Looks like an interesting book. Haven’t read, but will. Meanwhile, a little googling turns up a blog review by Dr. James McGrath, professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis, Part One and Part Two, which gives a nice summary of the debate. Reading both parts takes less than fifteen minutes (neglecting the comments) and is a concise answer to the OP in GQ terms. I’m not an expert by any means, but have done a fair amount of reading on on the subject out of historical curiosity. (I’m an atheist, so for me this is purely a historical question.) Erhman’s argument (as summarized by McGrath) is pretty mainstream. The mythicist position, while scintillating, just doesn’t hold water.
Thanks I knew he was pretty important but didn’t want to over speak or as an AT step on anyones toes over a bit of theology I only roughly understand. Do you have any relevant passages in the Koran( I have a copy )?
I do think that this is also a good argument for an actual person named Jesus, if it was an invention it seems that Paul was very busy and persuasive :rolleyes:
Capt Kirk
Christianity was started by Jesus? I thought it was started by Peter (or Paul, or somebody… but not Jesus).
How does Islam talking about Jesus provide evidence for Jesus’s existence, though? Islam came on the scene 600 years after Jesus (or the alleged Jesus), and, so far as I know, the only way Mohammad and his contemporaries ever heard of Jesus is through Christian sources (those same sources whose ultimate credentials "Jesus is myth"ers doubt); if the stories about Jesus were made up for Christianity, it’s those same made-up stories that filtered into Islam.
From 60 to 73 AD there was a Jewish Uprising against the Roman Empire. It was crushed with enormous loss of life and property. Written accounts of the life and death of Jesus were destroyed. Eye witnesses to his ministry were killed or displaced.
Anything written before this revolt is likely to be more accurate than anything written afterwards. Slightly more than half of the New Testament consist of epistles written by St. Paul before the revolt. Unfortunately, St. Paul writes little of the life of Jesus. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that he would write so much about a man who never lived.
According to the scholarly consensus, the Gospel of Mark was written first. The gospels of Matthew and Luke were written next, using as sources Mark, and a more primitive gospel called “Q.” Acts was written after Luke by the same author, who is usually believed to have been a traveling companion to St.Paul.
I have read the Bible from cover to cover eight times in seven translations. It is generally believed that St. Paul was martyred before the beginning of the Jewish Uprising. Acts seems to have been written when St. Paul was still alive. It ends with him experiencing a comfortable house arrest in Rome. The readers have been told that he has broken the laws of neither Rome, nor the Jews. There is not a sense of approaching doom.
If Acts was written before 60 AD, Luke was written sooner, and Mark sooner still. Luke and Mark would be written when eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus still lived, and when written records still existed.
Christ is a universal cosmic form of consciousness that any individual on this planet can attain by uniting with or ‘taping’ from this consciousness. Apparently, some individual named Jesus managed to do this and became the vehicle of expression for this Christ. The man himself was no god, but just a mere human being.
Naturally, people would want to know more about the origins and dynamics of this Christ Consciousness; this is where mythology steps in, to try to explain the origin and nature of certain cosmic conscious forces/energies. The myths were false only to the extent that they just personified these forces and processes of nature, but true, to the extent that what was being personified was in actuality real cosmic principles. The laity back then, and sadly even now, could only comprehend and related to the personification and dramatization of these universal cosmic principles. To the few, and only under oath of secrecy, was the real meaning of the drama explained and even practically demonstrated, i.e. the student, under certain conditions, personally experienced the verities of these cosmic forces. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the dramatized version, being public and accessible to all, has become more popular than the true meaning behind the fables. This is why anything relating to the meaning of the fables in the gospels is disregarded; folks just don’t know that there’s more to them than meets the eye.
This part may well be true. Christianity, like Mithraism, was a mystery cult.
That meant that the real truths were only revealed as you rose in level.
Could well be that all we are left with is the version told to the peasants by the ‘recruitment agents’
I may be more gullible than the average Doper toward “conspiracy theories,” but the idea that there was no historical Jesus seems silly to me. With John the Baptist and other historic “Messiahs” to choose from, why would Gospel writers have invented a new one, especially since their writings were early enough that some older people would have recognized such an invention as fiction?
More interesting is to separate fact from fiction in the Gospels. Jesus was certainly a healer and his tomb probably was empty. (But neither fact proves he was divine.)
But people did recognize that this “new one” was an invention. However, it’s been standard church practice to keep certain contrary and damning evidence against their Christ under wraps.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apologetics, First Period.
White mana?
Excuse me?
I counter your Angel of Justice by tapping 3 extra green mana and block it with my Pink Unicorn.
All damage received is reduced to zero.
Magic the Gathering, Pillar
Jesus existed, as did other ‘copycats’, including people like apollonius of tyana (who also played with water, fish, and other stuff), et al. -at that point in history, i think there was a huge fad for ‘saviors’ to offer some kind of salvation from the misery of being a poor and persecuted minority. i also think the question that’s ‘debatable’ is whether jc can be included in some trinitarian whatnot - whether he was ‘divine’. -Or perhaps that’s a separate thing entirely; namely, faith.
trinitarian implications would include problems like: if JC was 1 in 3, how could he interfere in terrestrial, temporal events? - considering god’s omniscience wouldn’t this somehow undermine him…at some metaphysical level, at least?. -I guess the answer can be found in which ever creed you believe in…personally, i don’t believe in any of them, and think it’s all silly…
Oh, I see. If certain concepts are beyond the reality jurisdiction of certain individuals, they most likely will attribute them to a board game or some fairy tale, correct? Well then, perhaps it’s time I put up my signature which should read: “I’m not here to play games, so don’t play games with me. Thank you very much.”
It’s probably correct to say Paul started Christianity the religion, but most likely Jesus created the core teachings and philosophy. It became important very early on for Christianity to have a divine Jesus, so once the majority of Christianity went in that direction it probably became much more difficult to know very much about historical Jesus.
It’s generally impossible to know what Jesus actually taught versus what Paul marketed when he spread the religion, but we can generally assume Paul didn’t make up all the beliefs and philosophical teachings himself (or otherwise why wouldn’t he have tried to take more credit for it?)
G.A. Wells does do a pretty good job of this. His thesis is spread out over half a dozen books, and he very heavily footnotes and correlates with ancient sources.
There are people who claim that Buddha didn’t exist, either, despite the associated name , all the plantings from the bo tree that have been scattered all over, and the identification of places and relics.
There are alspo a few who claim that Muhammed didn’t exist, either, but I believe they’re far in the minority, even compared to Jesus-deniers and Buddha-deniers.
I think the word God meant something different then, than how we think of it, The psalmist is quoted as saying"I said you are gods and son of the most high". Jesus points this out in John 10 when he is quoted as saying;“It says in your law that I said you are gods,so why do you accuse me of blasphmey, when I call God my father, when your father’s did?” To me the word God in that sense just meant a person of power. The Egyptian writers had the Pharohs declared them selves god, and it didn’t seem to mean they were as the word God has evloved to today.
i was under the impression the majority of the n.t was pseudepigraphic (sp!?) anyway. particularly, paul, whose epistles vary so much much in style and content -and also, luke and his acts…
what didn’t make the cut, or even the apocrypha, was still based on oral tradition that existed before the church fathers started to put the nt together.
I believe it was even worse than that at the very start.
Anyone could become a prophet, if recognised as such by the elders of a local church community.
That meant that anything these ‘prophets’ received through the holy spirit could become doctrine. At least locally.
But you still write a newsletter, right?