Why is the "Jesus Myth" theory universally disregarded?

[VegasReno]

A few things… Paul while he doesn’t talk about Jesus directly as much as the Gospels, which are more an account of his life - rather then a theological narrative that Paul does… He paraphrases the Old Testament like mad such as Micah, Isaiah 40, etc - in pointing to who Jesus is… which is God/Messiah.

This is important to understand because we forget the apostles were not as fixated on writing down everything immediately after Jesus’s life, but it only occurs slightly before and after the Jewish Temple - They are actively using the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) to claim Jesus as Messiah. We forget there was no New Testament in their time. It wasn’t like the Galatians were busy also reading the letter to the Romans. That by all accounts happens at the earliest around 80-100 years after Jesus’s death.

A great book to read is called Jesus and the eyewitnesses. One of the best points this makes is for example how preposterous it would have been for Jew’s to write that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection if this was a completely fabricated story. We see this from a 21st century lens and think no big deal. This was a time period where 99% of the world considered women slightly above an OX in terms of pecking order. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law, etc. They were legally considered property in most of the known world. Why would you write apostles loyal for 3 years… all bailed but one… if it didn’t happen. Why would the eventual writers be so clear how pathetic they were when the rubber met the road? If it wasn’t actually true.

Another point is Paul’s letters, the Gospels, etc cite minor players by their FULL names. So for example… yeah you might had read Mark’s Gospel 30 years after the death of Christ… but the people named or at least the family members of those people named were still alive. So you want to hear about Lazarus? Well even if he wasn’t still alive… someone who knew him would have been. Go to that cities small Christian community, someone should be there. Paul’s writing everyone he can in the known world? Well he mentions tons of people he personally knows by name as well. They would be still in those churches or their direct descendants. Completely available to people. You never hear Jews write such a counter text for example. Which compare that to lets say Mormon’s where you have libraries full of text written immediately after or shortly after the claims of Joseph Smith… Heck the internet itself is teeming with it. The LDS don’t even know how to handle the problem this readily available church history creates. Why did Jews never provide the rebuttal?

Another quick point… Still today there is a cult in Syria (and surrounding areas) who believes John the Baptist was the actual Messiah (wikipedia it). There are 100’s of thousands of followers of this religion (too lazy to get the name). So John the Baptist is a pretty important hombre… actually the Bible itself basically states he was the best of men ever born. His legacy is still so strong enough people worldwide the size of a city like Reno or Spokane today believe he was actually the messiah. If the apostles are busy linking Jesus and John the Baptist… why didn’t this cult, or John the Baptist followers of that day shut it down? Heck you can read in scripture that it’s plausible John had a bigger following than Jesus did in their respective lifetimes.

My point is this… to argue Jesus wasn’t even a historical figure is pathetic when compared to the certainty we have that Caeser, Cleopatra, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Ramses, etc were alive. Respectively there are far more text snip its of the early New Testament (about 6000 pieces if I recall) that don’t show edits and don’t contradict each other (even if they are just small fragments - that compared to some of the people I listed above… Jesus has a wealth of writing… Most of the people above don’t even have a 100 text snip its to their name. But there is no doubt of them actually having graced this planet.

The second something is history and in the past… it has to be taken by faith… no matter if you’re talking about Lee and Grant fighting in some civil war none of us were alive to see or Jesus.

Now if you want to argue that shakesphere didn’t really write most or many of his plays… now that’s a better argument all together.

[VinnyJH]

@VegasReno

A few things… Paul while he doesn’t talk about Jesus directly as much as the Gospels, which are more an account of his life - rather then a theological narrative that Paul does… He paraphrases the Old Testament like mad such as Micah, Isaiah 40, etc - in pointing to who Jesus is… which is God/Messiah.

Paul is our earliest source and the only sources he cites for his knowledge are revelation and scripture and he never indicates that anyone else had any other source for their knowledge of Jesus.

@VegasReno

A great book to read is called Jesus and the eyewitnesses. One of the best points this makes is for example how preposterous it would have been for Jew’s to write that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection if this was a completely fabricated story. We see this from a 21st century lens and think no big deal. This was a time period where 99% of the world considered women slightly above an OX in terms of pecking order. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law, etc. They were legally considered property in most of the known world.

(1) Mark’s gospel was written for a Christian community in which women enjoyed a much higher status than they did under Jewish law.
(2) Mark’s gospel is filled with incidents in which Jesus upsets the social conventions of Jewish society. Must we believe that all of them really happened?
(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.

@VegasReno

Why would you write apostles loyal for 3 years… all bailed but one… if it didn’t happen. Why would the eventual writers be so clear how pathetic they were when the rubber met the road? If it wasn’t actually true.

You would write it that way in order to emphasize the transformative power of the resurrection. You have to make the apostles look bad so they can become good. In fact, throughout the gospel of Mark the apostles are portrayed as being confused about Jesus.

@VegasReno

Another point is Paul’s letters, the Gospels, etc cite minor players by their FULL names. So for example… yeah you might had read Mark’s Gospel 30 years after the death of Christ… but the people named or at least the family members of those people named were still alive. So you want to hear about Lazarus? Well even if he wasn’t still alive… someone who knew him would have been. Go to that cities small Christian community, someone should be there. Paul’s writing everyone he can in the known world? Well he mentions tons of people he personally knows by name as well. They would be still in those churches or their direct descendants. Completely available to people. You never hear Jews write such a counter text for example. Which compare that to lets say Mormon’s where you have libraries full of text written immediately after or shortly after the claims of Joseph Smith… Heck the internet itself is teeming with it. The LDS don’t even know how to handle the problem this readily available church history creates. Why did Jews never provide the rebuttal?

How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.

@VegasReno

My point is this… to argue Jesus wasn’t even a historical figure is pathetic when compared to the certainty we have that Caeser, Cleopatra, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Ramses, etc were alive. Respectively there are far more text snip its of the early New Testament (about 6000 pieces if I recall) that don’t show edits and don’t contradict each other (even if they are just small fragments - that compared to some of the people I listed above… Jesus has a wealth of writing… Most of the people above don’t even have a 100 text snip its to their name. But there is no doubt of them actually having graced this planet.

Every one of those people is remembered because the things that they did during their lives had an impact on the prominent and literate people of there day. Had it not been for a belief in his supernatural postmortem accomplishments, Jesus of Narazeth might well have come and gone without leaving a trace in the historical record.

[Meatros]

@VinnyJH

(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.

I also want to say that it’s my belief that Mark is using the women as a scapegoat as to why the readers/hearers hadn’t heard the empty tomb story before. In the original version of Mark there is no post resurrection appearances. The story stops at the empty tomb and the women run off and say nothing. I think he did this because the people at the time hadn’t heard of the empty tomb and Mark is attempting to explain why.

[Meatros]

@VinnyJH

How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.

Also, what the Jews were concerned with was the Jewishness (for lack of a better term) of Jesus, not with his existence. So, in the dialogue with Trypho, Trypho is attacking Jesus based on the claims about the OT. He points out that the prophecy about the virgin had already been fulfilled, for instance. He also criticizes Christianity because of it’s vulger similarities with Roman religions.

The Jews had no truck with miracle claims - they didn’t go around debunking every minor cult that came along. The problem they had with Jesus is that he didn’t fulfill OT prophecies even though the Christians were saying he did.

People like to think that the ancient people carried on modern day skepticism, but this is impractical and simply not true. So when people like Craig say ‘why didn’t the jews just go into the tomb and produce the body’ this is misguided on several levels. For one, the disciples kept silent for 40 days, so even presupposing there was a tomb and that it’s location was known, the Jews would have simply pulled out a skeleton - which the Christians could have said was planted or what have you. For two, it’s unlikely that it would have come up on Jewish radar on day 41. More likely it came on their radar after the cult started growing and by then, where the tomb was, the conditions of it, and any potential body would have been thoroughly dessicated. Further, the tomb was Joseph’s tomb - not Jesus’s, so why would Joseph have allowed Jesus’ body to have been kept there for so long? It was supposed to be a temporary solution, get Jesus’ body into the ground over the weekend.

[VinnyJH]

@Meatros

I also want to say that it’s my belief that Mark is using the women as a scapegoat as to why the readers/hearers hadn’t heard the empty tomb story before. In the original version of Mark there is no post resurrection appearances. The story stops at the empty tomb and the women run off and say nothing. I think he did this because the people at the time hadn’t heard of the empty tomb and Mark is attempting to explain why.

Sure. Those silly unreliable women ran off without telling anybody. What looks like a bug is really a feature.

[VinnyJH]

@Meatros

People like to think that the ancient people carried on modern day skepticism, but this is impractical and simply not true. So when people like Craig say ‘why didn’t the jews just go into the tomb and produce the body’ this is misguided on several levels. For one, the disciples kept silent for 40 days, so even presupposing there was a tomb and that it’s location was known, the Jews would have simply pulled out a skeleton - which the Christians could have said was planted or what have you. For two, it’s unlikely that it would have come up on Jewish radar on day 41. More likely it came on their radar after the cult started growing and by then, where the tomb was, the conditions of it, and any potential body would have been thoroughly dessicated. Further, the tomb was Joseph’s tomb - not Jesus’s, so why would Joseph have allowed Jesus’ body to have been kept there for so long? It was supposed to be a temporary solution, get Jesus’ body into the ground over the weekend.

Even more misguided is when apologists ask why the Romans didn’t produce the body. The Roman practice when dealing with troublesome religious sects wasn’t to persuade them with evidence that their beliefs were unfounded. The Roman practice was to round as many as necessary and nail them to crosses. For that matter, there is little indication that prior to his conversion Paul was trying to persuade the Christians of the error of their ways using logic and evidence.

[Meatros]

@VinnyJH

Even more misguided is when apologists ask why the Romans didn’t produce the body. The Roman practice when dealing with troublesome religious sects wasn’t to persuade them with evidence that their beliefs were unfounded. The Roman practice was to round as many as necessary and nail them to crosses. For that matter, there is little indication that prior to his conversion Paul was trying to persuade the Christians of the error of their ways using logic and evidence.

Two good points.

By the time Christianity was bothersome to the Romans it would have been far too late to even do any sort of investigation - even if they were inclined to do so.

[VegasReno]

@VinnyJH

Paul is our earliest source and the only sources he cites for his knowledge are revelation and scripture and he never indicates that anyone else had any other source for their knowledge of Jesus.

(1) Mark’s gospel was written for a Christian community in which women enjoyed a much higher status than they did under Jewish law.
(2) Mark’s gospel is filled with incidents in which Jesus upsets the social conventions of Jewish society. Must we believe that all of them really happened?
(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.

You would write it that way in order to emphasize the transformative power of the resurrection. You have to make the apostles look bad so they can become good. In fact, throughout the gospel of Mark the apostles are portrayed as being confused about Jesus.

How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.

Every one of those people is remembered because the things that they did during their lives had an impact on the prominent and literate people of there day. Had it not been for a belief in his supernatural postmortem accomplishments, Jesus of Narazeth might well have come and gone without leaving a trace in the historical record.

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul… I remember at the end he goes into a church and basically makes a big denial of the spirit claim… however you need to brush up on your scripture if you are going to go around stating Paul never mentioned literal witnesses and literal resurrection. There are SEVERAL occurrences…

The easiest refutal of this modern wives tale is 1 Corinthians 15, but it is not the only one:

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,b and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”d
33Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

The Resurrection Body

35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”e; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall wef bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”g

55“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”h
56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Your Mark points women are not relevant.
Christians yes… placed a higher value upon women because well… Christ paid respect towards women. Jewish authority however DID NOT. It was a time of Pharisee-ism. That is the relevant point. Jews would have given their account it no value, weight, or creedence.

Your other quick point that the women weren’t testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, “well that makes it a load of crap”. Remember we live in a world where women weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70’s… for example… You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day… that would have been a point in time where people cried “Bullshitunga’s”

As for you second point of not believing the totality of accounts in the Bible of Jesus upsetting the Jewish authority during his life… if you don’t believe those… then why would he ever be put on a cross… obviously he frustrated people if he received the harshest penalty that could be dished out on this planet at the time. But that has no bearing… the argument here is myth vs historical figure… not believing every story… oh okay… well if you don’t believe every account… that’s up to you.. However if he is a historical figure, he died on a cross by the all the accounts within the first 120-240 years of his life (ignoring later “revelation” like in the Koran that has Jesus skipping out on the cross, Da Vincci code ideas which stem from that, etc.

Your point on Mormonism also doesn’t apply. My point is the counter argument exists… and it existed quickly. It’s not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon’s, or Scientologists, or JW’s, etc… It’s that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews… and Christians.

Lastly… if you don’t believe Jesus is a historical figure… you might as well extend that… because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this “Myth”. They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

To give you perspective… Go to the first witness accounts in Mormonism… the 3 supposed witnesses to the plates (in spiritual revelation)… see that they eventually all part ways with the Joseph Smith’s church and go about doing something else by the end of their lives. Not one of 12 did something similar? 10 we know for certainty went to their death… another one the last writings of which (John), we know come from a Prison…

and again there are more text fragments still alive accounting these things then most historical figures that side of the printing press.

[VinnyJH]

@VegasReno

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul… I remember at the end he goes into a church and basically makes a big denial of the spirit claim… however you need to brush up on your scripture if you are going to go around stating Paul never mentioned literal witnesses and literal resurrection. There are SEVERAL occurrences…

The easiest refutal of this modern wives tale is 1 Corinthians 15, but it is not the only one:

I never said that Paul never mentions literal witnesses or a literal resurrection. I said that he only cites revelation and scripture as the source of his knowledge and I would include the appearance he claims to have witnessed as revelation. He does indicate that other people had these encounters as well.

@VegasReno

Your Mark points women are not relevant.
Christians yes… placed a higher value upon women because well… Christ paid respect towards women. Jewish authority however DID NOT. It was a time of Pharisee-ism. That is the relevant point. Jews would have given their account it no value, weight, or creedence.

Your other quick point that the women weren’t testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, “well that makes it a load of crap”. Remember we live in a world where women weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70’s… for example… You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day… that would have been a point in time where people cried “Bullshitunga’s”

Mark was writing to pagan converts to Christianity. Why would he or they have cared what status women had under Jewish law? Moreover, nothing in Mark’s story depends upon the reliability of women as witnesses since they run off without telling anyone what they saw. Why would anyone not have believed that? The fact of the matter is that we know that people did believe the story.

@VegasReno

Your point on Mormonism also doesn’t apply. My point is the counter argument exists… and it existed quickly. It’s not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon’s, or Scientologists, or JW’s, etc… It’s that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews… and Christians.

We have counter texts for those religions that began in an age of widespread literacy. The fact that we don’t have any for early Christianity proves nothing.

@VegasReno

Lastly… if you don’t believe Jesus is a historical figure… you might as well extend that… because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this “Myth”. They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

We don’t know anything of the kind. The martyrdom traditions are very poorly attested. Often the sources are apocryphal works that the church dismissed as unreliable. Attributing heroic deaths to one’s heroes is as common as can be. Think of Pat Tillman.

@VegasReno

To give you perspective… Go to the first witness accounts in Mormonism… the 3 supposed witnesses to the plates (in spiritual revelation)… see that they eventually all part ways with the Joseph Smith’s church and go about doing something else by the end of their lives. Not one of 12 did something similar? 10 we know for certainty went to their death… another one the last writings of which (John), we know come from a Prison…

Once again, we know nothing of the kind. Some of the martyrdom stories date from centuries after the fact.

It sounds to me like the witnesses to the Golden Plates had ample motive and opportunity to recant.

[Meatros]

Hope you don’t mind if I respond to a few things:

@VegasReno

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul…

I believe you are referring to Brian Flemming.

@VegasReno

Your other quick point that the women weren’t testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, “well that makes it a load of crap”. Remember we live in a world where women weren’t allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70’s… for example… You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day… that would have been a point in time where people cried “Bullshitunga’s”

I’m not sure how this actually challenges anything Vinny said - the women didn’t claim to write the Gospel of Mark. Further, you are are completely dismissing women in a way that I’m not sure the ancient Jews would have - what do you make of the book of Ruth, for instance?

@VegasReno

Your point on Mormonism also doesn’t apply. My point is the counter argument exists… and it existed quickly. It’s not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon’s, or Scientologists, or JW’s, etc… It’s that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews… and Christians.

There are counter arguments to Christianity fairly early on - but not in the sense of denying he existed (why would they)? I’ve pointed to Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho several times in this thread. Further the invention of the guards at the tomb is likely the result of Jewish polemic against Christianity.

What the Jews attacked the Christians on was based on their view of the OT, not based on their skepticism of the events that supposedly transpired.

@VegasReno

Lastly… if you don’t believe Jesus is a historical figure… you might as well extend that… because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this “Myth”. They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

I do think that the evidence slightly tips in the favor of Jesus being historical - but this argument is not a good one in favor of it:

1. The apostles dieing for their belief is largely tradition - we have no actual verifiable documentation of it. It’s largely church tradition.
2. Let’s say they were having their feet held to the fire - there’s no reason to suppose that recanting would have alleviated their deaths.

Let’s remember that there were many, many, varieties of Christianity around in the early days - many false gospels and many false letters and so on. All of these recorded 100 + years after the incident (not talking about the 4 canonical gospels, fyi). Why assume that the disciples actually died for their beliefs?

Do you believe that Paul was beheaded, milk spurted out, and he walked around after the incident? Because that’s what some Christians believed because of the acts of Paul.

Then Paul stood with his face to the east and lifted up his hands unto heaven and prayed a long time, and in his prayer he conversed in the Hebrew tongue with the fathers, and then stretched forth his neck without speaking. And when the executioner (speculator) struck off his head, milk spurted upon the cloak of the soldier. And the soldier and all that were there present when they saw it marvelled and glorified God which had given such glory unto Paul: and they went and told Caesar what was done.

VI. And when he heard it, while he marvelled long and was in perplexity, Paul came about the niuth hour, when many philosophers and the centurion were standing with Caesar, and stood before them all and said: Caesar, behold, I, Paul, the soldier of God, am not dead, but live in my God. But unto thee shall many evils befall and great punishment, thou wretched man, because thou hast shed unjustly the blood of the righteous, not many days hence. And having so said Paul departed from him. But Nero hearing it and being greatly troubled commanded the prisoners to be loosed, and Patroclus also and Barsabas and them that were with him.

Why was it considered heretical? Because of the fantastic claims?
No, because it encouraged women to preach and be baptized.

[Meatros]

@Meatros

I believe you are referring to Brian Flemming.

I read your initial post incorrectly, the movie is called “The God Who Wasn’t There”, the director was Brian Flemming.

[VegasReno]

@VinnyJH

I never said that Paul never mentions literal witnesses or a literal resurrection. I said that he only cites revelation and scripture as the source of his knowledge and I would include the appearance he claims to have witnessed as revelation. He does indicate that other people had these encounters as well.
Mark was writing to pagan converts to Christianity. Why would he or they have cared what status women had under Jewish law? Moreover, nothing in Mark’s story depends upon the reliability of women as witnesses since they run off without telling anyone what they saw. Why would anyone not have believed that? The fact of the matter is that we know that people did believe the story.

We have counter texts for those religions that began in an age of widespread literacy. The fact that we don’t have any for early Christianity proves nothing.

We don’t know anything of the kind. The martyrdom traditions are very poorly attested. Often the sources are apocryphal works that the church dismissed as unreliable. Attributing heroic deaths to one’s heroes is as common as can be. Think of Pat Tillman.

Once again, we know nothing of the kind. Some of the martyrdom stories date from centuries after the fact.

It sounds to me like the witnesses to the Golden Plates had ample motive and opportunity to recant.

Um… how could anyone know God in the detail Paul accounts for without revelation from God? No one in the world debates that Paul claims God revealed himself to Paul.
So your follow up clarification makes no sense. Who has a conversion experience like Paul of the 12 or of the other Christians at the time? The others physically saw the man by their accounts pre and post death. Paul from all accounts only had experiences with the resurrected Christ (I don’t buy that Paul was the Rich Young Ruler in scripture which some adhere too). It’s unique in scripture. He was actively hunting them down for stoning… for example many believe it’s plausible the last half of acts… around the time of Steven’s stoning might be Paul’s account… no longer Luke writing.

Mark isn’t considered the Gentile bible. Actually loads of theologians actually argue the “Gentile Bible” starts with John… and Luke, Mark, and Matthew are a culmination of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. That’s why John starts unlike the other 3 “In the Beginning”. Explaining creation and God to a pagan people who wouldn’t know of such things. No other Gospels go back to the “creator and creation moment” like John does…

The women witnessing an empty tomb is not important or vital to the story? Really? Really? I mean Really? They saw the empty tomb. That is earth shatteringly huge. That’s why there isn’t talk about the Jesus Ghost that was busy spooking people in Jerusalem for awhile.

The widespread literacy claim is decent. However Islam does have counter texts in a far less scholastic environment. Also literacy wasn’t a problem with Jews or even John the Baptist followers who both would have been literate. Also we do have mentions of Jesus in Jewish texts… just no apologetic texts… while Josephus was about 2 decades after the death… he still speaks of the current Christian sect. Hard to believe within 20 years a notable sect is there which history can comment on… so they were gaining in members… but the person they believed existed… just living 2 decades previous… actually never existed at all. Somehow all being sold a bill of goods… if you were going to make it up… You’d probably want to date the figure back by at least a couple of hundred years… like for example Joseph Smith did with the book or Mormon…

[Meatros]

@VegasReno

The women witnessing an empty tomb is not important or vital to the story? Really? Really? I mean Really? They saw the empty tomb. That is earth shatteringly huge. That’s why there isn’t talk about the Jesus Ghost that was busy spooking people in Jerusalem for awhile.

Yet they told no one AND we hear about it from Mark, not them. So the criterion of embarrassment, which you are striving for, is not a good criteria.

Notice that in the later embellishments of the account, the men take over?

@VegasReno

while Josephus was about 2 decades after the death…

Josephus was born four years after Jesus supposedly died. He wrote Antiquities of the Jews around 93 AD, that’s a little more than 2 decades.

@VegasReno

he still speaks of the current Christian sect. Hard to believe within 20 years a notable sect is there which history can comment on…

I’m not sure the relevance - he speaks of a few messiahs and a few sects. No one argues that there were not Christians around 100 AD.

@VegasReno

so they were gaining in members… but the person they believed existed… just living 2 decades previous… actually never existed at all. Somehow all being sold a bill of goods… if you were going to make it up… You’d probably want to date the figure back by at least a couple of hundred years… like for example Joseph Smith did with the book or Mormon…

Actually a few people do think that Jesus predates 30 AD by 70 years…

But anyway, I don’t see how this is relevant. Phlegon of Tralles has accounts of Centaurs and such - which would have been easily verifiable, do you think they existed?

[Meatros]

I should note, I don’t find the idea that Jesus existed around 100 BC particularly persuasive (also my math is a bit off in my last post).

[VegasReno]

@Meatros

Hope you don’t mind if I respond to a few things:

I believe you are referring to Brian Flemming.

I’m not sure how this actually challenges anything Vinny said - the women didn’t claim to write the Gospel of Mark. Further, you are are completely dismissing women in a way that I’m not sure the ancient Jews would have - what do you make of the book of Ruth, for instance?

There are counter arguments to Christianity fairly early on - but not in the sense of denying he existed (why would they)? I’ve pointed to Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho several times in this thread. Further the invention of the guards at the tomb is likely the result of Jewish polemic against Christianity.

What the Jews attacked the Christians on was based on their view of the OT, not based on their skepticism of the events that supposedly transpired.

I do think that the evidence slightly tips in the favor of Jesus being historical - but this argument is not a good one in favor of it:

1. The apostles dieing for their belief is largely tradition - we have no actual verifiable documentation of it. It’s largely church tradition.
2. Let’s say they were having their feet held to the fire - there’s no reason to suppose that recanting would have alleviated their deaths.

Let’s remember that there were many, many, varieties of Christianity around in the early days - many false gospels and many false letters and so on. All of these recorded 100 + years after the incident (not talking about the 4 canonical gospels, fyi). Why assume that the disciples actually died for their beliefs?

Do you believe that Paul was beheaded, milk spurted out, and he walked around after the incident? Because that’s what some Christians believed because of the acts of Paul.

Why was it considered heretical? Because of the fantastic claims?
No, because it encouraged women to preach and be baptized.

The theological environment in Jesus’s time was Pharisee-ism. By the way Ruth had several hurdles of her own. But the environment was extreme legalism that was about to boil over during the time of Christ. I mean this was the environment Masada happened. Jewish historians still today see this as the most destructive, volatile, extreme period of their over 4000 years of history as a people. That says something. You could easily argue it took 1900 years before they recovered from the Roman Empire.

Your last point on martyrdom is a solid one, and frankly as you suggested, I agree, is unimportant to the debate. The fragments can date in the life times of these individuals however, and the people… For example… Paul writes a letter to Timothy… we have fragments that date in the range of when both are pro-ported to have lived. So we would have to have fictional letters to fictional people or factual people writing fictional letters which date within the correct time frame. Both would be reaches of large kind ignoring things like Occam’s razor to just make a contrary argument to be contrary in itself, but not because you are seeking the most plausible reality… which this thread originally stated Jesus being entirely a Myth as… the most plausible reality… which the historical record doesn’t back up.

[VegasReno]

@Meatros

I read your initial post incorrectly, the movie is called “The God Who Wasn’t There”, the director was Brian Flemming.

Yeah… you nailed the movie I was referring too… I am someone who reads atheist literature all the time. For example I just finished the God Delusion about 2 months ago. I don’t mind when someone makes the best argument and just doesn’t believe. I do have a problem with someone making false arguments however and stating they are factual… which I believe Brian Flemming did with full knowledge.

[VinnyJH]

@VegasReno

The others physically saw the man by their accounts pre and post death.

Actually, the others physically saw the man by the accounts of unknown authors written decades after the fact. Paul is the only one who makes a first person claim to witnessing an appearance of the the risen Christ and he doesn’t give us any details about the experience.

@VegasReno

Mark isn’t considered the Gentile bible. Actually loads of theologians actually argue the “Gentile Bible” starts with John… and Luke, Mark, and Matthew are a culmination of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. That’s why John starts unlike the other 3 “In the Beginning”. Explaining creation and God to a pagan people who wouldn’t know of such things. No other Gospels go back to the “creator and creation moment” like John does…

Tradition has it that Mark was composed in Rome after the death of Peter for an audience made up primarily of pagan converts. But even Jewish converts would have been familiar with stories in which women played a role.

@VegasReno

The women witnessing an empty tomb is not important or vital to the story? Really? Really? I mean Really? They saw the empty tomb. That is earth shatteringly huge. That’s why there isn’t talk about the Jesus Ghost that was busy spooking people in Jerusalem for awhile.

I didn’t say it wasn’t important. I said their reliability as witnesses wasn’t important to the story.

@VegasReno

The widespread literacy claim is decent. However Islam does have counter texts in a far less scholastic environment. Also literacy wasn’t a problem with Jews or even John the Baptist followers who both would have been literate. Also we do have mentions of Jesus in Jewish texts… just no apologetic texts… while Josephus was about 2 decades after the death… he still speaks of the current Christian sect. Hard to believe within 20 years a notable sect is there which history can comment on… so they were gaining in members… but the person they believed existed… just living 2 decades previous… actually never existed at all. Somehow all being sold a bill of goods… if you were going to make it up… You’d probably want to date the figure back by at least a couple of hundred years… like for example Joseph Smith did with the book or Mormon…

Josephus was writing in the 90’s which is six decades after the crucifixion.

It is hard for me to believe that so many people believed Joseph’s Smith’s poppycock without any evidence whatsoever, but they did, and I still think that it was poppycock. I have no reason to think that 1st century Christians were any less prone to ignorance, superstition, prevarication, gullibility, and wishful thinking than 19th century Mormons.

[VinnyJH]

@VegasReno

For example… Paul writes a letter to Timothy… we have fragments that date in the range of when both are pro-ported to have lived.

No we don’t.

[VegasReno]

@VinnyJH

Actually, the others physically saw the man by the accounts of unknown authors written decades after the fact. Paul is the only one who makes a first person claim to witnessing an appearance of the the risen Christ and he doesn’t give us any details about the experience.
Tradition has it that Mark was composed in Rome after the death of Peter for an audience made up primarily of pagan converts. But even Jewish converts would have been familiar with stories in which women played a role.

I didn’t say it wasn’t important. I said their reliability as witnesses wasn’t important to the story.

Josephus was writing in the 90’s which is six decades after the crucifixion.

It is hard for me to believe that so many people believed Joseph’s Smith’s poppycock without any evidence whatsoever, but they did, and I still think that it was poppycock. I have no reason to think that 1st century Christians were any less prone to ignorance, superstition, prevarication, gullibility, and wishful thinking than 19th century Mormons.

Josephus wrote about things that pre-date Christ however and no one questions him in doing that… why? Why the double standard? Also Josephus was born in 37 AD. You and the other poster dating his life’s work of history so far back while “true” he was writing about the events of Jerusalem during his life time. Jesus likely died between 26AD-35AD. I gave Josephus two decades… again he’s writing a history which is rooted in witness… So at 20 he was at 57AD. That would have put him at 20 around 25 years plus or minus after the death of Christ. I mean I can account for things fairly well starting in my teens. Stop acting like because the two books he wrote were finalized in 75 AD and 94 AD… that changes the fact that he was reasonably present where he could remember, recall, and recount the details within less then 2 decades of Christ’s estimated death.

[Meatros]

@VegasReno

The theological environment in Jesus’s time was Pharisee-ism. By the way Ruth had several hurdles of her own. But the environment was extreme legalism that was about to boil over during the time of Christ. I mean this was the environment Masada happened. Jewish historians still today see this as the most destructive, volatile, extreme period of their over 4000 years of history as a people. That says something. You could easily argue it took 1900 years before they recovered from the Roman Empire.

I’m not entirely sure why you think Phariseeism is a huge point - there were many different cults in Judaism. IIRC, there were something like 10-15 in Jerusalem alone around the time.

Yes, there was a lot of hostility and a lot of destruction and all that - but I don’t see why this precludes or somehow makes the Jesus story more likely because some Jews didn’t accept women.

To my knowledge, the majority of Jews rejected Christianity, which is why the early Christians appealed to the Gentiles.

So again, I’m not sure how you are establishing your overall point.

@VegasReno

Your last point on martyrdom is a solid one, and frankly as you suggested, I agree, is unimportant to the debate. The fragments can date in the life times of these individuals however, and the people… For example… Paul writes a letter to Timothy… we have fragments that date in the range of when both are pro-ported to have lived. So we would have to have fictional letters to fictional people or factual people writing fictional letters which date within the correct time frame. Both would be reaches of large kind ignoring things like Occam’s razor to just make a contrary argument to be contrary in itself, but not because you are seeking the most plausible reality…

I’m not aware of the fragments you are referring to - IIRC, the closest fragments of any of the NT are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 AD. We infer that Gospels and other documents had an earlier existence due to internal clues AND early church fathers referencing them, but I don’t think we actually have any fragments that date anywhere near 50 AD. Maybe you mean something different though.

Fictional letters (or pseudepigraphic letters) were common back then. Here’s one “from” Justin Martyr. In fact, we have a few from him - and he’s not a huge figure (compared to Paul). The following from here:

The other documents attributed to Justin Martyr listed above - the Hortatory Address to the Greeks, On the Sole Government of God, and On the Resurrection - are of dubious authenticity. They may have been written instead by another Christian author, now unknown. It has been suggested that the Discourse to the Greeks was originally a Jewish treatise.

The majority of scholars believe that the following epistles were not written by Paul (from here):

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:[4]

* Pastoral epistles
      o First Timothy
      o Second Timothy
      o Titus

So the very letter you are referring to is largely considered to have been attributed to Paul and not written by him (a fictional letter).

@VegasReno

which this thread originally stated Jesus being entirely a Myth as… the most plausible reality… which the historical record doesn’t back up.

I do not find the evidence for Jesus’s history overwhelming - but I do think that it’s more likely he existed. I think that the early infighting for control of the church is the type of thing we’d find based on a historical figure - it’s what we found with Islam, for instance. There are a few other reasons I think that Jesus was probably historical (I think I list a few in this thread?), but I don’t think the evidence is overwhelming as I said. I think that a lot of the Jesus-myth theories seem entirely ad hoc, so I would need to see a very compelling theory for it and I do not find such theories.