The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[Windfish]

“in those superstitious times”

What research, what books, have you read on this? Do you know anything about Hellenistic Jews in the first century?

 

[Apollos]

The Gospels are not myths per se but I think there are myths in the Gospels.

Sounds to me like some people draw the line wherever it suits them … what if this is how it really happened?

 

[twb1621]

.

*And actually, even if we did have evidence outside of church tradition for the martyrdom of the apostles, I still would not rule out fanatics willing to die for their cult.

Church “Tradition” has nothing to do with the validity of martyrs including the apostles other than the honor attributed to them. Church history does, as does the history of Christianity itself. The history of Christianity provides ample proof of the Catholic Church and its lineage without bias, confirmed by many non-Catholic scholars. This history is supported by a great deal of evidence gathered and studied under more scrutiny than any other subject in history because of those who for thousands of years wanted desperately to prove it wrong and that is a lot of people. With all the support there is for Christianity that you do not accept, you acknowledge you would not rule out (in other words be open to accept) “fanatics willing to die for their cult” which other than biased theory has no support at all. Respectfully, your position is clearly based on bias with no validity and that is obvious.

In Truth there is plenty of evidence outside of Church tradition (much accessible on line now days) and if you researched and cross referenced your information you would already be aware of that. Try researching historic records and ancient documents of the roman empire during the eras in question with validly proven dated artifacts and authenticate the scholars, who with no bias, made their determinations jointly.

Research the methods of torture and death penalties common to the era. Research the archeological discoveries which have over 2000 years offered nothing but supporting evidence for many of the events and persons spoken of in scripture including Jesus, and what has not been proven as of yet has not been proven false or lacking merit. Research the ancient documents and writings of the Early Church Fathers and cross reference those against non-Christian historical documentation for the periods. Many of the saints remains have been located or where already in the possession of the Church since the beginning.

Many of the bones have the marks supportive of their recorded death. You accept theory that is unfounded and unsupported over what is historically supported and archeologically proven. In fact, scholars, of many beliefs and disbeliefs have already verified valid supporting evidence for many of the historic connections to those biblical events where supporting evidence has been found thus far.

*There are a whole host of psychological factors in play, including the notion that people who know they are going to be put to death as political subversives (regardless of what they say or what they recant) are likely to become extremely recalcitrant in their public claims, whatever they may be.

Perhaps this would be more of a possibility if the apostles were professionally trained revolutionaries although even such as professionals more often than not under such methods of torture would submit to the requests of their captures rather than face such agony and death. But then there is more proof to scripture than any theory along these lines you could come up with yet you deny what has been confirmed. The law of survival in human nature in general opposes the acceptance of imminent death through tortures such as the methods of the era.

We are referring to men who saw there “Messiah”, the one they believed to be the “Son of God” and their own Savior, who as such should have been able to destroy everyone around Him, allow Himself to be shackled, spit upon, beaten, dragged off and chained to a pillar where He was beaten further, flogged, whipped by flagrum, crowned with thorns known to average 1 to 2 inches in length according to archeological evidence and the known species of the region, penetrating the flesh of His head, then forced to carry a piece of lumber large enough to mount His living body above the ground, stretched with ropes to separate His joints, have nails similar in length to railroad spikes driven through His hands and feet as anchors, and left hanging until He would succumb to the pain and injuries He suffered.

continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

.

Now, all these men who believed in Him and followed Him ran for their lives from the enforcing authority when He was taken into custody. They went into hiding fearing their own lives would come to a similar end. Doesn’t sound like men with the disposition or determination to defy the highly professional soldiers who historically were recognized for their methods of brutality, torture and death, does it? How many people do you know that wouldn’t have done the same thing and how many people do you know that wouldn’t fall to either the Stockholm syndrome or submit to anything their captor desired to avoid such a brutal torture and death? And with everything these men had been taught and promised by their Messiah, they feared and ran for their lives, but forgot or more likely abandoned one thing due to the, as of yet, lack of proof;
He claimed He would rise from the dead on the third day. That based on human nature and considering these men were nothing but average and lower working class people of the era, would have been the only event that could have convinced them life does not end in human form but as The Son of Man proclaimed, goes on eternally. And suddenly, with no other explanation other than the one that would prove His Word of rising from the dead, their fears were overcome to the point they became confident in the eternal life they were promised and went forth publicly proclaiming the teachings He instructed still knowing what may and did happen to them. Your basis has no grounds in human nature or historic verification.

*There is additionally the known fact of “false confessions” and “false memories” and a whole host of other problems that come with the testimony of cult members.

“False confessions” are more common among people in situations of extreme fear of torture or serious bodily harm and death. It is a response in the attempting to survive. "false memories” are more common among cult members who in most cases are subjected to or willingly consume illegal or uncontrolled substances. This I know.

*But still, the fact is that I’m not aware of any good evidence outside of church tradition for the fact that the apostles were martyrs.

You haven’t been looking deeply enough without prejudice into it, that is your weakest link. If you followed your principles of required proof with all history you would have very little of the past or your own heritage to go by. Look deeply and without bias, want only to learn the truth.

In order for you to satisfy your own doubts you will have to prove it to yourself and the only way to do that is research it all and ask questions, not attempt to defraud what history acknowledges but you do not accept. Research takes devotion to learning the truth and the depth of that devotion determines the eternal life or damnation of the soul… if it is all true, correct? It would certainly be worth seeking the truth in that case.

 

[humble_catholic]

First, yes Mark is one of the earliest of the writers but new testament experts can date some of his sources to at least 7 years after Jesus resurrection if not earlier. Doctor Craig is one of the best researchers on the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection which is he regularly cleans the clocks of the best debaters that atheists have to offer.

here is one example:
leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

“This point becomes even more devastating for skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story, was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.{3}”

Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.

This is how historicity is measured in historical documents. Out of ANY document of ancient times there isnt one that comes close to the historicity of the new testament. NOT ONE
Also when a historian is measuring historicity, one of the things he takes into account is the amount of time needed for myths to develop. As you can see there is vitually no time for a myth to develop here. Also the enemies of Jesus knew he was performing miracles (here you have hostile eyewitnesses that were against Jesus that still wrote about him performing them, but they believed that he was doing them with Satans help, but the point is they believed he was performing miracles.)

Also the article talks about the incredible accurate of the gospel of Luke. Luke was so accurate that his reporting of certain people in those times like mayors of towns is more accurate and credible then secular historical accounts of those times, and this was proven many times by archeological digs that were found to uncover leaders of those times that werent found in the secular historical accounts. In short Luke is the most credible and accurate historian of those times.

Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life. But we discover an important fact about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly starts using the first-person plural: “we set sail from Troas to Samothrace,” “we remained in Philippi some days,” “as we were going to the place of prayer,” etc. The most obvious explanation is that the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and ministry in Jerusalem. Sceptical critics have done back-flips to try to avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural in Acts should not be taken literally; it’s just a literary device which is common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it out, turns out to be sheer fantasy.{4} There just was no literary device of sea voyages in the first person plural–the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses? Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna, and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.

Was the author reliable in getting the facts straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. {5}Hemer goes through the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to Professor Sherwin-White, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”{6} The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”{7} Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this author is trustworthy.

part 2

 

[humble_catholic]

Sir William Ramsey was an atheist who converted first because of the incredibly historicity and historical accuracy of Lukes accounts. As you can see he thought of LUKE as the premier historian of that time. Its funny that Ramsey originally started out his quest to try to prove the gospels wrong but came back a believer

I think if you go through this with an open mind and heart it will give you alot to think about.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think if you go through this with an open mind and heart it will give you alot to think about.

Gave Isaac Newton a lot to think about too.

 

[humble_catholic]

I think if you go through this with an open mind and heart it will give you alot to think about.

Gave Isaac Newton a lot to think about too.

Wasnt he Catholic

 

[Luke_K]

Right. So historical accounts of this event feature the appearance of ghosts and goblins. This is precisely the point I’m getting at: why is it that people accept that Caesar crossed the Rubicon but they do not accept the magical stories constructed around it and reported as history?

Well for one thing, because the only magical story constructed around it was by a guy 170 years after the event which isn’t recorded in the earlier accounts. Also, because the magical aspect is very secondary to the event and comes out of nowhere. I say “comes out of nowhere” in contrast to Jesus’ miracles because Jesus was a very good (the best) candidate for being the prophesied messiah, he claimed to be a prophet of God and equal to God, and his miracles tied in with his teachings and claims (resurrection from dead= triumph over sin/death for example).

Is it simply a matter of the number of texts? Are you telling me that if four accounts based on the one missing eyewitness account featured only the male ghost playing a reed, then you’d think it likely that there really was a ghost who convinced Caesar to do it?

No, and let’s not disregard St. Paul who provides the earliest mention of Jesus’ resurrection (whose quote I posted a while ago).

Let me post this summary from a website that argues against the assertion that the gospel writers invented the miracle stories:

Let me note that Meier considers the combination of Multiple Attestation and Coherence to be so strong as to render the additional criteria almost superfluous. His statement is very, very strong and bears careful contemplation by any historian [MJ:2:630f]:

"To sum up: the historical fact that Jesus performed extraordinary deeds deemed by himself and others to be miracles is supported most impressively by the criterion of multiple attestation of sources and forms and the criterion of coherence. The miracle traditions about Jesus’ public ministry are already so widely attested in various sources and literary forms by the end of the first Christian generation that total fabrication by the early church is, practically speaking, impossible. Other literary sources from the second and third generation-M, L, John, and Josephus–only confirm this impression. The criterion of coherence likewise supports historicity; the neat fit between the words and deeds of Jesus emanating from many different sources is striking.

"In contrast, the other primary criteria (discontinuity, embarrassment, rejection and execution) supply at best only partial or weak arguments. Similarly, the secondary criteria of Aramaic usage, Palestinian color, and tendencies of the miracle tradition within the Four Gospels give at best only “after-the-fact” support. That is to say, granted the weighty and convincing evidence from the criteria of multiple attestation and coherence, the other criteria all point in the same direction of historicity. Put negatively, none of the other criteria runs counter to the two decisive criteria; all give at least weak backing.

“The curious upshot of our investigation is that, viewed globally, the tradition of Jesus’ miracles is more firmly supported by the criteria of historicity than are a number of other well-known and often readily accepted traditions about his life and ministry (e.g., his status as a carpenter, his use of ‘abba’ in prayer, his own prayer in Gethsemane before his arrest). Put dramatically but with not too much exaggeration: if the miracle tradition from Jesus’ public ministry were to be rejected in toto as unhistorical, so should every other Gospel tradition about him. For if the criteria of historicity do not work in the case of the miracle tradition, where multiple attestation is so massive and coherence so impressive, there is no reason to expect them to work elsewhere. The quest would have to be abandoned. Needless to say, that is not the conclusion we have reached here.”

If you want to read how there indications from the miracle stories themselves that suggest their historicity, here’s the link I posted that summary from: christian-thinktank.com/mq11.html It’s part of a much larger treatment of the issue on whether the gospel writers fabricated the miracles: Good Question–did the NT author’s invent the miracle stories in the gospels?

(continued…)

 

[Luke_K]

(…continued)

AntiTheist:

Come on now. Ascribing stories of magic to great men was something that happened back in those days.

Let me quote that website again:

So, where does this leave us in regards to claims to divinity and miracles on the part of Roman Emperors (e.g., Augustus and Vespasian)?

1. There are almost no claims of direct miracles performed by emperors, with the only one about Augustus (i.e., the silencing of the frogs as a toddler) likely being a ‘portent of coming power’ and the one by Vespasian likely invented by someone in Vespasian’s train.

1. The various signs and portents and omens and claims to divine connection were political tools, generally constructed, leaked, and distributed by members of the warring factions—all with ties to the living leader and all with massive financial (and biological!) stake in the outcome of the conflict over power.

1. Once someone was in power, the claims and divine pretensions seemingly ‘stop’ and life goes back to normal—except for the random, insane megalomaniac.

1. There is no ‘natural growth of legend’ occurring here at all—it’s mostly either (a) well-crafted propaganda or (b) attempts on the part of others to ingratiate themselves via flattery into the good graces of a current or prospective emperor.

1. The vast majority of the wilder claims occur in genres of praise, flattery, poetry, and drama—not the more sober genres of history and biography.

1. Most self-claims to pre-mortem divinity were considered foolish and reprehensible; and when others ascribed ‘divine titles’ to emperors, it often was only an expression of deep appreciation, recognition of authority (e.g., conquering general), or recognition of superior personal benefaction (not a theological statement).

1. Almost all of the divine attributions are about living leaders, not dead ones; and in the case of dead leaders, it is made by or to someone who owes their power (or continuation of their power/authority) to the continued respect for the authority of the dead leader (e.g., Octavian as “son of the god Julius”).

Also, Suetonius is the guy that wrote about Augustus performing the “silencing of the frogs” miracle, so he seems like a guy that is prone to attributing magical events to the Roman emperors. The source text appears to be this:

As soon as he began to talk, it chanced that the frogs were making a great noise at his grandfather’s country place; he bade them be silent, and they say that since then no frog has ever croaked there.

So if you seriously want to compare the historicity of that to Jesus’ miracles or resurrection, be my guest.

 

[twb1621]

The following Vatican link provides access to the procedures followed for the investigation and canonization of saints for those interested.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/index.htm

 

[Walter_Maxey]

The topic of this thread makes me wonder whether the Gospels were even meant to be “evidence” of anything…at least not in the legal/proof sense meant by AntiTheist. … [G]iven the above, and perhaps just for me personally, the proper response to the OP seems to be, “So what?”

Although the two word finale to my post might have sounded flippant towards AntiTheist (and let me apologize if it did), my post was intended to question the premise which underlies both (i) AntiTheist’s attack, and (ii) the defenses offered by Catholics in this thread.

I noticed that we seem to have found something about which AntiTheist and most Catholics here agree: the Gospels were intended to be “convincing evidence” (as opposed to teaching aides for the ready convinced, or at least for those already inclined towards belief).

We can see this in the many attempts by Catholics in this thread rushing to challenge AntiTheist’s conclusion. But our attitudes notwithstanding, I’m not sure that is a battle we will win (at least, certainly not to AntiTheist’s satisfaction–and let’s face it, is it really all that unreasonable to be at least initially skeptical about 2000 year old hearsay written in a time when accuracy in historical writings was not the highest priority?–after all, I don’t think we believe the Gospels because of the writings themselves; rather, I think we believe them because we acknowledge the authority of the organization that wrote them and compiled them in the 4th century).

I am suggesting that we need not fight Anti-Theist’s conclusion, because we need not accept his premise that the Gospels were intended to be conclusive evidence, in and of themselves.

My “Thoughts?” question at the end of my post was as much directed at the other Catholics in this thread as it was at Anti-theist. I sense that at least some Catholics here might disagree with me (thereby agreeing with AntiTheist on this point).

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Walter Maxey, I will not deter from what I have already provided within this topic. (I suggest people, especially you, read those messages of mine and others who defend the Bible which is THE GOSPELS. Furthermore, I don’t wholeheartedly agree with your last post., especially with this comment, “I sense that at least some Catholics here might disagree with me (thereby agreeing with AntiTheist on this point).” Honestly that makes little sense to me because you are basically knocking down every Catholic that has been posting here to defend the Bible.

I will continue onward with more evidence! Here is a small amount what HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO ACADEMICS OF THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL INSTITUTE wrote on October 26, 2009. I hope everyone will read the entire document.

It is with true pleasure that I meet with you on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the foundation of your Institute . . .

One hundred years have passed since the birth of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. In the course of this century,** interest in the Bible has certainly increased, and much more importance has been given to the word of God in the life and in the mission of the Church, thanks to the Second Vatican Council**, especially through the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum in the elaboration of which I was a direct witness, participating as a theologian in the discussions that preceded its approval. This has promoted an authentic spiritual and pastoral renewal in the Christian community, which has particularly concerned preaching, catechesis, theological study and ecumenical dialogue. **Your Pontifical Institute has made its own significant contribution to this renewal, through scientific biblical research, the instruction of biblical disciplines and the publication of qualified studies and specialized magazines. **Throughout the decades, various generations of distinguished professors have succeeded one another at this point I would like to remember, among others, Cardinal Bea who have educated more than 7,000 professors of Sacred Scripture and promoters of biblical groups, as well as many experts who are currently working in various ecclesiastical services in every region of the world. We give thanks to the Lord for this work of yours that aims to interpret biblical texts in the spirit in which they were written (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 12), open to dialogue with other disciplines, with diverse cultures and religions. Even if it has known difficult times, it has been conducted in constant fidelity to the Magisterium, according to the purposes proper to your Institute, founded to: “ut in Urbe Roma altiorum studiorum ad Libros sacros pertinentium habeatur centrum, quod efficaciore, quo liceat, modo doctrinam biblicam et studia omnia eidem adiuncta, sensu Ecclesiae catholicae promoveat” (Pius X, Apostolic Letter Vinea Electa, 7 May 1909: AAS 1, 1909, pp. 447-448).

Dear friends, the occasion of your centenary represents a point of arrival and at the same time a point of departure. Enriched by your past experience, continue on your path with renewed commitment, conscious of the service to the Church that is requested of you that of bringing the Bible nearer to the lives of the People of God, so that they may know how to confront the unprecedented challenges that modern times pose to the new evangelization. The common hope is that the Sacred Scripture may become, in this secularized world, not only the soul of theology but also the source of spirituality and of vigour in the faith of all believers in Christ. Therefore may the Pontifical Biblical Institute continue to grow as a qualified ecclesial centre of higher quality study in the field of biblical research, employing modern critical methodologies. In collaboration with specialists in dogma and in other theological areas, may it provide a sound formation for future professors of Sacred Scripture so that, availing themselves of the Biblical languages and of the diverse exegetical methodologies, they may directly plumb the biblical texts.

The aforementioned Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, in this regard, emphasized the legitimacy and the necessity of the historico-critical method, outlining its three essential components: attention to literary genres, study of the historical context and examination of what is called Sitz im Leben. At the same time, the conciliar Document firmly maintains the theological character of exegesis, indicating the strong points of the theological method in the interpretation of the text. This is because the fundamental basis on which the theological understanding of the Bible rests is the unity of Scripture, and this presupposition corresponds in its methodological path to the analogy of the faith, that is, to the comprehension of single texts based on the whole. The conciliar text adds another methodological indication. Since Scripture is one and the same, originating from one People of God, who has borne it throughout history, consequently, to read Scripture as a unified whole means to read it as a product of the People of God, of the Church taken as a place of vital importance, retaining the faith of the Church as a true interpretive key. If exegesis also seeks to be theology, it must recognize that the faith of the Church is that form of “sym-pathy” without which the Bible would remain a closed book; Tradition does not close access to Scripture but rather opens it. On the other hand, the final word in the interpretation of Scripture lies with the Church, through her institutional organisms. It is the Church, in fact, that has been entrusted with the task of authentically interpreting the written and spoken word of God, exercising her authority in the name of Jesus Christ (cf. Dei Verbum, n. 10). . . .

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20091026_pib_en.html

p.s. Walter, welcome back home!

 

[traillius]

The criteria aren’t overly stringent, though - they’re scientifically rigorous.

I’m sure that some who have not appeared before the investigations have had improbable cures, but since they have not been rigorously verified, I can’t really accept them. If I’m going to look at this scientifically, I need all supposed miracles to be completely checked out.

Have multiple doctors confirmed that the bones were completely unfused the day before, and the very next day confirmed that they were fused properly?

It’s not an act of faith, it’s more of a reasonable belief. If the empirical investigation of our world around us has revealed most things to be purely naturalistic, with a few others that are still being worked out, it’s not unreasonable to think that the rest of our world is naturalistic too.

That’s your reasoning? Something naturalistic can’t have been created by intelligence? I find your logic to be inconsistent with reality. If I plant a seed and it grows, the plant is natural. Does that mean I did not plant the seed, or that I don’t exist? But you extrapolate this to God, and then say He can’t exist because the plant grew naturally? Then again, you haven’t seen me physically, to the best of both our knowledge. Maybe I don’t exist. You could just say that my text here is mythical written by someone pretending that I exist.

I don’t know specifically what made Jesus a great, charismatic teacher, but being great and charismatic isn’t necessarily proof of divinity. There have been plenty of great, charismatic teachers throughout history.

I don’t believe that most of what the Gospels say he did and said actually happened.

I don’t know why he had such wisdom and charisma, but again, it’s not as if only the divine can have those qualities.

The success of the community that Jesus established can probably be explained by the persecution and faith of his followers. That, plus the Roman Empire’s adoption of the faith, and the European missionaries who carried his word all over the world, explains how Christianity exists all over the world.

 

[Tuno]

Some observations:

1. Julius Caeser is known to have existed, whether or not he crossed said Rubicon. Even though it is likely that “Jesus” (as we in translation call Him) existed, we have no other evidence than the Gospels that this is so. The Gospels, being works that to a large extent are duplicates or compilations of previous works, themselves tend to verify that there was a) a person who exemplified the meaning of the Gospels to a group of people and they attributed the the “works” to Him instead of say, Iosos, one of the original characters in such tales. Or b) there was a group of people around the start of the C.E. who understood the mythic portent of the Gospels, lived them, and that group both grew and over time deteriorated the original mythic intent into alleged history and dogma. The failure of Paul to refer to any actual events in Jesus’ life and the way he refers to Him tend to promote this one.
2. There were many “Jesuses” at that time, the conglomerate of which may have earned the attributed personhood we read of in the Gospels. Less likely, but maybe a factor. Anyone familiar with the beginning of T.E. Lawrence book and his description of Middle Eastern cultures will have an insight on this phenomenon.
3. Similarly to Olsens’s misuse of the word “myth” to denote “fairy tale,” your understanding of the Matrix “theory” is both incomplete (at best) and loaded with some degree of emotionalism.
4. You are correct in saying that there was much magic attributed to many historic figures. So was divinity, as evidenced by the Pharos of Egypt, some Emperors of Rome, and many others.
5. The Gospels as myths, that is, as teaching tales, parables, or psycho-spiritual maps may. in the right hands, have greater transformative value than the Gospels as alleged history. They would then conform, as many understand them to, to a very real morphogenic process which we historically find culminated in a large number of individuals. These of course are dismissed by the Church by dint of the dogged and dogmatic insistence of the Jesus myth being history, as distinct from a traceable and documentable methodology now at least some 5500 years old. This is supported by the nature of the Identity statements in both the OT and NT which can be understood as statements by the speakers of accomplishing the state of non-dual Conscious Awareness. That is distinct from the ordinary subject/object simple awareness gained by humans at an event spuriously described in Christian terms as “The Fall.”

 

[traillius]

I gather that the previous poster chooses to ignore, or is unaware of, greek, roman, and jewish texts referencing the existence of One Specific Jesus of Nazareth as an historical figure. I won’t debate that, its up to him to prove there is no Jesus. He made the claim, an implicit challenge has been made, and now he must show sufficient evidence that his claim is correct. Affirmative, in the case of burden of proof, lies with one making any specific claim, not the one refuting it. burden of proof rules aren’t about the nature of a specific argument, but about the obligation of a claimant, irrespective of their specific claims to prove his claim is correct.

 

[Pieman333272]

1. Julius Caeser is known to have existed, whether or not he crossed said Rubicon. Even though it is likely that “Jesus” (as we in translation call Him) existed, we have no other evidence than the Gospels that this is so. The Gospels, being works that to a large extent are duplicates or compilations of previous works, themselves tend to verify that there was a) a person who exemplified the meaning of the Gospels to a group of people and they attributed the the “works” to Him instead of say, Iosos, one of the original characters in such tales. Or b) there was a group of people around the start of the C.E. who understood the mythic portent of the Gospels, lived them, and that group both grew and over time deteriorated the original mythic intent into alleged history and dogma. The failure of Paul to refer to any actual events in Jesus’ life and the way he refers to Him tend to promote this one.

Wrong. We know Jesus (or, Yeshua) was a real person and moral teacher from Josephus, if you choose not to believe the Church’s tradition and history.

1. There were many “Jesuses” at that time, the conglomerate of which may have earned the attributed personhood we read of in the Gospels. Less likely, but maybe a factor. Anyone familiar with the beginning of T.E. Lawrence book and his description of Middle Eastern cultures will have an insight on this phenomenon.

Josephus also notes that the Jesus he was talking about had some followers, had already died, and was a traveling moral teacher/rabbi/philosopher. As stated by me before, there is another passage by Josephus saying he was the Christ and worked miracles, but that has been proven neither fake nor authentic.

1. Similarly to Olsens’s misuse of the word “myth” to denote “fairy tale,” your understanding of the Matrix “theory” is both incomplete (at best) and loaded with some degree of emotionalism.

Please specify whom this is to and what you mean, I can’t write a response until then (if necessary)

1. You are correct in saying that there was much magic attributed to many historic figures. So was divinity, as evidenced by the Pharos of Egypt, some Emperors of Rome, and many others.

But, the Egyptians, Romans, and Zoroastrians did not write 4 or more similar books about a single person and acknowledged that not all of them preformed miracles, healings, or stated wise and often philosophically correct parables and ideas. Also, time and again, Jesus’ miracles have been proven both scientifically and historically correct/possible and likely, though I must admit not all of them, and none of them have been disproven completely. Most of the Roman, Egyptian, Greek and Zoroastrian miracles and myths are not possible and when they rarely are are also very unlikely.

1. The Gospels as myths, that is, as teaching tales, parables, or psycho-spiritual maps may. in the right hands, have greater transformative value than the Gospels as alleged history. They would then conform, as many understand them to, to a very real morphogenic process which we historically find culminated in a large number of individuals. These of course are dismissed by the Church by dint of the dogged and dogmatic insistence of the Jesus myth being history, as distinct from a traceable and documentable methodology now at least some 5500 years old. This is supported by the nature of the Identity statements in both the OT and NT which can be understood as statements by the speakers of accomplishing the state of non-dual Conscious Awareness. That is distinct from the ordinary subject/object simple awareness gained by humans at an event spuriously described in Christian terms as “The Fall.”

Jesus is not a myth. We know he existed, taught, and died. We know he had followers. We know they spread the Gospel around the Roman Empire and died for him, when they could have said he was not divine and deny his teachings. We know he fulfilled many Jewish messianic prophesies and promised to come again to fufill the others. The prophesies are historically correct. When and where the OT mentioned they were written, history points to the fact that Jews lived there and why, and that there were significant people in those areas and times amongst Jews.

 

[Luke_K]

The failure of Paul to refer to any actual events in Jesus’ life and the way he refers to Him tend to promote this one.

What do you mean he didn’t refer to any actual events in Jesus’ life? He refers to the two most important events!

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.” (1 Cor 11: 23-26)

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.” (1 Cor 15:3-8)

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Some observations:

1. Julius Caeser is known to have existed, whether or not he crossed said Rubicon. Even though it is likely that “Jesus” (as we in translation call Him) existed, we have no other evidence than the Gospels that this is so. The Gospels, being works that to a large extent are duplicates or compilations of previous works, themselves tend to verify that there was a) a person who exemplified the meaning of the Gospels to a group of people and they attributed the the “works” to Him instead of say, Iosos, one of the original characters in such tales. Or b) there was a group of people around the start of the C.E. who understood the mythic portent of the Gospels, lived them, and that group both grew and over time deteriorated the original mythic intent into alleged history and dogma. The failure of Paul to refer to any actual events in Jesus’ life and the way he refers to Him tend to promote this one.

1. Josephus
2. Pliny the Younger
3. Tacitus
4. Pagan Historian Thallus
5. Justin Martyr
6. Eusebius
7. Clement of Rome
8. Ignatius of Antioch
9. Suetonius

Have a great day.

 

[Tuno]

All suspect at best, if not discredited.

Thanks, My day has so far been excellent.

Blessings,

Tuno