For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[dejudge]

I don't think that the "invention" of Jesus has been documented.

The use of the Old Testament as prophecies foreseeing the arrival of Jesus Christ is evident. Nobody denies it. You can amass a mountain of quotations. Now then the problem is whether these are used as an invention of a semi-god like a man or as a justification/deification of a man.

I have not seen any commentary/litany of yours that have addressed this issue correctly.

Your claim that you "have not seen any commentary/litany" that "have addressed this issue correctly" is really irrelevant [baseless rhetoric] since your statement may be false.

The use of so-called prophecies in the Old Testament is indeed evidence that the character called Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured.

Your question or problem has zero negative effect on the argument that Jesus of the NT was a character of fiction as described in Christian writings.

Once it is realised that there is no historical contemporary evidence of Jesus, Paul, Peter/Cephas, James and all so-called relatives and apostles of Jesus then it can be argued for infinity that the Jesus stories found in the Gospels and Epistles were not historical accounts at any time.


The argument that Jesus, his apostles and relatives were figures of fiction cannot ever be overturned by anyone [Scholar or not] since all stories of Jesus are fiction, are dated no earlier than the 2nd century and not mentioned by any accepted contemporary historical sources.

The fiction characters [Jesus, his apostles and relatives] were invented no earlier than AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and after the writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius or no earlier than c 110 CE.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim that you "have not seen any commentary/litany" that "have addressed this issue correctly" is really irrelevant [baseless rhetoric] since your statement may be false.

The use of so-called prophecies in the Old Testament is indeed evidence that the character called Jesus of Nazareth was manufactured.

Your question or problem has zero negative effect on the argument that Jesus of the NT was a character of fiction as described in Christian writings.

Once it is realised that there is no historical contemporary evidence of Jesus, Paul, Peter/Cephas, James and all so-called relatives and apostles of Jesus then it can be argued for infinity that the Jesus stories found in the Gospels and Epistles were not historical accounts at any time.


The argument that Jesus, his apostles and relatives were figures of fiction cannot ever be overturned by anyone [Scholar or not] since all stories of Jesus are fiction, are dated no earlier than the 2nd century and not mentioned by any accepted contemporary historical sources.

The fiction characters [Jesus, his apostles and relatives] were invented no earlier than AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and after the writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius or no earlier than c 110 CE.

Oh dear. That settles it then. It was all made up later by fiction authors...

Now we just have to find out who they were and why they bothered.

Any ideas on that subject dejudge?

Names? Dates? Anything?

 

[Craig B]

Oh dear. That settles it then. It was all made up later by fiction authors...

Now we just have to find out who they were and why they bothered.

Any ideas on that subject dejudge?

Names? Dates? Anything?

Dates? The dates of the earliest mss that happen to have survived. You may read about this in Biblical Manuscripts^WP. That's evidence. Good evidence. There can be no earlier evidence since the textual content of all Biblical manuscripts is entirely a phantasm created through forgery by fabricators. These miscreants' purpose? - "Fiction" it seems, like the Harry Potter novels.

 

[Brainache]

Dates? The dates of the earliest mss that happen to have survived. You may read about this in Biblical Manuscripts^WP. That's evidence. Good evidence. There can be no earlier evidence since the textual content of all Biblical manuscripts is entirely a phantasm created through forgery by fabricators. These miscreants' purpose? - "Fiction" it seems, like the Harry Potter novels.

Hmmm Fascinating. So those early Christian groups meeting secretly in Rome were more like a book club than a persecuted religious minority...

 

[Craig B]

Hmmm Fascinating. So those early Christian groups meeting secretly in Rome were more like a book club than a persecuted religious minority...

They invented "fiction characters". When Pliny described them as singing hymns to the messiah as to a God, it was like the Baron Munchausen fan club making up songs praising Harry Potter. They didn't believe it.

Except that Pliny's letters are themselves forgeries, composed by gangs of medieval fabricators, so it didn't happen anyway.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

Mythicism:
1. Someone (let us call him “Paul”) invented a religion based on a mixture of Hellenistic, Imperial and Jewish traditions about a heavenly creature semi-divine.

Wrong.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism.

2. His language only referred to earthly concepts as allegories.

Wrong again.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism either.


Frankly, this is all too common for sceptics of the JM theory - many have no idea what the JM theory even claims - but they already know it's wrong - so they don't even bother to learn anything about it. Much like creationists and evolution really ...


Kapyong

 

[Craig B]

Gday David Mo and all




Wrong.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism.





Wrong again.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism either.


Frankly, this is all too common for sceptics of the JM theory - many have no idea what the JM theory even claims - but they already know it's wrong - so they don't even bother to learn anything about it. Much like creationists and evolution really ...


Kapyong

GDay Kapyong. If the facts about JMicism are not understood by sceptics, and if these sceptics haven't even bothered to learn about it - and presumably you would be happier if they acquainted themselves with its tenets - then it is most remarkable that you have posted a message that does nothing whatever to provide any information about the JM theory.

 

[Brainache]

GDay Kapyong. If the facts about JMicism are not understood by sceptics, and if these sceptics haven't even bothered to learn about it - and presumably you would be happier if they acquainted themselves with its tenets - then it is most remarkable that you have posted a message that does nothing whatever to provide any information about the JM theory.

G'day Craig, me old cobber... I expect that soon we will get a long list of vaguely related references to other times and places where angels and gods were believed to exist up in heaven. We will then be chastised if we don't conclude from that list that Jesus was a myth.

Crikey!

 

[David Mo]

Gday David Mo and all

Wrong.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism.

Wrong again.
That is NOT a tenet of JMicism either.


Kapyong

Good morning, Kapyiong:
Maybe you can waste a bit of your precious time and explain these awful mistakes.
Thank you.

ADDED:
I think that the follow quotes (from Wikipedia) referred to some main mythicists schollars fit well my little description:

…professor Christian Heinrich Arthur Drews wrote The Christ Myth to argue that Christianity had been a Jewish Gnosticcult that spread by appropriating aspects of Greek philosophy and life-death-rebirth deities…
…Kersey Graves said that many demigods from different countries shared similar stories, traits or quotes as Jesus. Graves used Higgins as the main source for his arguments…
… Godfrey Higgins said that "the mythos of the Hindus, the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same; and ... are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines,"…
…Volney and Dupuis argued that Christianity was an amalgamation of various ancient mythologies and that Jesus was a totally mythical character...
…Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, that there is insufficient Bayesian probability, that is evidence, to believe in the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, he argues that the Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture which were then crafted into a historical figure, to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically…
…This mythological Jesus was not based on a historical Jesus, but rather on an exegesis of the Old Testament in the context of Jewish-Hellenistic religious syncretism…
…Brodie, who previously had published academic works on the Hebrew prophets, argued that the gospels are essentially a rewriting of the stories of Elijah and Elisha when viewed as a unified account in the Books of Kings...

I can added more, if you want.

 

[GDon]

Frankly, this is all too common for sceptics of the JM theory - many have no idea what the JM theory even claims - but they already know it's wrong - so they don't even bother to learn anything about it.

The problem is that there is no "Mythicist Theory", as though it were a monolith, just as there is no monolith "Historicist Theory". As I like to point out, probably the best known mythicist theory is the one proposed by Acharya S, and which was popularized by the Zeitgeist movie. That movie has had millions of views. It is easy to reject mythicism generally based on Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", even if it isn't correct to do so.

So mythicists do themselves no favours by referring to "the Mythicist Theory". They would do much better to talk about "the Doherty theory" or "the Dr Carrier theory", so you'd need to know something about them before rejecting them (in theory at least). Because if you just refer to the mythicist theory generally, most people will probably think you are talking about something like Acharya S's "Christ cookie cutter" theory.

 

[dejudge]

What is most disturbing is that the very people who readily admit to fiction characters in Greek/Roman mythology now fail to accept another---[the Roman myth God called Jesus--God of God, the Logos, God Creator born of a Ghost and a Virgin--the second Adam--the firstborn o' the dead.]

There are hundreds of myth/fiction stories that were believed to be true by the Romans in antiquity and the Jesus myth/fiction story was one of them.

The Romans worshiped the myth/fiction Jesus character as a God just like they worshiped Jupiter.

There is simply no historical source from antiquity which can show that Romans, Greeks, or Jews were worshiping Jesus as a God in the 1st century before the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Writings attributed to Romans, Greeks and even Jews state or imply that in the 1st century Romans were worshiping multiple myth/fiction Gods including Jupiter and his sons Gods just like Jesus in the 2nd century or later.

 

[David Mo]

The problem is that there is no "Mythicist Theory", as though it were a monolith, just as there is no monolith "Historicist Theory". As I like to point out, probably the best known mythicist theory is the one proposed by Acharya S, and which was popularized by the Zeitgeist movie. That movie has had millions of views. It is easy to reject mythicism generally based on Acharya S's "The Christ Conspiracy", even if it isn't correct to do so.

So mythicists do themselves no favours by referring to "the Mythicist Theory". They would do much better to talk about "the Doherty theory" or "the Dr Carrier theory", so you'd need to know something about them before rejecting them (in theory at least). Because if you just refer to the mythicist theory generally, most people will probably think you are talking about something like Acharya S's "Christ cookie cutter" theory.

Of course, my description -not definition- of mythicism is similar to other definitions in that there are some exceptions in this or that point. As far as I know the mythicism of Acharya S was simiilar to Mircea Eliade's symbolism (although Eliade believed in some historical Jesus). They thought that the myth of Jesus was built according to a universal symbolic religion. But this universal religion was also embedded in other positive religions in the first century.

The word is used these days particularly to define scholars, researchers and others who investigate whether or not the New Testament character of Jesus Christ was a real, historical person or a myth along the lines of the gods, godmen and heroes of other cultures, such as Hercules, Mithra or Horus. (D.M. Murdock/Acharya S: "What is a Mythicist?", http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html)
​

In the facts, this imply to recognise the transfer of concepts and cults from the religions of the Roman Empire to Christianity and vice versa.
Historians of the Ancient World are very reluctant to explain the similarities between religions by abstract concepts although some coincidences between distant religions suggest the existence of general frames.

 

[David Mo]

Writings attributed to Romans, Greeks and even Jews state or imply that in the 1st century Romans were worshiping multiple myth/fiction Gods including Jupiter and his sons Gods just like Jesus in the 2nd century or later.

There is a difference: no god of the Roman Empire endured a revolting death as Jesus. This is not a small difference.

 

[Craig B]

There is simply no historical source from antiquity which can show that Romans, Greeks, or Jews were worshiping Jesus as a God in the 1st century before the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Writings attributed to Romans, Greeks and even Jews state or imply that in the 1st century Romans were worshiping multiple myth/fiction Gods including Jupiter and his sons Gods just like Jesus in the 2nd century or later.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Greeks or Romans were worshipping Jesus, and had abandoned all other Gods, by as early as 70 CE. So you are attacking a position that nobody is defending.

 

[GDon]

There is a difference: no god of the Roman Empire endured a revolting death as Jesus. This is not a small difference.

I'm not sure that is accurate. Justin Martyr writes in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus...

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them...​

This reminds me of a clip (one min) from an Australian comedy about the origin of the sign of the cross: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0tUNXtRco

 

[GDon]

Somewhat along the same lines, here is the view of pagan Celsus (writing around the end of the Second Century CE) on the Christian belief in the crucifixion, as recorded by Origen:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen166.html

[Origen quotes Celsus] "And in all their writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh by means of the 'tree,' because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by craft; so that if he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter, or worker in iron, there would have been (invented) a precipice of life beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even when making stories to lull an infant to sleep?"...

Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this "tree of life" to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: "If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality." And again: "If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he--Jesus-- (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love."​

 

[David Mo]

I'm not sure that is accurate. Justin Martyr writes in his First Apology:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus...

And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them...​

This reminds me of a clip (one min) from an Australian comedy about the origin of the sign of the cross: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0tUNXtRco

The difference consists in that none of these deaths of gods was an ignominious punishment reserved to the rebels against Rome. It would be as if an American sect preching peace and respect to the President had invented a god similar to bin Laden having dead in the electric chair. Rather unlikely, is it not?

 

[Craig B]

The difference consists in that none of these deaths of gods was an ignominious punishment reserved to the rebels against Rome. It would be as if an American sect preching peace and respect to the President had invented a god similar to bin Laden having dead in the electric chair. Rather unlikely, is it not?

That is an excellent and relevant point; and according to the synoptic accounts this execution followed a disturbance in the Temple provoked by the person in question denouncing corruption practiced there.

Is this really to be compared with Aesculapius being struck by a thunderbolt and ascending to heaven? It looks more like an event related because it is factual, however embarrassing it may be to people determined to perform an apotheosis of its subject.

This theme makes a further appearance in Acts 5, where the surviving companions of Jesus are compared with various rebels and brigands.

34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel ... 35 ... addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”​

If Jesus was invented out of nothing, to be a god designed to be worshipped by Romans, why was such recalcitrant material as this included in accounts of his death, and of the conduct of his followers? Is this really the same as one of the sons of Zeus undergoing a spectacular translation to the dwelling place of the gods?

If Aesculapius was (let me Euhemerise him!) in reality a human physician whose skills earned him the reputation of divinity, his being sent to heaven by a thunderbolt is entirely in order; but if Jesus was created entirely out of scriptural prophecies, with no historical reality, and thus freely invented to be a divinity attractive to Romans, then having him put to death as a public nuisance, and his companions arrested as bandits (as perceived by Rome), makes absolutely no sense.

Such a story could not serve the purpose assigned to it by mythicists. Therefore it must serve some other purpose, and we might usefully consider what that could be ... or it has some kind of historical basis, however garbled in transmission.

 

[GDon]

The difference consists in that none of these deaths of gods was an ignominious punishment reserved to the rebels against Rome. It would be as if an American sect preching peace and respect to the President had invented a god similar to bin Laden having dead in the electric chair. Rather unlikely, is it not?

Highly likely, depending on the motivations of the inventors. In Jesus's case: if the motivation was to create a suffering person/god who was punished unfairly, then the 'best' death to invent would be an unfair crucifixion, an ignominious punishment reserved for rebels against Rome.

But my point in my earlier post is that early Christians didn't seem to play up that aspect when describing the death of Jesus, AFAIK.

 

[Craig B]

Highly likely, depending on the motivations of the inventors. In Jesus's case: if the motivation was to create a suffering person/god who was punished unfairly, then the 'best' death to invent would be an unfair crucifixion, an ignominious punishment reserved for rebels against Rome.

But my point in my earlier post is that early Christians didn't seem to play up that aspect when describing the death of Jesus, AFAIK.

No indeed. The main concern was to transfer the responsibility for Jesus' death to the Jews. Why then did they invent a fictional story that he had been executed by the Romans on the order of the governor of the province? Why not have him murdered at the hands of a Jewish mob incited by the Sadducees or the Pharisees or the Essenes or the Sicarii, or whoever you want to blame? It's not as if such a story would have been impossible to compose; we have that story in the case of Stephen, and we have Paul about to be murdered by a mob and being rescued by the Romans, and taken into protective custody.