Prominent Christian Scholar Admits: Christ Never Existed

[LaMar]

Um, I think you’re seeing what you want to see. Only one person mentioned mob violence and as far as I can tell, that person didn’t appear to be calling for it.

Didn’t say he was, but it was very revealing that he thought about it. Wouldn’t you say?

I wouldn’t burn someone’s house down or beat him up in the street, simply for writing a book. (Joseph Smith did that once, and if I see him in the Celestial Kingdom I’m going to give him a piece of my mind for it).

Why would that come into someone’s mind, over a book? It’s really an interesting reaction. Quite revealing.

Maybe not read the book but his claim that Jesus didn’t exist isn’t new. It’s been made before and most of my fellow Catholics here are well aware of that. We’re also well aware of numerous works out there that present compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus, so much so that few academics or scholars actually disagree that Jesus really existed. There seems little need to read this new work unless he has something truly new or groundbreaking. From the description posted here, I can’t say that he does.

You don’t know either way, because you haven’t read it. I’m the only one on this thread that has a copy, as far as I know.

If it’s not your cup of tea, that’s fine. Normal people wouldn’t be interested enough to comment. Those who were interested would make an educated deconstruction. It’s only insecure cult members which need to swarm around with denunciations over stuff they’ve never read. Again, think Scientology, or Mormonism in the very beginning.

 

[J_C]

Normal people wouldn’t be interested enough to comment.

a normal person probably wouldn’t have started a thread about a book with such an idiotic premise.

LaMar you really should spend your money on better reading material.

 

[abucs]

Your posts are very amusing La Mar.

 

[LaMar]

Your posts are very amusing La Mar.

Glad you think so. And, for the record, I’ve been a big fan of abucs for a while now too.

 

[zerinus]

If it’s not your cup of tea, that’s fine. Normal people wouldn’t be interested enough to comment. Those who were interested would make an educated deconstruction. It’s only insecure cult members which need to swarm around with denunciations over stuff they’ve never read. Again, think Scientology, or Mormonism in the very beginning.

People don’t have to read a book to know that it is false, or trash, and therefore not worth reading. Peoples’ reading time is limited, and valuable. They don’t want to waste it on reading garbage.

There are people, for example, who deny the Holocaust. Some may have even written books about it. Well, I happen to know enough about history to know that the Holocaust did happen, and that any book claiming it didn’t is likely to have been written by a right wing anti-Semitist with a distorted view of history—in other words, garbage. Well, why should I waste my valuable time reading garbage? I don’t need to do that before I can safely dismiss the book for what it is—a load of trash—and saying so.

zerinus

 

[LaMar]

People don’t have to read a book to know that it is false, or trash, and therefore not worth reading. Peoples’ reading time is limited, and valuable. They don’t want to waste it on reading garbage.

There are people, for example, who deny the Holocaust. Some may have even written books about it. Well, I happen to know enough about history to know that the Holocaust did happen, and that any book claiming it didn’t is likely to have been written by a right wing anti-Semitist with a distorted view of history—in other words, garbage. Well, why should I waste my valuable time reading garbage? I don’t need to do that before I can safely dismiss the book for what it is—a load of trash—and saying so.

zerinus

Well Zerinus I know you wouldn’t read anything that’s not entirely faith promoting. LOL!

I’ve got cousins like you man. I bet you live in Nephi, or Bountiful, in one of those huge suburban tracts that have gone up in the last 50 years. I bet you went to BYU and aced all your institute classes. (You guys kill us in football every year, so I have to rib you).

This response from you is entirely expected, and doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m just surprised that Catholics share the true believer mentality in such a similar fashion.

I do admire the fact that you’ll even consider coming here, by the way. Any diversity is a good thing for Mormons of your variety. In ten years you might even decide that you like a Catholic or two (or other gentiles). Maybe you’ll broaden your educational horizons by then also.

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[Cosmo23]

I dont think that scholar exists!! He is an amalgamation of Jungian scholarly archetypes!!!

 

[ibkc]

I dont think that scholar exists!! He is an amalgamation of Jungian scholarly archetypes!!!

You, sir, have won this thread. Congratulations.

 

[LaMar]

I dont think that scholar exists!! He is an amalgamation of Jungian scholarly archetypes!!!

Good point. Do you think Jesus believes in Thomas L. Thompson?

(If he does exist, his name is evidence that his parents didn’t like him).

 

[zerinus]

Well Zerinus I know you wouldn’t read anything that’s not entirely faith promoting. LOL!

I’ve got cousins like you man. I bet you live in Nephi, or Bountiful, in one of those huge suburban tracts that have gone up in the last 50 years. I bet you went to BYU and aced all your institute classes. (You guys kill us in football every year, so I have to rib you).

This response from you is entirely expected, and doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m just surprised that Catholics share the true believer mentality in such a similar fashion.

I do admire the fact that you’ll even consider coming here, by the way. Any diversity is a good thing for Mormons of your variety. In ten years you might even decide that you like a Catholic or two (or other gentiles). Maybe you’ll broaden your educational horizons by then also.

Take Care,

LaMar

What a load of irrelevance.

zerinus

 

[LaMar]

What a load of irrelevance.

zerinus

President Monson just called. He wants me to extend his congratulations for managing to stay on topic lately, and he hopes you’ll continue to refrain from insulting non-Mormons.

Just thought I’d let you know.

 

[zerinus]

President Monson just called. He wants me to extend his congratulations for managing to stay on topic lately, and he hopes you’ll continue to refrain from insulting non-Mormons.

Just thought I’d let you know.

Pot calling the kettke black.

zerinus

 

[LaMar]

Pot calling the kettke black.

zerinus

Uhh, hate to break it to you, but I haven’t had my “account under review” or been asked to leave from here, temporarily or otherwise.

I hear you foot-dusted somebody at some point in the past. I hope that’s not true.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Well, I see about a half dozen people responding. A couple in good humor (which is cool). Others talking about violence, mob actions and murder, simply in response to someone writing a book.

They weren’t talking about raising violence. Instead, I think they were praising Christians for not raising violence.

You know, in other religions, if you condemn their religious leader in such a manner… well - you know what happens. Do cartoons and Denmark ring any bells?

What’s most interesting is the fact that no one has read the book, and the group consensus seems to be that simply reading material which might question official doctrine is “bad” or “evil”. The author is implied to be stupid, mentally ill or deserving of physical harm – rather than mistaken or wrong on the facts.

Are you suggesting that you’ve read it? What’s your favourite part of the book?

Maybe the author is a very wise man - and he is just raising controversy to sell books and make money. That wouldn’t be the first time, I’m sure.

This is a very cult like response. I honestly would never have guessed that Roman Catholics would display this reaction so prominently. It’s something I’d expect from Scientologists.

A more normal reaction would be for somebody to say, “I’ve read it, and in Chapter 2, the author says this, and if you look at that journal article you can see he’s not supported by his peers”.

Whether you guys know it or not, this is the way a normal discussion, with normal opponents progresses. It’s what I expected from Roman Catholics before I arrived here. Not what I got though.

Very, very interesting.

You’re very welcome to read the book. Take you favourite point, and raise a thread on it, and I’m sure you’ll get responses.

But don’t ask us to read books that you haven’t read.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Didn’t say he was, but it was very revealing that he thought about it. Wouldn’t you say?

I wouldn’t burn someone’s house down or beat him up in the street, simply for writing a book. (Joseph Smith did that once, and if I see him in the Celestial Kingdom I’m going to give him a piece of my mind for it).

Why would that come into someone’s mind, over a book? It’s really an interesting reaction. Quite revealing.

No, I don’t think it is revealing.

You don’t know either way, because you haven’t read it. I’m the only one on this thread that has a copy, as far as I know.

If it’s not your cup of tea, that’s fine. Normal people wouldn’t be interested enough to comment. Those who were interested would make an educated deconstruction. It’s only insecure cult members which need to swarm around with denunciations over stuff they’ve never read. Again, think Scientology, or Mormonism in the very beginning.

How amusing and…revealing, lol. But no, I’ve come across this theory. It might shock you but I don’t have to read every new book that comes out on the subject. I’ll waste my time with it when you tell me why his book is different from similar books.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

People don’t have to read a book to know that it is false, or trash, and therefore not worth reading. Peoples’ reading time is limited, and valuable. They don’t want to waste it on reading garbage.

There are people, for example, who deny the Holocaust. Some may have even written books about it. Well, I happen to know enough about history to know that the Holocaust did happen, and that any book claiming it didn’t is likely to have been written by a right wing anti-Semitist with a distorted view of history—in other words, garbage. Well, why should I waste my valuable time reading garbage? I don’t need to do that before I can safely dismiss the book for what it is—a load of trash—and saying so.

zerinus

All very good points.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Anyone here read this book? What did you think?

eden.co.uk/shop/messiah-myth-1006740.html

Since the eighteenth century, scholars and historians studying the texts of the Bible have attempted to distil historical facts and biography from the mythology and miracles described there. That trend continues into the present day, as scholars dissect the gospels and other early Christian writings to separate the ‘Jesus of history’ from the ‘Christ of faith’. But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed.

**Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah – a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection – is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. **

**Bruno Bauer worked out that Jesus was a fiction 130 years ago. The details can be found in “The Quest For the Historical Jesus”. **​

**As for “Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology” , Sigmund Mowinckel’s book “He That Cometh” looks at both, in detail - *without *concluding that Jesus is a fiction; yet it is devoted to studying Messianism. **

**Whatever else this may be, it is not new **

There are blunders that people can make only only if they are intelligent & well-educated; this is one of them. It remains a blunder. Of course, if Jesus is a fiction, it follows that He can’t be the husband of Mary Magdalene & the ancestor of the Merovingians, or whatever else He is made out to be, like a black lesbian three-legged toadstool from Pluto.

In Thompson’s view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions. Challenging widely held assumptions about the sources of the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus, The Messiah Myth is sure to spark controversy and heated debate.

About the author:
Thomas L. Thompson (born Jan 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian who lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen.

Thompson obtained a B.A. from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962, and his PhD at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1976. He has held positions at the University of Dayton (instructor), Detroit (assistant professor), Tuebingen (research associate), École Biblique (visiting professor), Lawrence University (visiting associate professor), and Marquette University (associate professor), and is presently professor at the University of Copenhagen (since 1993). He was named a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow in 1988. He is general editor for the Equinox Press monograph series Copenhagen International Seminar and associate editor of the “Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament,” and serves on the editorial boards of the journals “Holy Land Studies” and “Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift”.[1]

 

[CollegeKid]

Well Zerinus I know you wouldn’t read anything that’s not entirely faith promoting. LOL!

I’ve got cousins like you man. I bet you live in Nephi, or Bountiful, in one of those huge suburban tracts that have gone up in the last 50 years. I bet you went to BYU and aced all your institute classes. (You guys kill us in football every year, so I have to rib you).

This response from you is entirely expected, and doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m just surprised that Catholics share the true believer mentality in such a similar fashion.

I do admire the fact that you’ll even consider coming here, by the way. Any diversity is a good thing for Mormons of your variety. In ten years you might even decide that you like a Catholic or two (or other gentiles). Maybe you’ll broaden your educational horizons by then also.

Take Care,

LaMar

Spare us. I’m not even Mormon and I find your condescension and pretentious preening hard to stomach. So you didn’t expect a “true believer” mentality from Catholics when you came to make this post? First of all, I find it hard to stick a charge on us of actually being cultic true believers in light of the fact that “Thomas L. Thompson’s” thesis makes him an academic obscurantist because even most anti-Christian scholars concede that the Man did in fact exist.

Secondly, do you actually expect those of us who haven’t read Thompson’s book and made prior note of its inconsistencies and the holes in its arguments to just set aside our deepest-held beliefs and give his book the same weight we would any other scholarly historical work?

You express shock at seeing us treat something that is antithetical to our faith as “bad” or “evil.” (Personally, I thought this was overstated on your part, I didn’t see the same rancor in other posters’ responses) But consider this- if we believe one Person to be the Way, the Truth and the Life, what other conclusion could we possibly come to about an author who would try to make us believe He never existed, or at least about that author’s ideas?

Yes, a person should grow in their faith and this necessarily means learning the answers to objections to that faith; intellectual, historical and otherwise. But to come on these forums and try and reasonably claim to expect any of us to have either already read this and done a thoughtful cross-examination, or to be able to reach into our archives of Biblical Quarterly and turn to the highlighted paragraphs dealing with Christian-Babylonian-Mithraic parallels; that is simply posturing on your part.

 

[crenfro]

What’s most interesting is the fact that no one has read the book, and the group consensus seems to be that simply reading material which might question official doctrine is “bad” or “evil”. The author is implied to be stupid, mentally ill or deserving of physical harm – rather than mistaken or wrong on the facts.

This is a very cult like response. I honestly would never have guessed that Roman Catholics would display this reaction so prominently. It’s something I’d expect from Scientologists.

A more normal reaction would be for somebody to say, “I’ve read it, and in Chapter 2, the author says this, and if you look at that journal article you can see he’s not supported by his peers”.

Whether you guys know it or not, this is the way a normal discussion, with normal opponents progresses. It’s what I expected from Roman Catholics before I arrived here. Not what I got though.

Very, very interesting.

Hello LaMar.

This is my two cents and I sincerely mean all the good parts of it. Please take or leave it as you like.

I suspect you’re going to believe whatever it is, but it’s interesting you came to a well-labeled Catholic discussion forum and posted this particular topic.

Statements with poorly intentioned hidden agendas behind them irritate me to no end, people think they’re responding to an honest inquiry when someone is actually baiting them into an argument they’ve already constructed through to a conclusion, and I don’t want to bother engaging in a false argument.

I also think it’s better to attack the argument than the arguers, whatever their viewpoint.

What I’d like to see, what I think would be more useful here, is your interior dialogue discussing the claim about Jesus not being a historical figure.

Also, I’d like to read thoughts on what I see as the real questions being posed here: why don’t people argue the way I see as a logical argument? why do Catholics have such wonderful doctrine yet so many of them treat any doubter or challenger to them, who may well be in spiritual trouble and instead need love, prayers and support, with condescending criticism?

Just my reaction to your initial post and this thread.

And no, I haven’t read this book, as I choose to read books which support my faith. When I was younger though, I probably would have read it and had similiar reactions as yours. I’ve decided to be a believing Catholic because I’m much more at peace this way and because, if I weren’t, and I then found out I was wrong, I’d be in quite a bind.

 

[strngrnrth]

Many thousands of books on topics I’m interested in come out every year. I have a busy life. To relax, I post here and do a few other things, including reading on astrophysics, philosophy, theology (from a few different viewpoints), the arts, languages adn linguistics, history and life sciences among other disciplines, invent and join in others’ games of logic, pattern completion, wordplay, debunking "skeptics’ " arguments, and do creative work. That’s in my scant spare time. I also have an active multifaceted career, community involvement and church life. I would love to be able to read 100 pages a minute, afford fifteen books a day and type 3000 wpm so I could respond to everything in detail, but I have to pick and choose. Some things, though, are easily summarized, and this is one.
I cut my eyeteeth on the assumption that Jesus never existed and that all stories are really expressions of the CU. I have come to see the many logical holes in that belief system and the vast evidence against it over the decades. I have given examples before and am organizing a few thousand examples into a list whenever I get to it. I will continue to share them and so will many other posters here. One day I expect to publish my list and analysis with a full bibliography. I don’t plan to devote that time to answering LaMar because LaMar’s behavior suggests a deeply anti-intellectual approach to argument. I have spent enough years arguing serious topics with unserious arguers and I am through doing that.