The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[lax16]

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

What do you mean?

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

Please elaborate. How might the Christian Jesus be different from the original?

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

Explain?

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

Unfortunately, most of the Jews I know are very anti-Christian. I don’t think this means they are not interested in knowing if Jesus ever existed. I have a brother-in-law (Jewish) who always says that Jesus “supposedly” lived.
Funny, he never says that about Mohammed.

Anyway, I think many Jews say “we don’t know if he existed” because they don’t know what else to say.

 

[KathleenGee]

In regards to ancient myths similar to Genesis, Adam and Eve…truth can exist in myths.

 

[tomarin]

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.

The problem with this as I see it is that while it’s interesting to speculate, there is no historical evidence for Jesus’s existence outside the Bible, and the Bible is a religious text not a historical one. But that’s not an obstacle to faith, of course.

 

[lax16]

The problem with this as I see it is that while it’s interesting to speculate, there is no historical evidence for Jesus’s existence outside the Bible, and the Bible is a religious text not a historical one. But that’s not an obstacle to faith, of course.

Did you see my post on archaeological proof for the existence of Jesus?

 

[tomarin]

Did you see my post on archaeological proof for the existence of Jesus?

I saw something about the archaeological remains of one of the oldest churches, but I don’t follow how that constitutes proof of Jesus’ existence.

 

[lax16]

I saw something about the archaeological remains of one of the oldest churches, but I don’t follow how that constitutes proof of Jesus’ existence.

I was referring to the fact that on the floor of this ancient church, one of the mosaics written in ancient Greek said that the “building is dedicated to the memory of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

 

[tomarin]

I was referring to the fact that on the floor of this ancient church, one of the mosaics written in ancient Greek said that the “building is dedicated to the memory of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

But isn’t that what one would expect to find in an ancient church? How does that prove the historicity of Jesus one way or the other?

 

[lax16]

But isn’t that what one would expect to find in an ancient church? How does that prove the historicity of Jesus one way or the other?

What is interesting is that the inscription is 1) dedicated to Jesus’ memory and 2) Jesus is referred to as Lord.

Well, just the fact that there are ancient churches are proof that SOMETHING was going on 2,000 years ago that was not going on before. They also found a table that was used as an altar. This was a new finding as well in ancient buildings in the area.

So, no, if there was not a movement started by a person 2,000 years ago I would not expect to find churches dedicated to them. Would you?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

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

No, science does not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The problem with this as I see it is that while it’s interesting to speculate, there is no historical evidence for Jesus’s existence outside the Bible, and the Bible is a religious text not a historical one. But that’s not an obstacle to faith, of course.

There is a kind of bait-and-switch tactic that is used quite frequently with regard to evidence. The kind of evidence available from the past will never meet the threshold of “evidence” required to dispel the kind of doubt that Cartesian certainty demands. No inductive evidence can ever meet that standard.

To claim there is “no historical evidence” outside the Bible is flatly wrong. There exists all kinds of evidence outside of the Bible that corroborates what is found in the Gospels and Scripture generally, if the meaning of the word “evidence” is “available information which supports or validates a position or proposition.” That evidence can take the form of geographical locations, historical persons, writings, known facts, etc., which all serve to corroborate what is written inside the Bible. That, too, is evidence. Internal consistency and the fact that Scripture accords with what has been understood to have occurred outside the Bible is, likewise, evidence.

If you wish to deny the proper meaning of evidence for the sake of holding onto a misconceived point, you will run smack into the problem of induction. What “evidence” – according to your view of what evidence is – exists to legitimize those sources “outside the Bible” that can’t serve to authenticate what is found inside of it? Those sources will also be reduced to inadmissibility by the same standards you choose to arbitrarily apply to what exists “inside the Bible.” It comes down to permitting biased standards outside while ruling those inadmissible inside.

 

[lax16]

No, science does not.

Can science prove that anyone has existed? Other than those who have left DNA evidence, of course.

 

[tomarin]

There is a kind of bait-and-switch tactic that is used quite frequently with regard to evidence. The kind of evidence available from the past will never meet the threshold of “evidence” required to dispel the kind of doubt that Cartesian certainty demands. No inductive evidence can ever meet that standard.

To claim there is “no historical evidence” outside the Bible is flatly wrong. There exists all kinds of evidence outside of the Bible that corroborates what is found in the Gospels and Scripture generally, if the meaning of the word “evidence” is “available information which supports or validates a position or proposition.” That evidence can take the form of geographical locations, historical persons, writings, known facts, etc., which all serve to corroborate what is written inside the Bible. That, too, is evidence. Internal consistency and the fact that Scripture accords with what has been understood to have occurred outside the Bible is, likewise, evidence.

If you wish to deny the proper meaning of evidence for the sake of holding onto a misconceived point, you will run smack into the problem of induction. What “evidence” – according to your view of what evidence is – exists to legitimize those sources “outside the Bible” that can’t serve to authenticate what is found inside of it? Those sources will also be reduced to inadmissibility by the same standards you choose to arbitrarily apply to what exists “inside the Bible.” It comes down to permitting biased standards outside while ruling those inadmissible inside.

And you’re saying the massive amounts of evidence that Jesus existed would meet the standards of a professional historian? It’s the same kind of evidence that would prove that say Homer was a historical person?

I’m not engaging in a bait and switch, on the contrary I’m simply trying to apply uniform standards of historical proof, the kind professional historians use.

 

[Thorolfr]

Oh, I don’t know. Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, John and James – all Jews – wrote quite specific and detailed letters and Gospels about Jesus. None of these strike me as vague.

But did Matthew, Mark, and John actually write those gospels? The names of their authors are not mentioned in the texts themselves with an author’s name not being attached until the 2nd century. It is not at all clear which James wrote the Epistle of James. Only the authorship of some of Paul’s epistles seems beyond doubt.

 

[tomarin]

What is interesting is that the inscription is 1) dedicated to Jesus’ memory and 2) Jesus is referred to as Lord.

Well, just the fact that there are ancient churches are proof that SOMETHING was going on 2,000 years ago that was not going on before. They also found a table that was used as an altar. This was a new finding as well in ancient buildings in the area.

So, no, if there was not a movement started by a person 2,000 years ago I would not expect to find churches dedicated to them. Would you?

Let’s say that there is a temple to Buddha somewhere in southwestern Asia and it is dedicated to him. Is that enough proof do you think for a professional historian to say conclusively that the Buddha was a real historical person?

There is obviously a worldwide religion called Buddhism, based on the teachings of someone called the Buddha, and he may or may not have been a real person. It makes sense to me to believe he was a real man, but that is not the same as saying there is evidence that he was real, in the same way we know that Julius Caesar or Benjamin Franklin was a real person.

 

[Kaninchen]

Unfortunately, most of the Jews I know are very anti-Christian. I don’t think this means they are not interested in knowing if Jesus ever existed. I have a brother-in-law (Jewish) who always says that Jesus “supposedly” lived.
Funny, he never says that about Mohammed.

Anyway, I think many Jews say “we don’t know if he existed” because they don’t know what else to say.

I wouldn’t like you to take this the wrong way but, sometimes, it gets a little tiring.

What gets tiring?

The fact that some Christians really do see every conversation as an opportunity for testing out their latest and greatest way of convincing you of the need to accept what, for them, is an overwhelming and totally necessary truth.

Sometimes, one really doesn’t know what to say.

Sometimes, one is not overly polite.

Because I was not overly polite recently and got admonished for it, I think I’ll pass this time.

 

[tomarin]

Unfortunately, most of the Jews I know are very anti-Christian. I don’t think this means they are not interested in knowing if Jesus ever existed. I have a brother-in-law (Jewish) who always says that Jesus “supposedly” lived.
Funny, he never says that about Mohammed.

Actually, I think there is historical evidence independent of the Islamic religion that Mohammad was a real person. I can dig it up for you if you’re interested.

 

[Thorolfr]

Actually, I think there is historical evidence independent of the Islamic religion that Mohammad was a real person. I can dig it up for you if you’re interested.

There is a reference recording the Arab conquest of Syria, that mentions Muhammed. This much faded note is preserved on folio 1 of BL Add. 14,461, a codex containing the Gospel accord to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark. This note appears to have been penned soon after the battle of Gabitha (636 CE) at which the Arabs inflicted crushing defeat of the Byzantines. Wright was first to draw the attention to the fragment and suggested that “it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice”,[28] a view which was also endorsed by Nöldeke.[29] The purpose of jotting this note in the book of Gospels appears to be commemorative as the author appears to have realized how momentous the events of his time were. The words “we saw” are positive evidence that the author was a contemporary. The author also talks about olive oil, cattle, ruined villages, suggesting that he belonged to peasant stock, i.e., parish priest or a monk who could read and write. It is worthwhile cautioning that the condition of the text is fragmentary and many of the readings unclear or disputable. The lacunae are supplied in square brackets:

… and in January, they took the word for their lives (did) [the sons of] Emesa , and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mụhammad and a great number of people were killed and captives [were taken] from Galilee as far as Bēth …] and those Arabs pitched camp beside [Damascus?] …] and we saw everywhe[re…] and o[l]ive oil which they brought and them. And on the t[wenty six]th of May went S[ac[ella]rius]… cattle …] …] from the vicinity of Emesa and the Romans chased them …] and on the tenth [of August] the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus …] many [people] some 10,000. And at the turn [of the ye]ar the Romans came; and on the twentieth of August in the year n[ine hundred and forty-]seven there gathered in Gabitha …] the Romans and great many people were ki[lled of] [the R]omans, ome fifty thousand …]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

 

[exnihilo]

And you’re saying the massive amounts of evidence that Jesus existed would meet the standards of a professional historian? It’s the same kind of evidence that would prove that say Homer was a historical person?

I’m not engaging in a bait and switch, on the contrary I’m simply trying to apply uniform standards of historical proof, the kind professional historians use.

Actually there is far more and better evidence that Jesus existed then for most other historical figures. I’ve not researched it but I would be shocked if there is not more evidence for Jesus than for Homer. I think Socrates is only known from three distinct sources. And none of them are considered to be the actual works or written words of Socrates. But it is not popular to entertain the question of whether Socrates was a real person.

If the evidence for Jesus is not sufficient to prove He was at least a historical figure then applying the same standards you’ll have to doubt the existence of many if not most historical figures, especially from that time period or earlier.

 

[lax16]

Actually, I think there is historical evidence independent of the Islamic religion that Mohammad was a real person. I can dig it up for you if you’re interested.

That sounds very interesting. Yes, thanks!

 

[lax16]

I wouldn’t like you to take this the wrong way but, sometimes, it gets a little tiring.

What gets tiring?

The fact that some Christians really do see every conversation as an opportunity for testing out their latest and greatest way of convincing you of the need to accept what, for them, is an overwhelming and totally necessary truth.

Sometimes, one really doesn’t know what to say.

Sometimes, one is not overly polite.

Because I was not overly polite recently and got admonished for it, I think I’ll pass this time.

Well, if it gets tiring talking about Jesus you might want to avoid visiting threads about him.

Why have you ignored my other questions?