Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Minimalist]

Horus, there is one telling line in all of that.

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity...I guess meaning that because ignorant goat-fuckers did not question something it must be "true." Anyway,

The history of the Christ myth theory can be traced to the French Enlightenment thinkers Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 1790s.

The French Revolution erupted in 1789 and while the revolutionaries were pissed at the nobility they were also pissed at the church which was seen as being just as much of a bunch of parasites. Thus the time line tells us that as soon as it was safe to begin questioning this holy horseshit people began doing so. Once the church lost the power to burn heretics at the stake it was all over for them.

[DeistPaladin]

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity...

Unknown or successfully wiped out considering the only reason we even know of the names of critics of early Christianity, much less what they wrote, come to us as they are quoted in refutations. Celsus, Lucien and Thallus are examples. We have no writings of any of these early critics of Christianity. I'm sure the early Christians didn't burn them all or anything but they're still "lost to us".

The best example of early controversy regarding the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus comes to us in the Bible itself, concerning an early conflict between Christians themselves on the subject.

1John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Here we have not one but two letters (indicating that this was a big problem and not just a matter of a small group of schismatics) from the supposed disciple of Jesus who would have been addressing people that might have also lived within the time of Jesus' ministry. Notice how he uses the language of faith ("believe", "confess") to admonish his fellow Christians to reject those dastardly antichrists and to think instead that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person.

Now let's assume that these letters were in fact written by John, who knew Jesus personally. The admission of the problem of pseudo-epigraphy in the holy scriptures is something the Christians will not entertain anyway.

One wonders why John resorts to pleas of "have faith", something only used when there is no evidence, instead of simply referring to recent history and dismissing the unnamed heretics (presumably the Docetics) as crazy? Were there not relatives of Jesus, neices and nephews, who could have testified he existed as a person? Were there not neighbors at Bethlehem and Nazareth who would have remembered him?

Frankly, the whole theology of the Docetics, if they existed within the lifetime of a real person, should have seemed crazy from the get-go, even by religious standards of reason. How nuts do you have to be to believe a certain real man was just an illusion? ...unless it was either a long time ago or the said man never really existed? Christians maintain these letters were written by John the disciple, so that eliminates the first option. And how could followers of a man who recently lived ignore such recent history and instead invent a fantasy that he was never really a flesh-and-blood being but rather a spirit? And how could they have been such a large problem to warrant two separate letters?

I guess meaning that because ignorant goat-fuckers did not question something it must be "true."

Hence my whole "fact checking commandos" metaphor. It's like apologists have this fantasy that if any rabbi or other religious leader were to ever pen some exaggeration or bit of theological fantasy, that these commandos would suddenly parachute in, land in their temples, point their dreaded fingers and cry "false!" Any time that doesn't happen, the writings must be taken as an accurate historical account. Strange this line of reasoning doesn't apply to other religions of the relative time and place like Islam but that's religious special pleading for you.

[cratehorus]

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity

They do?

[Cato]

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity

They do?

Of course, otherwise Christians could not now invoke Jesus as a crew-cut, AK-47 toting, T-Rex riding, hate thy neighbor thug that he is now proclaimed to be.

Do you honestly think that the the religious right would vote for the Jesus of scripture? A hippee, liberal jew? Love thy neighbor and all that shit? C'mon. Who would fall for that?

[Minimalist]

One thing xtians love to harp about is that the mythical jesus theory was unknown in antiquity

They do?

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/1...f-silence/

Silence: Why did no-one until modern times deny the existence of Jesus?

Ehrman spends a few pages at the beginning of his Chapter Four on the old canard which too many historicists seem to think is a knockout blow against the mythicist theory: that no one in all the documents we possess from the earliest period right up to the 18th century ever suggests, or deals with an accusation, that Jesus never existed. A moment’s reflection ought to reveal why this might be the case. (There are in fact a handful of notable exceptions to this silence that I will go into shortly, which puts the lie to Ehrman’s sweeping statement.)

Yep.

I had one asshole claim that the fact that there were no Greco-Roman writings against xtianity was proof that even the Romans knew it was all true. I pointed out to him that xtian thugs burned down the libraries of antiquity so his statement was the height of chutzpah...equivalent to the old definition of a man murdering his parents and then asking for mercy because he was an orphan.

Oddly, a couple of xtian writers did salvage a couple of Greco-Roman blasts at xtianity in the hope of "refuting" them. They failed to refute much of anything but they did demonstrate that Greco-Roman writers were out there pointing out that their cult was a pile of shit.

[cratehorus]

So what was the connective tissue between your mention of Akhenaten (who did not stop his people worshiping the sun but rather promoted the sun as the superdivinity) and Greeks in Judea?

Oh, sorry, Akenarten introduced the invisible God idea and that spread, along with Moses to Palestine, [ religion's 'birth'] where many Greeks lived. The Greeks then wanted a mythological son of the new God so Jesus was 'born'.
In the New International bible there are many references to the Greeks who at that time were also in Iraq/Iran/Jordan/Egypt.
The disciples were also constantly visiting the Greek islands. Revelations was 'written', on the island of Patmos.
Jesus also, always spoke in parables...i.e...Greek philosophy. To Minimalist, the Greeks had 300 years BC to move in after Alexander the Great, long enough to grow into a large community.
The following is a write-up about Mithra, stemming from India then to the Romans, before Christ came into being.
Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
Mithra ascending to heaven in his solar cart, with sun symbolHe ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism.

Is Jesus really Mithra?

[Justtristo]

They do?

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/1...f-silence/

Silence: Why did no-one until modern times deny the existence of Jesus?

Ehrman spends a few pages at the beginning of his Chapter Four on the old canard which too many historicists seem to think is a knockout blow against the mythicist theory: that no one in all the documents we possess from the earliest period right up to the 18th century ever suggests, or deals with an accusation, that Jesus never existed. A moment’s reflection ought to reveal why this might be the case. (There are in fact a handful of notable exceptions to this silence that I will go into shortly, which puts the lie to Ehrman’s sweeping statement.)

Yep.

I had one asshole claim that the fact that there were no Greco-Roman writings against xtianity was proof that even the Romans knew it was all true. I pointed out to him that xtian thugs burned down the libraries of antiquity so his statement was the height of chutzpah...equivalent to the old definition of a man murdering his parents and then asking for mercy because he was an orphan.

Oddly, a couple of xtian writers did salvage a couple of Greco-Roman blasts at xtianity in the hope of "refuting" them. They failed to refute much of anything but they did demonstrate that Greco-Roman writers were out there pointing out that their cult was a pile of shit.

Robert M Price on one of his Bible Geek podcasts, talked about a about in a dialogue between Justin Martyr and a rabbi named Trypho. Dr Dr Price mentioned that somewhere in this dialogue Trypho asserted that Christians invented the character of Jesus. I would bet that more ancient writers thought the same as Trypho, however their works have not survived.

[DeistPaladin]

Robert M Price on one of his Bible Geek podcasts, talked about a about in a dialogue between Justin Martyr and a rabbi named Trypho. Dr Dr Price mentioned that somewhere in this dialogue Trypho asserted that Christians invented the character of Jesus. I would bet that more ancient writers thought the same as Trypho, however their works have not survived.

There's good reason to think so and not just because of the bad reputation that Christians have earned for the last 2000 years of being book burners. Apologists often tout "hostile witnesses" such as Thallus, Lucien and Celsus, people who were late second century critics of Christianity. Yet their works are "lost to us" and the only reason we even know about them at all is they are quoted in the works of the apologists of the time.

[The Grand Nudger]

That christianity has been in need of apologists since the very beginning is similarly telling. Apparently this bullshit wasn't as easy to believe (even two thousand years ago, when people believed in this sort of shit almost as a rule) as our modern apologists would have us believe today.

[Minimalist]

That christianity has been in need of apologists since the very beginning is similarly telling. Apparently this bullshit wasn't as easy to believe (even two thousand years ago, when people believed in this sort of shit almost as a rule) as our modern apologists would have us believe today.

Ah, yes.....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)


Richard Carrier


We all have read the tales told of Jesus in the Gospels, but few people really have a good idea of their context. Yet it is quite enlightening to examine them against the background of the time and place in which they were written, and my goal here is to help you do just that. There is abundant evidence that these were times replete with kooks and quacks of all varieties, from sincere lunatics to ingenious frauds, even innocent men mistaken for divine, and there was no end to the fools and loons who would follow and praise them. Placed in this context, the gospels no longer seem to be so remarkable, and this leads us to an important fact: when the Gospels were written, skeptics and informed or critical minds were a small minority. Although the gullible, the credulous, and those ready to believe or exaggerate stories of the supernatural are still abundant today, they were much more common in antiquity, and taken far more seriously.

If the people of that time were so gullible or credulous or superstitious, then we have to be very cautious when assessing the reliability of witnesses of Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson believed when he composed his own version of the gospels, Jesus may have been an entirely different person than the Gospels tell us, since the supernatural and other facts about him, even some of his parables or moral sayings, could easily have been added or exaggerated by unreliable witnesses or storytellers. Thus, this essay is not about whether Jesus was real or how much of what we are told about him is true. It is not even about Jesus. Rather, this essay is a warning and a standard, by which we can assess how likely or easily what we are told about Jesus may be false or exaggerated, and how little we can trust anyone who claims to be a witness of what he said and did. For if all of these other stories below could be told and believed, even by Christians themselves, it follows that the Gospels, being of entirely the same kind, can all too easily be inaccurate, tainted by the gullibility, credulity, or fondness for the spectacular which characterized most people of the time.