fits in with Galatians 1:19. - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother (ἔτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εϊδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου);

Tim the Atheist skeptic's comment on this passage in Josephus:

"The second reference to Jesus in Josephus - the one in Antiquities XX.9.1 - is much more problematic for the Jesus Mythers, since here the scholarly consensus that it is genuine is overwhelming. Mythicists display a remarkable virtuosity when it comes to piling up suppositions to make this reference in Josephus' account of the deposition of the high priest Hanan ben Hanan go away. They try various tactics, but most fall back on yet another manifestation of their stand-by argument whenever things get difficult for them: interpolation. They argue that the passage is authentic, but the part where Josephus says the James he is discussing is the brother of a Jesus "who was called Messiah" is a Christian interpolation. Therefore, they claim, the Jesus in question is the "Jesus, son of Damneus" mentioned a few lines later and not Jesus of Nazareth."

O'Neill continues.

The second flaw in Carrier's thesis is even more critical. His protégé Fitzgerald claims that Jesus the son of Damneus is "the Jesus who is actually mentioned in the passage, and fits the context" and Carrier makes the case for this being the Jesus who was the brother of the James executed by the high priest Hanan ben Hanan/"Ananus". If this was the case, Hanan executed this James and was therefore deposed by Herod and the Romans and was replaced by this James' own brother, "Jesus, son of Damenus". But it's very hard to reconcile this reading with what Josephus tells us happened next.
This is because Josephus goes on to detail how his deposition didn't dampen Hanan's enthusiasm for intrigues and how he cultivated the favour of the new Roman procurator Albinus and that of the high priest "by making them presents" (Antiquities XX.9.2). The problem here is that the "high priest" that Hanan is currying favour with via "presents" is none other than Jesus, son of Damneus. This means, according to Carrier's reading, the very man whose brother Hanan had just executed and who had replaced him in the priesthood has, a couple of sentences later, become friends with his brother's killer because he was given some gifts. This clearly makes zero sense.

"Carrier's contrived scenario requires a number of suppositions to be true for his removal of the key phrase to work and for his alternative reading to be correct. Amongst them is the requirement for Josephus to have originally referred to James by reference to his brother in one sentence and then to refer to Jesus son of Damneus by reference to their (supposed) father in the next. This is contrary to the very careful and consistent way Josephus introduces and differentiates between members of the same family thoughout his work - and yes, I've re-read the whole of Antiquties with this question in mind to check on this. However you cut it, Carrier's thesis does not stand up to Occam's Razor and, like all his work, it's an ad hoc way to get to an ideological objective: removing a key piece of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus".

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

 

[The rabbi]

James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus is a forgery. You may recall the trial. Again, although verbose, it's all huff and no puff. You continue to cite forgeries and hearsay from writings nearly 100 years AD.

Where is the evidence that it is a forgery? Mythists have to resort to the "interpolation" idea without evidence that it is an interpolation because it destroys their argument. They want the evidence to go away.

 

[Partridge]

This is way off topic, but Darwin lied his head off, he knew exactly what he was doing, he was paid to.The same could be hypothesized of all those who left out Jesus.

Lied about what exactly? He was paid by whom, and for what?

(Can't wait to see what 'evidence' comes back here)

 

[little graham]

(Can't wait to see what 'evidence' comes back here)

Your minds already made up, I'm saving my energy for a living soul, you're helpless.

 

[Partridge]

Your minds already made up, I'm saving my energy for a living soul, you're helpless.

Wrong. If the evidence persuades me I'm more than happy to change my mind. I like the personal judgement based on zero evidence though.

But just as a starter, Darwin didn't need to be paid by anyone; his father was a very wealthy man who passed that wealth down to him.

 

[fleabitten]

There's a lot of doubt around the historicity of Jesus. You always hear the "most scholars agree" comeback, but most of those scholars are theologians who would never be able to accept that he was a complete work of fiction. There are plenty of scholars who have questioned his existence. Most of those conclude that he's an amalgam of several people, but some think he's completely made up.

For 60 years after his supposed crucifixion, no-one considered him worthy of mention. In one of the best-documented periods of ancient history, there's not one document referring to a guy who supposedly had people following him around everywhere as he performed miracles. Even the biblical accounts date to after those first 60 years.

Maybe there was a real Jesus who was pretty much a nobody who did nothing much of importance, but what's the point of believing that guy existed?

 

[The rabbi]

There's a lot of doubt around the historicity of Jesus. You always hear the "most scholars agree" comeback, but most of those scholars are theologians who would never be able to accept that he was a complete work of fiction. There are plenty of scholars who have questioned his existence. Most of those conclude that he's an amalgam of several people, but some think he's completely made up.

And just who are these plenty of scholars who have questioned his existence? Do they work in the relevant fields of New Testament scholarship? Are the Classical scholars? Are they scholars of 2nd Temple Judaism. Or are you going to give me the names of a bunch of amateur internet enthusiasts with an axe to grind with religion?

"Robert Price is a Biblical scholar and is pretty much the only such scholar today who clings to the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis. But nothing he's written on the subject has made it through peer review and he generally publishes through the American Atheist Press or Prometheus."

For 60 years after his supposed crucifixion, no-one considered him worthy of mention.

Really. You have never read any of Paul's writings?

In one of the best-documented periods of ancient history, there's not one document referring to a guy who supposedly had people following him around everywhere as he performed miracles. Even the biblical accounts date to after those first 60 years.

Josephus?

Atheist scholars such as Crossley and the recently deceased Maurice Casey would choose to differ. They suggest that Mark (the earliest gospel) was written in the 40's and Matthew was written before the fall of Jerusalem as his eschatology makes no sense post AD.70.

There are plenty of scholars who have questioned his existence. Most of those conclude that he's an amalgam of several people, but some think he's completely made up.

You should have no trouble documenting who these scholars are then.
And on the amalgam idea.

"This is the explanation offered by the New Age writer who calls herself "Acharya S" in a series of self-published books beginning with The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999). Working from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century theosophist claims which exaggerate parallels between the Jesus stories and pagan myths, she makes the typical New Age logical leap from "similarity" to "parallel" and finally to "connection" and "causation". Leaving aside the fact that many of these "parallels" are highly strained, with any miraculous conception or birth story becoming a "virgin birth" or anything to do with a death or a tree becoming a "crucifixion" (even if virginity or a cross is not involved in either), it is very hard to make the final leap from "parallel" to "causation".

This is particularly hard because of the masses of evidence that the first followers of the Jesus sect were devout Jews - a group for whom the idea of adopting anything "pagan" would have been utterly horrific. These were people who cut their hair short because long hair was associated with pagan, Hellenistic culture or who shunned gymnasia and theatres because of their association with pagan culture. All the evidence actually shows that the earliest Jesus sect went through a tumultuous period in its first years trying to accommodate non-Jews into their devoutly Jewish group. To claim that these people would merrily adopt myths of Horus and Attis and Dionysius and then amalgamate them into a story about a pagan/Jewish hybrid Messiah (who didn't exist) and then turn around and forget he didn't exist and claim he did and that he did so just a few decades earlier is clearly a nonsense hypothesis."

http://www.quora.com/Do-credible-hi...-on-a-cross-by-Pilate-Roman-governor-of-Judea

Maybe there was a real Jesus who was pretty much a nobody who did nothing much of importance, but what's the point of believing that guy existed?

Maybe for someone like you the answer would be "for no other reason than that he did exist".

 

[fleabitten]

And just who are these most scholars?

I didn't say most scholars support the Christ Myth theory, I said that "most scholars agree" is the typical comeback by those who refuse to believe that he may not have existed at all. But what kind of person becomes a biblical scholar? How likely is that kind of person to reject the historicity of Jesus?

But anyway, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Notable_proponents

I don't know if he is fictional or just some guy nobody cared to write about until he'd been dead a few generations. Doesn't really matter.

 

[fleabitten]

Oh okay, you continued...

Paul - based his writing on a vision he had 20 years after Jesus supposed death. That's LOL material if you're suggesting he is some kind of reliable source.
Josephus - was not yet born when Jesus died. Wrote about him 60 years later and his writings were tampered with by early Christians. Even the Vatican acknowledges that parts of the work attributed to Josephus are forged.

Neither of us will be able to convince the other of anything here, so can't really be bothered. Maybe he existed, but he wasn't even worthy of mention by anyone while he was alive, let alone the son of god.

 

[fleabitten]

Here's a list of historians who were writing at around the time of Jesus. The only mentions come from Josephus (a couple of paragraphs, at least one of them doctored, written 60 years after his supposed death) and Tacitus (about 75 years after his supposed death, also with some doubt around its authenticity and also just a brief mention)

 

[little graham]

Here's a list of historians who were writing at around the time of Jesus. The only mentions come from Josephus (a couple of paragraphs, at least one of them doctored, written 60 years after his supposed death) and Tacitus (about 75 years after his supposed death, also with some doubt around its authenticity and also just a brief mention)

If you were to consider Charles Darwins historical records of the British invasion in Tasmania, where he described the blacks as one rung above an animal, despite them having better culture, better food, better medicine, better art and living healthier than any one in Brittan, having no gaols,hospitals, debt or enemies.....you might understand why it was some time before records of Jesus started appearing.

its been over 200 years, still few Australians are taught the truth about this country and Charles Darwin.

 

[fleabitten]

What reason would the ancient historians have to create a conspiracy of silence about Jesus? How would that conspiracy fit in with the fact that even Christian writings don't begin until well after his death and are kicked off by a man who never met him but claims to have seen him in a vision?

Not sure what you're getting at regarding Darwin. He wrote some dumb s**t about aborigines which has always been available to read. For a while it was openly discussed and even used when policies were being created. Then it went out of vogue. But it's been there the whole time. How is that in any way similar to the non-existent early reporting of Jesus?

 

[Partridge]

If you were to consider Charles Darwins historical records of the British invasion in Tasmania, where he described the blacks as one rung above an animal, despite them having better culture, better food, better medicine, better art and living healthier than any one in Brittan, having no gaols,hospitals, debt or enemies.....you might understand why it was some time before records of Jesus started appearing.

its been over 200 years, still few Australians are taught the truth about this country and Charles Darwin.

Better medicine that the British? Somehow doubt that. Did they have their own version of Edward Jenner who pioneered inoculations against smallpox?

 

[The Coup]

The British were filthy when they were colonising, the Native Americans were horrified how much disease they carried and the way they cannibalised their own.

I can't think of any major medicines they'd have around that time either? It was mostly just spreading disease and violence that made them "superior"

Bit hard to blame the indigenous or native americans for not knowing how to cure diseases that only existed in filthy european cities because of how ****ed capitalism is.

 

[Bosun]

He built my hot rod.

Legendary, about time this was brought up.

 

[Old Spice]

There are no Roman records of charges against Jesus. No order of execution. No Roman tax record, no Roman census, nothing at all which would provide us with unimpeachable evidence that the guy existed.

Now...it is certainly possible that he did actually exist, but there's no proof. I know that's a fine distinction, but it is an important one. It is also possible that Jesus is merely a fictional amalgam of several actual self-proclaimed messiahs in Judea around that time, added to the necessary exaggerations and wild fictions which typically accompany a story of a demigod, often drawn from other, then-extant stories about other gods (Horus, for example, or Mithras).

There were numerous 'Christs' or redeemers in the period, particularly within Judaism e.g. Bar Kochba. The thirst for miracle workers was high as was credulity but I think actually that there was a Jesus cult at that time. Jesus is the historical name, Christ is the religious moniker.

The issue for Christians is that non-Christian sources do not name Jesus in transcripts, unless they are interpolations by later Christian copyists. Nevertheless I think there must have been an organisational cult around Jesus. Why are there no Kochbaists or similar cults?

That's not to suggest that Jesus is the son of man or any such nonsense, but rather to suggest there was a charismatic figure who laid the foundations for a formidable organisation based on ideas which were pretty advanced for the time and very risque.