Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[FallentoReason]

Here is Bart Ehrman answering your question. It seems he and virtually all academic historians disagree with the presupposition that Jesus was not a real person.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...F0AY#t=12s

So that all the distractions don't obscure the topic I'll restate it.
Bart Ehrman states the following:

"I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus".

"I don't think it was more than one person, I mean, I think there was a historical Jesus..."

I offer the testimony of the Christian-hostile expert witness, Bart Ehrman, saying that Jesus was a real person and stating that "no serious historian" doubts this.

Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, I have argued a position and provided strong evidence to support it: Specifically "Jesus was a real person". I don't claim this to be a proof, just very strong evidence. I've provided other evidence, but this argument is the one I'm waiting to see refuted.

Your evidence is one man's opinion?

Hitler believed killing 6 million Jews was right. Prove me wrong that it isn't right.

[System of Solace]

Define Hypocrisy:
Most Christians: Ha! The Romans were ridiculous! They stole their religion and ideas from the Greeks just so it was better for their kind of life! Unlike theirs, our religion is completely original!

I remember looking into this subject a bit ago. I think there were around 3-7 gods who shared the same characteristics as Jesus but were worshiped thousands of years before he was said to come around. The virgin birth, same amount of disciples, performing miracles (restoring sight to the blind a common one), crucifixion, resurrection on the third day, baptized in a river by a guy who had the same job in every story and was later executed, etc.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
Your evidence is one man's opinion?

Hitler believed killing 6 million Jews was right. Prove me wrong that it isn't right.

Thanks, I was afraid we might be ticketed for breaking Godwin's law if somebody didn't mention Hitler soon enough.

[FallentoReason]

...
Your evidence is one man's opinion?

Hitler believed killing 6 million Jews was right. Prove me wrong that it isn't right.

Thanks, I was afraid we might be ticketed for breaking Godwin's law if somebody didn't mention Hitler soon enough.

I just looked up this Godwin fellow, and all I have to say is... Derp!

[Minimalist]

Courtesy of WikiL

Reexamination of the idea that Jesus was a myth emerged when critical study of the gospels developed during the Enlightenment in the 18th century. The primary forerunners of the Christ myth theory are identified as two French philosophers, Charles François Dupuis (1742–1809) and Constantin-François Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney (1757–1820).[63]

Dupuis rejected the historicity of Jesus entirely, explaining a reference to Jesus by the Roman historian Tacitus (56–117)—in around 116, Tacitus mentioned one Chrestus, who had been convicted by Pontius Pilate, as nothing but an echo of the inaccurate beliefs of Christians at the time. In Origine de tous les cultes (1795), he identified pre-Christian rituals in Greater Syria, Ancient Egypt and Persia that he believed represented the birth of a god to a virgin mother at the winter solstice, and argued that these rituals were based upon the winter rising of the constellation Virgo. He believed that these and other annual occurrences were allegorized as the histories of solar deities, such as Sol Invictus. He argued that Jewish and Christian scriptures could be interpreted according to the solar pattern: the Fall of Man in Genesis was an allegory of the hardship caused by winter, and the resurrection of Jesus represented the growth of the sun's strength in the sign of Aries at the spring equinox.[64]

1795? In France. IOW, as soon as it became safe to question the holy horseshit without being burned at the stake by the "peace and love" crowd, it was being done. Yet apparently Ehrman knows nothing of this? Are we to assume that he doesn't know of Bruno Bauer or the Tubingen School, either? How weak is his knowledge of fields outside his own little narrow range of interest?

[DeistPaladin]

...
Your evidence is one man's opinion?

Hitler believed killing 6 million Jews was right. Prove me wrong that it isn't right.

Thanks, I was afraid we might be ticketed for breaking Godwin's law if somebody didn't mention Hitler soon enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Godwin invoked when you compare your opponent to Hitler or the Nazis?

I think he could fight that ticket in court.

[Cyberman]

That's the more correct version of Godwin's Law (of Nazi Analogies), D/P. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." I think simply mentioning them isn't enough and often might be appropriate.

[Atom]

Strong evidence? All you've stated is that Bart Erhman thinks there was a historical Jesus. That's it. If I can produce just one 'serious historian' that concludes that Jesus is not a historical figure, your argument falls apart. I would hardly consider this 'strong' evidence.

To provide comparable testimony you would have to produce a Christian saying that Jesus didn't exist, which is impossible because the person wouldn't be a Christian if they said this. I admit this isn't fair.

I can do this, but you are missing the broader consideration. If I grant you a historical Jesus, what do you think 'serious' historians think regarding this dude's divinity? I suppose at this point you will jettison the previously useful tribe known as historians.

I'm not missing the broader consideration, this broader consideration is irrelevant to the question "was Jesus a real person?".

The methodology of professional historians assumes naturalism, an assumption I believe is proper for historical inquiries. The majority of historical scholars do not affirm that Jesus was divine or that he performed miracles. It should be obvious that the assumption of naturalism makes these conclusions necessary for a professional historian. One has to set aside the assumption of naturalism to make an assessment of these questions. Whether this is reasonable isn't relevant to the question "was Jesus a real person?"

Some examples of the criteria used by professional historians include giving more significance to data from:

1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony

The following conclusions were also arrived at by the majority of skeptical scholars when they weighed the evidence using accepted historical methodology. In addition to "Jesus was a real person" these scholars believe the following are also true of Jesus:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

What is important about the majority of critical scholars and their publications is the fact that they have reasons for their conclusion and follow accepted methods in performing their historical research. Anyone wanting to argue a case for a conclusion they like (or seek to make money publishing) can write a book offering ad hoc explanations for historically unsupportable conclusions. This includes a lot of books written for lay audiences, including many recent publications written by Christian authors.

Please note that I am not saying that these accepted historical conclusion prove that Jesus existed. I am saying that the majority of even critical historians applying the accepted methods of their profession, including the assumption of naturalism, conclude not only that Jesus existed, but that the 12 points listed above are true. In other words, these historians conclude that these events occurred because it is the best explanation for the historical data.

In conclusion, I've presented an argument for the existence of Jesus as a real person. That argument uses the following facts:
1) Bart Ehrman, an outspoken critic of Christianity, states unequivocally that he believes the historical Jesus existed.
2) He further stated that his professional peers also believe that Jesus was a real historical person.
3) Peer reviewed scholars studying ancient history reach conclusions by applying the accepted methods of their profession to the available data.
Taking (1) and (2) combined, and applying the fact (3) leads to the inevitable conclusion that the existing evidence weighs very heavily in favor of the proposition that Jesus was a real person.

I invited those on this forum to refute the argument I provided rather than insisting that the opposite conclusion should be the default and asserting the burden of proof is mine. This assertion leaves my argument unrefuted, something I don't mind this a bit. In fact it makes me happy!

A good start would be to cite credible peer reviewed historical publications describing how acceptable historical practices lead to the conclusion that Jesus was a myth. That would give us something to discuss

[Mystic]

To provide comparable testimony you would have to produce a Christian saying that Jesus didn't exist, which is impossible because the person wouldn't be a Christian if they said this. I admit this isn't fair.

Or it can be a Christian whom says there is no evidence of Jesus existing a part from faith in the Bible through the holy spirit.

[Cyberman]

The word "MinSlap" was invented* for threads just like this.

---

(* by me, as it happens)