The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[Peter_Plato]

You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment beyond a passing mention of the potentially missing word ‘allegedly’.

Hopefully, we will thus avoid a session of variations on: “Oh, yes it is!/Oh, no it isn’t!”

You are content with drive–by skepticism, then?

 

[tomarin]

The Shroud is hard (well, okay, “soft”) evidence. The growth of the Church, the conversion of Paul, the Gospels, the continuity with the Old Testament prophecies, the destruction of Jerusalem, the martyrdoms of the disciples and Apostles are all evidences in the sense of these all need to be explained by whatever brought them about. There is no reason not to side with the best explanation as far as the entirety of events is concerned.

As for Kierkegaard, as much as I think he was a master of identifying and explicating what it means to be Christian by way of an intensely personal depiction of it, he wasn’t Catholic in the sense of seeing what that first person account means relative to belonging to the community of saints as a member of the Body of Christ.

Kierkegaard would, himself, admit that his role was to be a keen observer of what it means to be a Christian, not that he, himself, necessarily was one, perfectly.

Kierkegaard’s point was that for faith to truly be faith it has to involve a leap. Otherwise, it’s not faith, just historical witness. And the things you mentioned as evidence don’t qualify as independent corroboration of what Christianity teaches in its holy writings and traditions. The growth of the church? Islam has grown plenty since its inception, it don’t make it the true religion!

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

That is the difference between the Christian belief of God and the Islamic view of God. Catholic is just a branch of Christianity. That statement would be like saying the difference between the “Catholic God and the Sunni God”.

I should probably check my writing more often! I meant to say “Catholic belief of Jesus”.

 

[eddie_too]

I read this quote in an earlier post and could not resist commenting.

“The Qu’ran, on the other hand, is said to have been directly dictated by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, so would be the verbatim Word of God.”

so, this prompted this question, why would that not make the Qu’ran the verbatim word of the angel Gabriel?

 

[Contarini]

I usually don’t hear people claim that Christ didn’t exist since I believe science states that Christ must have existed.

Science, if you mean the natural sciences, doesn’t have anything to say about it. It’s a historical question, and history doesn’t say anything about what “must have happened.”

Historically, few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, but there are a few. Of course, there are a lot more scholars who posit a “historical Jesus” who was very different from the Jesus of the Gospels.

Edwin

 

[Kaninchen]

You are content with drive–by skepticism, then?

I’ll leave that temptation dangling.

 

[Kliska]

Once in a while when I visit discussion forums (non religious subjects) , invariably talk mixes subjects about Christianity or Jesus. It then devolves into Jesus and the “2000 year myth”.

Now my question is first why do discussion eventually lead to this and second how often have you noticed it happening? Thirdly the arguments don’t devolve usually into Islam. But why not? After all Islam also believes in a "Jesus ".

So, if Jesus is a "myth " is it wrong to involve ourselves and mention on these forums that Jesus can’t be a Myth when Billons on earth know there was such a person? Regardless of how Jesus is considered in Christianity and Islam. (I know that we can even consider other Faiths who may accept that this "holy man " lJesus did exist) .

Interested in everyone’s thoughts.

God bless.

MJ

My thoughts? I do Christian apologetics online… I have ran across this a lot… it makes me want to ram my head into a brick wall to make the pain go away. Honestly, it usually turns out the person hasn’t really researched the question, but rather is parroting something they read on the 'net. It usually also signifies that person is not interested in a logical, evidence based discussion.

 

[lax16]

All terribly vague, isn’t it?

There is always archaeological evidence to consider. This is believed to be the oldest church discovered to date:

theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/07/israel.artsnews

Toiling behind the barbed wire and watchtowers, they uncovered a detailed and well-preserved mosaic, the foundations of a rectangular building, and pottery dated to the third or early fourth century.* One of several inscriptions on the mosaic floor in ancient Greek said the building was dedicated to “the memory of the Lord Jesus Christ”.**

Other inscriptions name a Roman army officer, Gaianus, who donated money to build the floor, and a woman called Ekoptos who “donated this table to the God Jesus Christ in commemoration”. The table is believed to have served as an altar.

“There are no crosses on the mosaic floor,” said Yotam Tepper, an archaeologist who led the dig on behalf of the Israeli Antiquities Authority. "In their place is a picture of two fish lying side by side - a very early Christian symbol.

"This is an extremely dramatic discovery, because such an old building of this type has never been found either in the land of Israel or anywhere else in the entire region. The structure and the mosaic floor date back to the period before Christianity became an officially recognised religion, before St Constantine.*

What do you think of evidence such as this?

 

[lax16]

Once in a while when I visit discussion forums (non religious subjects) , invariably talk mixes subjects about Christianity or Jesus. It then devolves into Jesus and the “2000 year myth”.

Now my question is first why do discussion eventually lead to this and second how often have you noticed it happening? Thirdly the arguments don’t devolve usually into Islam. But why not? After all Islam also believes in a "Jesus ".

So, if Jesus is a "myth " is it wrong to involve ourselves and mention on these forums that Jesus can’t be a Myth when Billons on earth know there was such a person? Regardless of how Jesus is considered in Christianity and Islam. (I know that we can even consider other Faiths who may accept that this "holy man " lJesus did exist) .

Interested in everyone’s thoughts.

God bless.

MJ

All religious movements have a founder or a beginning. If Jesus Christ never lived, how did Christianity get started?

 

[Kaninchen]

What do you think of evidence such as this?

If you notice, my question was about a particular part of a post and I don’t really see what a 3-4th century Roman-financed Church has to do with that (remember what happened to the Jewish population after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt).

 

[lax16]

If you notice, my question was about a particular part of a post and I don’t really see what a 3-4th century Roman-financed Church has to do with that (remember what happened to the Jewish population after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt).

So you don’t question that Jesus existed?

 

[Kaninchen]

So you don’t question that Jesus existed?

I’ve always thought the argument over whether he existed or not is one of the great wastes of time that internet conversations can indulge in.

Whether who one might describe as Jesus™ existed - as opposed to some itinerant Rabbi who was wandering around the Holy Land at the time - or not is another matter altogether.

 

[lax16]

I’ve always thought the argument over whether he existed or not is one of the great wastes of time that internet conversations can indulge in.

Whether who one might describe as Jesus™ existed - as opposed to some itinerant Rabbi who was wandering around the Holy Land at the time - or not is another matter altogether.

Well, Kaninchen, you are the one posting on the thread titled The Jesus is a Myth, Myth.

Wasn’t Jesus an itinerant Rabbi wandering around the Holy Land?

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, Kaninchen, you are the one posting on the thread titled The Jesus is a Myth, Myth.

Hey, I was just questioning a particular assertion in a particular post.

Wasn’t Jesus an itinerant Rabbi wandering around the Holy Land?

Allegedly.

Seriously, I have no problem with the idea that the Christian Jesus™ was very, very likely based on a real person. It’s the nature of that relationship that’s the question.

But that’s a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem and aside from the purpose of the thread.

 

[jas84173]

Because they come from a Judeo-Christian background. The same reason they don’t spend time why the Hindu gods aren’t real.

Atheists who were raised in Islamic cultures would likely spend more time debunking Islam than Christianity. We discuss what we know (or think we know).

There actually is debate among scholars as to whether or not Krishna was a mortal, of course he wasn’t blue and always playing a flute but some.believe a person did exist that the traditions of Krishna came from.

 

[drac16]

Billions know there was such a person?
I wouldn’t use that wording. I’d say perhaps billions believe there was such a person…that would be more accurate.

.

Don’t be a smart aleck. We know that Jesus existed because the Creator has spread knowledge of his Messiah across the whole world. God Has spoken. Try using your nit picking on Judgment Day, if you’re such a hot shot. See how far that gets you.

 

[lax16]

Hey, I was just questioning a particular assertion in a particular post.

I was responding to your post that stated the writings of Josephus were “terribly vague”. That’s why I brought up the archaeological discussion because it is more concrete.

Allegedly.

Yes, that is what has been said about Jesus for 2,000 years!

Seriously, I have no problem with the idea that the Christian Jesus™ was very, very likely based on a real person. It’s the nature of that relationship that’s the question.

Why do you put the name of Jesus as a trademark?
What do you mean by the “nature of the relationship”?

But that’s a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem and aside from the purpose of the thread.

It’s not a Christian problem because we know that Jesus is not a myth
It is not a Jewish problem, however there are Jewsh people that claim he never lived. Why?

 

[Kaninchen]

I was responding to your post that stated the writings of Josephus were “terribly vague”. That’s why I brought up the archaeological discussion because it is more concrete.

I’m still waiting for the writings of John the Baptist bit.

Why do you put the name of Jesus as a trademark?

A tongue-in-cheek way of suggesting that the Christian Jesus may well be a long, long way from the original.

What do you mean by the “nature of the relationship”?

What kind of projection the Christian Jesus may be from the original.

It is not a Jewish problem, however there are Jewsh people that claim he never lived. Why?

Many Jews are about as interested in Jesus as your average Catholic is interested in Mohammed or John Smith.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Kierkegaard’s point was that for faith to truly be faith it has to involve a leap. Otherwise, it’s not faith, just historical witness. And the things you mentioned as evidence don’t qualify as independent corroboration of what Christianity teaches in its holy writings and traditions. The growth of the church? Islam has grown plenty since its inception, it don’t make it the true religion!

I suggest you read Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for a well argued and comprehensive look at why “independent” corroboration would not add a whole lot to the very strong case for eyewitness testimony that can be made from the “internal” evidence that exists. Internal evidence includes statistics concerning use of names in the Gospels which match very closely the prevalence of male and female names pre-destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This would have been a virtually impossible task for writers trying to reconstruct the naming of characters after a century or two.

Also, J. Warner Wallace’s Cold Case Christianity takes the fact that first hand eye witness testimony is strong evidence as far as any modern courtroom is concerned. This from a seasoned cold case detective from the Los Angeles area who lays out the case for Christianity from the consistency and reliability of the eyewitnesses.

Then there is the work of Tim McGrew who is developing what he calls a case from undesigned coincidences or unplanned corroboration within the New Testament writings. There are two episodes of the Unbelievable? radio program devoted to a discussion of his work with Bart Ehrman as his critic. McGrew presents a very good case which will be much stronger when he completes his writing of it.

premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes

I think the cumulative case for Christianity relying solely on the internal evidence is very strong but requires a great deal of knowledge on the subject. Kaninchen is correct that trying to argue the case on the Internet with those who are largely unfamiliar with how the internal evidence fits together to build the case is largely a waste of time. Most atheist interlocutors (and Jews, apparently) aren’t very interested in looking into the details that solidify that case.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Kierkegaard’s point was that for faith to truly be faith it has to involve a leap. Otherwise, it’s not faith, just historical witness.

To put it differently, faith involves infinite resignation to the will of God. That doesn’t necessarily exclude historical witness. The Apostles were witnesses to what they knew and saw with their own eyes. That witness has merit on its own standing.

Don’t forget that religious faith, for Kierkegaard, was the culmination or final stage of life. Reaching that stage presumes one has gone through the aesthetic and ethical stages AND experienced their limitations vis a vis the Infinite.

Kierkegaard wasn’t advocating a kind of blind faith but, rather, a uniquely personal encounter with God on God’s terms, not ours. Getting there is an entirely different matter than mere blind leaps in the dark.