The Jesus Myth.

[b***@gmail.com]

"Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early
Essenes. He was a Hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish
and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was
allegedly alive and we know he visited Jerusalem at least once. That
this writer, who is one of the chief evidences for the existence of
Pontias Pilate, would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is
inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living
in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin
Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus")
or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus")... or even
negatively ("People won't shut up about this Jesus guy.")

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger
community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax
Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of
persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the
godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear
crickets. We have the gospels which tell us about a rock-star-popular
godman who routinely has to dodge mobs of people looking to hang out
with him, yet history is utterly silent.

I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

[DKleinecke]

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Philo of Alexandria
I clipped the Philo material
I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

We have many Greek theological writers who wrote during the lifetime
of Muhammad and made no mention of him. And Muhammad made a bigger
splash than Jesus - leading armies, besieging cities and marrying
wives.

To people fixated on one religious track it is very easy to overlook
everything on another track.

[Antares 531]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by b***@gmail.com
"Philo of Alexandria
I clipped the Philo material
I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

We have many Greek theological writers who wrote during the lifetime
of Muhammad and made no mention of him. And Muhammad made a bigger
splash than Jesus - leading armies, besieging cities and marrying
wives.
To people fixated on one religious track it is very easy to overlook
everything on another track.

Muhammad's "big splash" didn't occur until long after Muhammad's
death. This got under way when Abu Bakr usurped control of Muhammad's
Christian people, then destroyed all writings about Muhammad's
Christian teachings. The transition into what eventually became Islam
began with Abu Bakr and continued through the following Caliphs for a
very long time.

Muhammad and his true followers would never have garnered support from
Christian people like Khadijah's cousin, Waraqa ibn Nawfal and The
Negus of Abyssinia, had Muhammad's teachings been Antichrist, as the
Koran presents them.

Abu Bakr's and his followers' objective was to separate the Arabs from
any ties to the Roman Empire and the Catholic religious organization.
The process they used to accomplish this was to reduce Jesus to
"nothing but a prophet" and elevate the charismatic image of Muhammad
to the grand finale of prophets, and establish the center of their new
religion at Mecca. entirely separate from the Roman Catholic religious
organization of Rome.

Gordon

[DKleinecke]

Post by Antares 531
Muhammad's "big splash" didn't occur until long after Muhammad's
death. This got under way when Abu Bakr usurped control of Muhammad's
Christian people, then destroyed all writings about Muhammad's
Christian teachings.

We do agree in part. I think Muhammad's background was fundamentally
Christian - but of a very deviant sect that has no name, unless
"Hanif" fits them. They were, technically, Ebionites - Christians who
maintained that Jesus was a prophet and not some kind of mystical son
of God. The Ebionites were probably the remains of the Christian
church in Jerusalem led by James "the Lord's brother". They were still
accepted by the mainline church as late as the time of Justin Martyr
but after that they were declared to be heretics.

Arabia outside the limits of the Roman Empire was a hotbed of heresies
and a a place of refuge for persecuted heretics. I postulate an
Ebionite church in the Hajiz where Muhammad grew up. It had little or
no contact with the mainline Christian church and a great deal of
contact with Jews. Who exactly these Jews were is a different and
almost equally mysterious question. There is nothing to connect them
to the Talmudic Jews who have survived to this day. I assume that
essentially all of them became Muslims.

I view Muhammad's ministry as a revival of the old "Hanif" church -
much like every other religious revival. I think all the stories about
him leading raids and ruling Madina are later legends. I don't think
Abu Bakr (or Umar) were ever rulers of Islam. I think Muhammad's
revival stagnated like most revivals do when the leaders die. But a
lifetime later the rulers of the Arabs decided to make Muhammad's
religion their state religion (the key names are Abd Allah ibn al-
Zubayr and Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan) and they set about collecting what
they could of Muhammad's message.

So the Qur'an is an olla podrida of fragments. Probably some of them
go back to Muhammad - but which fragments are his seems impossible to
determine. A lot of the Qur'an predates him and a lot of it was
concocted after his death.

If all we had of the New Testament was the gospels there would be a
close parallel between the Bible and the Qur'an. Surely some of what
is in the Gospels goes back to Jesus - but it is hard to tell which
parts (observe the activities of the Jesus Seminar). A lot of the
Bible predates Jesus (the Old Testament) and some it was concocted
after his death.

I can see no reason not to treat Islam as yet another Christian
denomination. But the opposition to that idea seems to be overwhelming.

[Eric417]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear
crickets. We have the gospels which tell us about a rock-star-popular
godman who routinely has to dodge mobs of people looking to hang out
with him, yet history is utterly silent.
I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

Perhaps you haven't heard about Flavius Josephus.

I would suggest listening to:

First Century Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus
Dr. Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/197033109H1S2.mp3
(Available via iTunes as well)

[Anita Darling]

No man knows the Son except the Father.
And no man is more easy to prove to have existed other than the Son.

Jesus told you existed even before Abraham.

Judaism is rooted in reincarnation. Abraham was in fact Adam, so Jesus
is saying he existed even before the first Hebrew patriarch.

You're looking sooth yourself with one incarnation of the man when there
were more than 80.

The Son is often associated with the number seven. Enoch, seventh
patriarch of Adam and announced as wise man, he was rightious to the
point where he went up to heaven without venturing death. Later Jesus
says no man has gone up except he that came down, so Enoch was also
Jesus.

Enoch happened to also be Thoth of Egypt, Idris among the Arabs, and
Saudrid among others. His teachings are universal, they are not limited
to the Jews or to the Christians.

He told you he has sheep of another flock, you need only open your eyes.
All are brothers under the sun.

http://community.webtv.net/AnitaCotillier/AnitaDarling
Be ye as wise as the serpent and as gentle as the dove.

[Emma Pease]

Post by Eric417

Post by b***@gmail.com
Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear
crickets. We have the gospels which tell us about a rock-star-popular
godman who routinely has to dodge mobs of people looking to hang out
with him, yet history is utterly silent.
I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

Perhaps you haven't heard about Flavius Josephus.
First Century Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus
Dr. Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/197033109H1S2.mp3
(Available via iTunes as well)

The problem with Josephus's testimony is some of it doesn't make sense.

The more famous bit in Antiquities is:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as
receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews
and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the
suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the
cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he
appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And
the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

which leads one to wonder why, if Josephus considered him the Christ, that
Josephus wasn't a Christian and/or didn't write a lot more about him. In
addition the earliest mention of this is by Eusebius in the early 300sCE.
Origen in the mid 200s had quoted Antiquities but never this bit which is
odd considering it mentions Jesus. Origen in addition states that
Josephus did _not_ believe Jesus was the Christ which contradicts what is
in the version of Antiquities we have now. At a minimum what is in the
version we have now has changed from what Josephus wrote down. The
argument is whether there was something mentioning Jesus that was modified
or whether this was completely new.

Josephus also has a passage in Antiquities talking about a James brother
of Jesus who was called the Christ. This is more widely accepted as being
by Josephus (Origen mentions it) though some query whether the bit about
being brother of Jesus or Jesus being called the Christ were later
additions.

Personally I'm inclined to believe that Jesus existed, initiated a
movement that later came to be called Christianity, and was executed. I
also think the movement was very small for the first century or so and so
was under the radar of most contemporary observers whose writings have
come down.

I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened (darkness at
noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering around Jerusalem).
That would have been noted and written about.

[Eric417]

Post by Emma Pease
I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened (darkness at
noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering around Jerusalem).
That would have been noted and written about.

They were noted and written about by multiple people - in the Bible.

[Steve]

Post by Eric417

Post by Emma Pease
I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened (darkness at
noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering around Jerusalem).
That would have been noted and written about.

They were noted and written about by multiple people - in the Bible.

Yes - and Orcs, Balrogs, Hobbits, and Cave Trolls are attested to many
times....in the Lord of the Rings. So they must be real???

Do you know why we don't believe Balrogs exist??

Because no rational person would use the LOTR to prove things in the
LOTR.

Reasonable people do the same with the Bible. Go figger.

[Eric417]

Post by Steve

Post by Eric417

Post by Emma Pease
I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened (darkness at
noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering around Jerusalem).
That would have been noted and written about.

They were noted and written about by multiple people - in the Bible.

Yes - and Orcs, Balrogs, Hobbits, and Cave Trolls are attested to many
times....in the Lord of the Rings. So they must be real???
Do you know why we don't believe Balrogs exist??
Because no rational person would use the LOTR to prove things in the
LOTR.

No rational person has ever claimed that that things in LOTR are
truthful.

We have multiple eyewitness reports that what took place in Scripture
really did happen which people have confirmed as truthful and
trustworthy stretching back to the original events.

[Steve]

Post by Eric417

Post by Steve

Post by Eric417

Post by Emma Pease
I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened (darkness at
noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering around Jerusalem).
That would have been noted and written about.

They were noted and written about by multiple people - in the Bible.

Yes - and Orcs, Balrogs, Hobbits, and Cave Trolls are attested to many
times....in the Lord of the Rings. So they must be real???
Do you know why we don't believe Balrogs exist??
Because no rational person would use the LOTR to prove things in the
LOTR.

No rational person has ever claimed that that things in LOTR are
truthful.
We have multiple eyewitness reports that what took place in Scripture
really did happen which people have confirmed as truthful and
trustworthy stretching back to the original events.

No, we don't. We have church fathers making up things hundreds of
years after the 'fact' who contradict each other as is often reflected
in the gospels they aver.

Please name one eyewitness who is not a character in the bible.

[DKleinecke]

No, we don't. =A0We have church fathers making up things hundreds of
years after the 'fact' who contradict each other as is often reflected
in the gospels they aver.
Please name one eyewitness who is not a character in the bible.

There are things in the Old Testament that have contemporary non-
Biblical accounts. I can think of two - the siege of Jerusalem under
Hezekiah and the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnessar. There are
probably more. In neither case can I name the particular eye-witness -
but it was somebody.

But I think you don't mean the entire Bible. I suspect you mean the
New Testament. The closest I can come is Josepheus' account of the
assassination of James (he may not have been an eye witness but it
happened while he was active in Jewish politics) which I believe is
mentioned in Luke with a mistake (by Luke) of which James was killed
and when. Feel free to discount that one.

The last acknowledged event in the New Testament is Paul's arrival in
Rome. Our only old witness, Josepheus does not mention Paul and
besides that was really before his time and a long way away.

But there are very solid references to Christians in non-Christian
literature other than Josepheus beginning in the early second
century. Sometimes they tell us things that the Christian literature
does not - such as Nero's persecution of the Christians.

[Eric417]

Post by Steve

Post by Eric417

Post by Steve

Post by Eric417

Post by Emma Pease
I don't accept that the miracles the gospels detail happened
(darkness at noon, resurrection of the dead with them wandering
around Jerusalem). That would have been noted and written about.

They were noted and written about by multiple people - in the Bible.

Yes - and Orcs, Balrogs, Hobbits, and Cave Trolls are attested to many
times....in the Lord of the Rings. So they must be real???
Do you know why we don't believe Balrogs exist??
Because no rational person would use the LOTR to prove things in the
LOTR.

No rational person has ever claimed that that things in LOTR are
truthful.
We have multiple eyewitness reports that what took place in Scripture
really did happen which people have confirmed as truthful and
trustworthy stretching back to the original events.

No, we don't. We have church fathers making up things hundreds of
years after the 'fact' who contradict each other as is often reflected
in the gospels they aver.

Polycarp was not someone who existed hundreds of years after the fact.
He was an early Church Father who was taught by the apostles who were
eyewitnesses to the actual events.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Eric417
Polycarp was not someone who existed hundreds of years after the fact.
He was an early Church Father who was taught by the apostles who were
eyewitnesses to the actual events.

I think you mean Pappus who lived about the same time Polycarp did.

Pappus actively collected all the oral traditions he could find from
the last generation of people who retained any such. He lived during
the first half of the second century. Opinions, even in antiquity,
differ about the value of his work. It is almost totally lost so, we
can form no valid opinions about it.

Polycarp was martyred, it appears, in 156 CE. A letter with his name
on it has been preserved and seems plausible as the work of a
Christian bishop around 150 CE. But it says nothing about learning
from the apostles.

Even Ignataios, who is earlier than both of these men and called
himself the Bishop of Syria makes no claim to have spoken with the
apostles.

In fact, so far as I can tell, none of the church fathers whose works
have survived claim to have been in contact with apostles or even with
people who had contact with apostles or gospellers. Pappus comes the
closest.

Evidence for any transmission of information about Jesus (or Paul)
apart the books that have survived seems to be scarce to the point of
being nonexistent. The books must speak for themselves.

[Eric417]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Eric417
Polycarp was not someone who existed hundreds of years after the fact.
He was an early Church Father who was taught by the apostles who were
eyewitnesses to the actual events.

I think you mean Pappus who lived about the same time Polycarp did.

Nope. I meant Polycarp, who it is believed was taught by the apostles.

[DKleinecke]

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
I think you mean Pappus who lived about the same time Polycarp did.

Nope. I meant Polycarp, who it is believed was taught by the apostles.

Ok. You are quoting a tradition that goes back to Eusebios. I think it
is a mistake based on confusion between the two Johns - but that is
impossible to prove.

I think Pappus would have made your point better than Polycarp.

[Eric417]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by Eric417

Post by DKleinecke
I think you mean Pappus who lived about the same time Polycarp did.

Nope. I meant Polycarp, who it is believed was taught by the apostles.

Ok. You are quoting a tradition that goes back to Eusebios.

I am relying upon what Irenaeus, a pupil of Polycarp, wrote.

[theBeaver]

Post by Eric417

Post by b***@gmail.com
Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear
crickets. We have the gospels which tell us about a rock-star-popular
godman who routinely has to dodge mobs of people looking to hang out
with him, yet history is utterly silent.
I bring up Philo because he's just one of many authors who lived
during this era, but had no clue about Jesus."

Perhaps you haven't heard about Flavius Josephus.
First Century Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus
Dr. Ben Witherington of Asbury Theological Seminary
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/197033109H1S2.mp3
(Available via iTunes as well)

This excerpt is from The Naked Archaeologist episode "The Last Man
Standing".

As we look at the history of the first century, we find no surviving
records, whether Roman or Jewish, that support the accounts of the
Christian Bible or the existence of Jesus, except for one: The writings
of Josephus. In two passages, Josephus seems to be referring to Jesus
of Nazareth. I met with professor Steve Mason to find what exactly
Josephus had to say about Jesus.

NA: "Does he mention Jesus? There's a lot of controversy."

SM: "He mentions some 21 guys named Jesus, and one of those he mentions
is Jesus of Nazareth. He talks about Jesus in 2 places. The most
certain one is not when he's talking about Jesus actually. He's talking
about his brother James and he says that he was executed as a lawbreaker
and troublemaker. And he says he was the brother of the so-called
Christos, the so-called Christ, Jesus."

But if Josephus calls Jesus a so-called Messiah in one instance, in the
second instance he seems to have no doubts: "About this time there
lived Jesus ... A wise man, if one ought to call him a man. For he was
one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people who
accepted the truth gladly. He won over many Jews, and many Greeks. He
was the Messiah." But as Steve Mason tells me, this passage is
controversial.

SM: He almost certainly didn't write that passage. Why? Because he
wrote 30 volumes, and he's always talking about how great Judaism is.
He never elsewhere mentions a Messiah. He never mentions the _need_ for
a Messiah. He doesn't _like_ messianic figures. He does mention a
number of people who were kind of quasi-messiahs who attracted large
followings. He really, really doesn't like these people. He sees them
as troublemakers and kind of demagogues, people who could persuade a
large mass of ignorant people to follow them. So he just doesn't like
that kind of person. So for him to say of this man, out of the blue,
"Oh, by the way, he was the Messiah" -- it makes absolutely no sense.

NA (ruminating): I'm confused. If Josephus didn't write it, who did?
Annette Yoshiko Reed (Department of Religious Studies, McMaster
University, Hamilton) says its the work of Christian scribes added years
later.

AYR: That seems to be a later addition. It's actually pretty clear
that it's a later addition. That's important in a different way. It's
important because if it weren't for that aspect, we probably wouldn't
have the works of Josephus today, because that was one of the things
that spurred the Christian transmission of these works over the centuries.

NA: Meaning the scribe who added that line in probably saved Josephus
because he made him more important to Christian theology?

AYR: Yes. Yes, I think so.

NA (ruminating): So here's the irony. The fact that Josephus mentioned
Jesus caused his words to be preserved by the Church. Had they not
altered his writings, Josephus's works would probably have been lost.

NA: So let me get this straight. Josephus is a scoundrel, but we should
be happy that he was a scoundrel, because he probably saved all this
history for us. And whoever tinkered with Josephus was a faker but we
should be happy with him because he probably saved Josephus for us?

AYR: Yeah, in one sense, yeah.

And while the description of Jesus as "The Messiah", attributed to
Josephus, seems to be a forgery, the fact is that his writings, and his
writings alone, are still the only validation of Jesus as a historical
figure.

[c***@webtv.net]

so many people saw and knew of JESUS that your arguement is ridiculous.
go to church and repent.


" TEA PARTY "

[DKleinecke]

Post by c***@webtv.net
so many people saw and knew of JESUS that your arguement is ridiculous.
go to church and repent.

I assume you are referring to the last paragraph of my post, the
greater part of which was about the Christian background of Muhammad.
And in the paragraph I assume you are referring to my opinion that the
some of the content of the gospels was concocted after Jesus' death.
Otherwise your statement is incomprehensible.

I am inclined to believe that immediately after the crucifixion the
little party of Christians was reduced to Peter and a few women (plus
a pre-adolescent boy who liked to describe himself in later years as
the beloved apostle). I am of the opinion that the two "thieves"
crucified with Jesus were the sons of Zebedee. A great many people had
seen and heard pieces of Jesus' preaching, but Peter was the only one
who had, more or less, seen it all. So all we have is a version of
Peter's account in Mark and a collection of fragments from the oral
tradition in Q and special-Luke.

The most obvious later concoction is Luke's version of the Nativity.
Matthew's version is much more sober - but equally fictitious.

[theBeaver]

Post by c***@webtv.net
so many people saw and knew of JESUS that your arguement is ridiculous.
go to church and repent.
" TEA PARTY "

Most of the Bible was written between 70 to 100 AD, so it had to be
either here-say or outright fabrication. For instance, Paul wrote a
bunch, but never mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin. How could
he have left out something that surely must have been the talk of the
town? It's because it was one of those nice little stories that
religions always include to make them more exciting. All these stories
were made up. Lots of such stories were culled out as too fanciful by
the various Councils that selected the stories. The belief that "many
people saw and knew of Jesus" is based on various stories from the
Bible, but it's the stories that make Jesus look like a rock star or
someone that others were in awe of that give believers chills, so
naturally there are lots of good stories like that. As pointed out, the
only historian who mentions Jesus (Josephus), did not himself live in
the time of Jesus, and he expressed great contempt for all such
pretenders. The custodians of the works of Josephus were Christians,
who touched up the most famous paragraph to make it sound like Josephus
recognized Jesus as THE messiah, but there is lots of evidence, such as
an earlier Christian historian not making any note of that paragraph,
that it was fabricated. So the answer is NO: There is no verifiable
record of the activities of Jesus or crowds of followers, or any such thing.

[G]

Post by theBeaver

Post by c***@webtv.net
so many people saw and knew of JESUS that your arguement is ridiculous.
go to church and repent.
" TEA PARTY "

Most of the Bible was written between 70 to 100 AD, so it had to be
either here-say or outright fabrication. For instance, Paul wrote a
bunch, but never mentioned that Jesus was born of a virgin. How could
he have left out something that surely must have been the talk of the
town? It's because it was one of those nice little stories that
religions always include to make them more exciting. All these stories
were made up. Lots of such stories were culled out as too fanciful by
the various Councils that selected the stories. The belief that "many
people saw and knew of Jesus" is based on various stories from the
Bible, but it's the stories that make Jesus look like a rock star or
someone that others were in awe of that give believers chills, so
naturally there are lots of good stories like that. As pointed out, the
only historian who mentions Jesus (Josephus), did not himself live in
the time of Jesus, and he expressed great contempt for all such
pretenders. The custodians of the works of Josephus were Christians,
who touched up the most famous paragraph to make it sound like Josephus
recognized Jesus as THE messiah, but there is lots of evidence, such as
an earlier Christian historian not making any note of that paragraph,
that it was fabricated. So the answer is NO: There is no verifiable
record of the activities of Jesus or crowds of followers, or any such thing.

The first problem I see with your argument is that you claim most of the
Bible was written between A.D. 70-100, but then discuss Paul's writings
as if you accept that they were written by Paul (who was executed BEFORE
A.D. 70). How do you reconcile the two?

Second, you claim it is all hearsay. Well, you could make that claim
about EVERY historical figure that didn't write anything
himself/herself. If Matthew and John did indeed write (or at least
dictate) the gospels attributed to them, then you have direct,
eyewitness testimony from two of the apostles. Eyewitness testimony is
generally accepted in evidentiary hearings, until PROVEN to be false or
unreliable. Luke explains that he did a thorough investigation of the
historical facts for his gospel.

Third, like it or not, the biblical accounts ARE historical records.
Rejecting their authenticity or authority and then asking for proof is
an absurd proposition. The argument is basically as follows:
1 - The vast majority of evidence for X is found in document set A.
2 - We reject document set A as a fraud.
3 - Now prove X.
4 - Since you now can't prove X, it must be false.

Do you see the problem there? There is NO verifiable evidence that the
gospel accounts are false. But you reject them anyway. So you reject all
the evidence, and then smugly declare that the facts can't be proven.
It's the similar argument that is used by deniers of the lunar landing
and the Nazi holocaust. "I've seen the evidence, but it is all falsified
by those who plotted this deception. I have rejected that evidence, and
now you can't prove that it actually happened."