Jesus Christ: Myth or Reality?

Hello all! Today I'd like to talk about Jesus and whether or not he really existed. This is primarily a chance for everyone to pool their knowledge and resources on the real man (if indeed he existed, as, to my knowledge, he did) so that we can broaden our knowledge.

Obviously I'd especially like to hear from Steve and Lurker, although I think we've also got some atheist bible scholars amongst us. I barely know a thing about this topic, so if you guys could post either some links (reliable please, I don't want to be directed to Jack chick), some book reccommendations, or just what your understanding of it is, I'd be very grateful.

thanks!

[Choobus]

who cares?

[WITHTEETH]

Buddha and Jesus were both the catalyst of their own birth, meaning they were their own fathers.
Both had a star on the day of their birth. Greeted with wise men and foretold to be a great king of nations.
They both had 3 trials by evil, Jesus w/ lucifer and Buddha by Mara.
They both instead of becoming kings, lived the ascetic life.
Both did miracles and walked on water.
Both had central themes on comapssion on were missionaries.
Both came to help save mankind from suffering.

The cult surrounding Jesus Christ, son of God and originator of Christianity appeared during the second century. Early historians, however, never mentioned Jesus and even until now there has been no actual proof of his existence. Julius Caesar, son of Venus and founder of the Roman Empire, was elevated to the status of Imperial God, Divus Julius, after his violent death. The cult that surrounded him dissolved as Christianity surfaced.

Carotta's new evidence leads to such an overwhelming amount of similarities between the biography of Caesar and the story of Jesus that coincidence can be ruled out.
- Both Caesar and Jesus start their rising careers in neighboring states in the north: Gallia and Galilee.
- Both have to cross a fateful river: the Rubicon and the Jordan. Once across the rivers, they both come across a patron/rival: Pompeius and John the Baptist, and their first followers, who get there heads handed to them on a plate, Pompeius to Ceasar, John to Jesus: Antonius and Curio on the one hand and Peter and Andrew on the other.
- Both are continually on the move, finally arriving at the capital, Rome and Jerusalem, where they at first triumph, yet subsequently undergo their passion.
- Both have good relationships with women and have a special relationship with one particular woman, Caesar with Cleopatra and Jesus with Magdalene.
- Both have encounters at night, Caesar with Nicomedes of Bithynia, Jesus with Nicodemus of Bethany.
- Both have an affinity to ordinary people-and both run afoul of the highest authorities: Caesar with the Senate, Jesus with the Sanhedrin.
- Both are contentious characters, but show praiseworthy clemency as well: the clementia Caesaris and Jesus' Love-thy-enemy.
- Both have a traitor: Brutus and Judas. And an assassin who at first gets away: the other Brutus and Barabbas. And one who washes his hands of it: Lepidus and Pilate.
- Both are accused of making themselves kings: King of the Romans and King of the Jews. Both are dressed in red royal robes and wear a crown on their heads: a laurel wreath and a crown of thorns.
- Both get killed: Caesar is stabbed with daggers(logunis'), Jesus is crucified, but with a stab wound in his side with a dagger(longunis).
- Jesus as well as Caesar hang on a cross. For a reconstruction of the crucifixion of Caesar, see:
"http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/crux.html" \l "images"
- Both die on the same respective dates of the year: Caesar on the Ides (15 th) of March, Jesus on the 15 th of Nisan.
- Both are deified posthumously: as Divus Iulius and as Jesus Christ.

There is no secular proof for Jesus, Buddha, Zues ect... Then again is there any secular proof for Sacrates? The differences is that im willing to doubt his existance while a theist will not doubt his prophets existance am i right?

All righty then. First, let me point out that all evidence of Jesus' existance is circular... the one book that needs him (the bible) convieniently has the evidence for him.

According to the bible, all the first borns were killed to stop the messiah after birth. Somehow, this event failed to make it into the records of history.

Miracles don't happen every day. Would it not be astounding if someone was ressurected from a tomb after being crucified? SURELY independant scribes and persons would have made reports of this event.

The Gospels were written decades (At least) after the crucifixion. AFTER all memory of Jesus apparently was wiped from the earth. Not even Saul of Tarsus (Credited for spreading early christianity) refers to Jesus as a real person. Isn't that just a LITTLE suspicious?

The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius wrote voluminous reports on the lives of Jews during his life (37 to 100ce) yet the only reference he makes to jesus is considered a 4th century forgery.

The only explanation of the faithful for all of this is "It's a faith thing, you're supposed to blindly believe", or "God did it that way to ensure that you believe through faith, not certainty".

I don't think so. If the bible is true, and Jesus is actually the son of god and acts as the gate to heaven... then the hard evidence of his existance would be overwhelming. Writings of his miracles would have appeared far and wide.

But no, The church had to resort to forgery and falsehoods (This is well documented) to convince people that the son of god ever existed.

It doesn't matter if he actually existed. He serves as a myth regardless.

[SteveG]

lesserpanda wrote

Hello all! Today I'd like to talk about Jesus and whether or not he really existed. This is primarily a chance for everyone to pool their knowledge and resources on the real man (if indeed he existed, as, to my knowledge, he did) so that we can broaden our knowledge.

Obviously I'd especially like to hear from Steve and Lurker, although I think we've also got some atheist bible scholars amongst us. I barely know a thing about this topic, so if you guys could post either some links (reliable please, I don't want to be directed to Jack chick), some book reccommendations, or just what your understanding of it is, I'd be very grateful.

thanks!

This site...

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm

...has by far the best summation of the topic that I've come across.

I think that if you read all the articles there, you'll have a fairly decent picture of most of the major 'myth' theories, and the answers to them.

P.S.
LesserPanda, please be wary of anyone tauting the Corrotta Julius Divus myth. Folks here are picking it up from Calpurnpiso's rantings. It's a theory which is proposed by Frances Corrotta who is an amatuer historian (a linguist by trade) in which he manufactures a bunch of parrallels between the cult of Julius Caesar after his death, and Jesus and then argues that they are one in the same person.

No serious historian takes this seriously, and you'll not even see it addressed by 'defenders' of the historical Jesus because it's so preposterous. It is the sole creation of one or two untrained historians which Cal has picked up, and some of his disciples here are likewise picking up without bothering to scrutinize it.

Even the most cursory of research into the specific claims of Corrotta will show that he plays fast and loose with facts, terminology, and is badly misinformed in many areas.

There are real and serious scholarly challenges to the existance of Jesus. This is NOT one of them. The most significant challenge is that of Professor Earl Doherty. You'll see an excellent discussion on his theory on the site I linked to above.

[Philboid Studge]

SteveG wrote

This site...

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm

...has by far the best summation of the topic that I've come across.

I think that if you read all the articles there, you'll have a fairly decent picture of most of the major 'myth' theories, and the answers to them.

I don't know, SteveG. As summations go, his conclusion is a bit, um, confused: "None of the attempts made by sceptics to demonstrate that Christianity is false because it contains alleged pagan elements is credible or convincing. There are admittedly many good arguments against Christianity, but this simply is not one of them."

One good thing, though: "Bede" is definitely not some relgious wingnut! Or is he?


Love, P.

[SteveG]

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't know, SteveG. As summations go, his conclusion is a bit, um, confused: "None of the attempts made by sceptics to demonstrate that Christianity is false because it contains alleged pagan elements is credible or convincing. There are admittedly many good arguments against Christianity, but this simply is not one of them."

One good thing, though: "Bede" is definitely not some relgious wingnut! Or is he?
Love, P.

First, I meant that the articles in total give a good overall picture of the issue (maybe summation was a bad choice of words).

Second, I really am struggling to see what's confused about that statement (not exactly sure which article you pulled it from). It seems rather straightforward.

Third, well, you think ANYONE who believes in God is a religious wingnut by definition so that doesn't mean much. Of all of us wingnuts, he seems to be less nutty than most. In addition, since the web site owner isn't a historian, I think most of the articles he hosts on this section of the site are by honest to goodness historians and not his own writings. According to your definition, as believers, they are also wingnuts, but his wingnutiness may in fact be quite different from their own. :P

Much love back atchya P:)

Tell me this----the most important person god ever made with the most important message for all mankind wrote nothing to us--NOTHING, WHY?

Whether the Christ existed or not is moot. If he did, he was just another man. His having existed or not is of zero consequence.

"Indeed, the text plainly states that a purely spiritual saviour could not be an adequate high priest. Jesus literally had to "take hold" of human form to bring salvation to humans."

If you recall the superman story, he lost his powers at one point and became like everbody else. Therefore superman is not a work of fiction.

[calpurnpiso]

Steve G. wrote:

"It's a theory which is proposed by Frances Corrotta who is an amatuer historian (a linguist by trade) in which he manufactures a bunch of parrallels between the cult of Julius Caesar after his death, and Jesus and then argues that they are one in the same person ".

Manufactures?..Man are you that ignorant?...blind or perhaps illiterate. I suggest you get educated. Did he manufacture the names, the COINS, the writings of Appianus, the LAtin and Greek TRANSLATIONS, the Temples, the epigraphy?....

How would you know if Carottas claim is NOT true when you'are ignorant of ancient Roman history, have not study Latin, Greek, Archaeology, the epigraphy of the period, read the gnostic gospels, the Vulgate and other sacred texts of the period?...completely IGNORING a book you have NOT READ and the author credentials and biography? Sorry but your statement only shows extreme ignorance and typical christ-psychosis intellectual stagnation.

Alas, you seem to be suffering from neurological blindness!...and you refer to Carotta as an "amateur historian"....ROTFLMAO....this alone shows how ignorant and christ-psychosis infected you are. Carotta did NOT write a novel. He wrote an INVESTIGATIVE REPORT that took 15 years to do!! Everything he says is back up by EVIDENCE. Why don't you look at this man sources, his biography, do some COMPARISON before you show your lack of knowledge and ignorance of the SUBJECT presented on this book?

If one is ignorant of dentistry, but infected with a delusion one is dentist, would it be intelligent to question the validity of a book about periodontics specially when one has NOT READ it?........:)

[Philboid Studge]

Hi Steve! You're right: I do tend to bugger the question re wingnuts. I.e., if they're religious, they're wingnuts. Not very nice and I'm trying to get over that. However Mister Bede is wingnuttier than most and ...

Anyway, I read that bit I posted a few times before realizing what he meant (even though I knew what he intended to say in the first place!) -- so really, I was the confused one. But you must admit, the prose is a tad awkward. And then I saw that it wasn't even his prose, so my bad! (It was the conclusion of the article on Xianity and Paganism, by Justin Martyr (c'mon, is that a real name??). I'll have a question for you wingnuts learned theist fellows regarding this theme on the morrow. 'Bate your breaths ...

[calpurnpiso]

Philboid Studge wrote

Hi Steve! You're right: I do tend to bugger the question re wingnuts. I.e., if they're religious, they're wingnuts. Not very nice and I'm trying to get over that. However Mister Bede is wingnuttier than most and ...

Anyway, I read that bit I posted a few times before realizing what he meant (even though I knew what he intended to say in the first place!) -- so really, I was the confused one. But you must admit, the prose is a tad awkward. And then I saw that it wasn't even his prose, so my bad! (It was the conclusion of the article on Xianity and Paganism, by Justin Martyr (c'mon, is that a real name??). I'll have a question for you wingnuts learned theist fellows regarding this theme on the morrow. 'Bate your breaths ...

Do you want to have some laughs....and ROTFLYAO at the tribulations of the greatets wingnut of them all, castrato Origen. This crazy and drug addicted fool ( ca 180 -1250) picked up a lot of the ancient fool and psychotic Justin. The man was such an imbecile that died like a suicide bomber, for his psychotic delusion of Jesus!!...so the stupid man was KILLED, t hus becoming a Martyr. No body knew this homeless moron, so he last name of 'martyr" was applied by the later history creators, the 4th Century Christ-psychotics. The life of those ancient Christ-psychotic perverted immoral fools makes quite the amusing and entertaining reading. mental illness was abundant in those days........but the "devil" was the one responsible for "invading" people's "hearts' in those days of declining intellect ( thanks to the Christian neurological aberration).

I love reading Justin Martyr "writings"...Nothing that is brought to us by the Catholic Church can be accepted as genuine!..so, his writings have to be taken with a grain of salt..like all "ancient Christian historical accounts". Those retards are masters at manipulation, deceit and forgery!!....they'd burn anything that doesn't agree with their fairy tales. They are also master as MISDIRECTION. The reason nobody seems to know about Julius Caesar, his deeds, his life and the hisotry of the Roman Empire of his time, and how he was responsible for its grandeur!......:)

[a different tim]

I've done some history (before switching to the history and philosophy of science thing) and it's my considered opinion that Corotta's a crock. Sorry, Steve's right on this one. It's the historical equivalent of ID - superficially convincing but not real scholarship. I think it's funny that some here will jump on any out of line scientific opinion (and I admit, I'm one of them) but seem to think that history, which has its own discipline and methodology, is a free for all. Try peddling Corotta's line at any respectable university and see how far you get. If ID is pseudoscience, Corotta and his ilk are pseudohistory. You might as well quote the Da Vinci Code.

Now, whether Jesus existed is interesting from an atheist point of view but purely as a historical point. If we think he wasn't the son of God, what does it matter from that point of view what the legend was based on?

Cal, not every Christian writer was psychotic. I think this is a case where your, er, interesting diagnosis of religion is warping your viewpoint. Most of the early scientists, for example, were practising Christians. Are we to therefore decide Galileo, Copernicus, etc were deluded psychotics in all they wrote? Don't think so. So please show the same respect to early chroniclers. They weren't trying to do the same thing as modern historians, but we can still glean valuable information from them if we take care. which you don't seem to be doing.