Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Zone]

You could say the Jews only became a true people after they embraced the truth of the one God and when they were polytheists before they were just pagans like everyone else. In any case you see Jews worshiping other gods in the Bible, there was the Golden Calf for instance, and Baal.

[Confused Ape]

The Hebrews stole Yahweh from the Canaanites. Yahweh was the storm god and lesser god under the head god El and the lesser gods were Elohim.

Your superstition is merely a spin off of prior polytheism.

That doesn't alter the meaning of the name, Yeshua. It was very common in 1st century Galilee and, like all names, it was derived from something - in this case a deity who was adopted by the Hebrews.

[Cyberman]

I've been googling for the Jewish views of Jesus and this one by a Rabbi is fairly typical.

Here's another one you might find interesting. A bit long but very in-depth and well worth the time:

Refuting Missionaries – The Myth of the Historical Jesus by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

[Confused Ape]

Here's another one you might find interesting. A bit long but very in-depth and well worth the time:

Refuting Missionaries – The Myth of the Historical Jesus by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

Thanks for the link. The author, Hayyim ben Yehoshua, is being quoted all over the internet but nobody seems to know who he is. One criticism is that his scholarly article doesn't have a footnote giving a list of actual references - there's only a list of seven books for further reading. If it was put on wikipedia there would be endless bracketed comments of 'citation needed'.

I wondered if anyone had written an article about him on wikipedia and I was directed to this page where there's a Hayyim ben and a Yehoshua - Hayyim ben Joeseph Vital

In 1570 Vital became a student of Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Arizal, the foremost kabbalist of the day.

During this illness Rabbi Yehoshua, his closest follower, who had accompanied Vital on nearly every journey, ...

By sheer coincidence Hayyim ben Yehoshua's name references two 16th century Kabbalists. Or could it be the pseudonym of someone who is interested in the Kabbalah? If anyone manages to find out who Hayyim ben Yehoshua is and what his qualifications are, please post the information in this topic.

I then found something interesting about one of the books on the reading list - J. Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth.

Allegro argued that the word Essenes signified "healers". They had inherited a lore of healing with plants and stones that had been passed down from the "fallen angels" that arrived on Mount Hermon mentioned in the Book of Enoch. He presumed their establishment of Qumran complex by the Dead Sea was related to the interpretation and anticipation of a prophecy about the Teacher of Righteousness, a "man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand" (Ezekiel 40:3) who was to somehow create lifegiving waters to flow into the Dead sea from a temple in some northern location (Ezekiel 47:1-12).[2]

Allegro later published The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, with even more bizarre theories about Jesus. Allegro was heavily criticized by many scholars, including his own mentor at Oxford, and the publisher had to issue an apology.[1] Allegro's scholary reputation was destroyed, and he had to resign from his academic position.[1

Now to The Sacred Mushroom And The Cross

The book relates the development of language to the development of myths, religions, and cultic practices in world cultures. Allegro believed he could prove, through etymology, that the roots of Christianity, as of many other religions, lay in fertility cults, and that cult practices, such as ingesting visionary plants (or "psychedelics") to perceive the mind of God, persisted into the early Christian era, and to some unspecified extent into the 13th century with reoccurrences in the 18th century and mid-20th century, as he interprets the Plaincourault chapel's fresco to be an accurate depiction of the ritual ingestion of Amanita muscaria as the Eucharist. Allegro argued that Jesus never existed and was a mythological creation of early Christians under the influence of psychoactive mushroom extracts such as psylocibin.[1]

It appears that he now has three supporters for his psychedelic Jesus idea.

Recent studies of Allegro's work have given new supporting linguistic evidence and led to calls for his theories to be re-evaluated by the mainstream.[8][9] In November 2009 The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross was reprinted in a 40th anniversary edition with a preface by Jan Irvin, a foreword by Judith Anne Brown, and a 30-page addendum by Prof. Carl A. P. Ruck of Boston University.[10]

Anyway, on to some quotes from Hayyim ben Yehoshua's article.

We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas – writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it.

The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details of which are not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was paraded around for forty days with a herald going in front of him announcing that he would be stoned and calling for people to come forward to plead for him. Nothing was brought forward in his favor however. Yeishu had five disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.

So far so good.

The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew wordneitzer, which means a shoot or sprout–an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for “Jesus the Nazarene” has always been “Yeishu ha-Notzri.” (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.)

So what was this Notzri movement? I've come across various opinions ranging from an offshoot of the Essenes, Jewish Gnostics and a false Messianic movement. Theosophy also comes into it on occasion. It's difficult to find an article which doesn't quote Hayyim ben Yehoshua so I was relieved to come across one by Scott Bidstrup, an ex Mormon whose education is all related to telecommunications. He does supply a short list of sources, though.

The Bible And Christianity

The Notzrim, or Jesus Movements, as modern scholars refer to these groups, appeared as isolated groups in widely separated towns and villages throughout the region. What they had in common was that they were a social reform movement, and often refered to a 'Jesus' or 'Jeshua' or 'Yeishu' or 'Yeshua' as their inspiration, but we know from contemporary descriptions that they were clearly not a religion, even though they incorporated many religious values.

Each of these Jesus Movement groups had its own ideas, often networking with others of a like mind, often disputing with others of conflicting ideas. While we have no writings from them directly, we have many references to them by contemporary historians, so we have some awareness of what they believed and practiced, if filtered by others. By the time of Paul, the Jesus Movements had become extraordinarily diverse and widespread. Some were bands of iternant preachers, others were guilds of settled craftspeople. Some were simple study groups, others were formal schools of scholastic research. As mentioned, there was philosophical ferment in first century Palestine, and the Jesus movements were not immune. Rather, they were very much a part of it. While none of what they wrote has survived intact, scholars are reasonably certain of a "Sayings Gospel Q" (subsequently revised at least three times), which is lost to us except where Mark quoted from it much later in "his" gospel, and one of the gospels of "Thomas," which has survived to the modern era in at least two versions, contain if not the pristine writings of Jesus Movements, at least quotations from them.

But the Jesus myth's widespread popularity among the Gnostics by the first third of the first century leads to the suggestion that, unless a wholesale and dramatic conversion took place (for which there is no evidence whatever), the Jesus myth was already widespread among the Gnostics by the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and died, and he died a long time ago. He wasn't a contemporary divine Messiah-figure. At least not yet.

Does this mean that the Notzrim movements were inspired by brief references to a long dead sorcerer who was stoned after forty days because nobody wanted to plead for him?

So how did this all turn into Christianity?

In about 50 C.E., a remarkable event occurred, which ultimately changed the course of human history. In Antioch, the local Jesus Movement suddenly and quickly transformed itself from a social and political reform movement into a full-blown religion. As this occurred, a remarkable conversion happened - or maybe the transformation occurred because Saul of Tarsus was "converted" to a new religious vision of his own and evangelized the group as Paul the Apostle. Whichever way it happened, we will probably never know. But secular scholars are pretty much agreed that this group included the first true Christians and that Paul, a Gnostic, was one of the first if not the first convert. And the Antioch Jesus Movement became the first of what modern scholars now refer to as the Christ Cults, the variety of Pauline-inspired cults prior to their consolidation under a single authority centuries later into the Catholic church.

But is there any concrete evidence that Paul existed?

So here's my own bit of fun speculation which isn't to be taken seriously. To quote Anne Elk from a Monty Python sketch - "My theory, which belongs to me, is mine"

The historical Jesus (Yeshua) was a preacher from the Notzri movement who annoyed the Romans and got crucified like many other Jews. His close friends had grief hallucinations so stories were going round that he'd been seen after his death. (He was the Elvis of his day, so to speak.) Paul, who suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy, had a bizarre experience which he interpreted as Jesus speaking to him and he started a new religion. Historical Yeshua eventually got mixed up with Yeishu ha-Notzri because the names were similar.

On the other hand, maybe Paul's vision was inspired by psylocibin.

Seriously, though, I'd be grateful if anyone could find further sources of information which don't quote Hayyim ben Yehoshua or refer to Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy.

[Justtristo]

In some ways he is comparable to the radical Prophet Jeremiah almost killed by the Jews several times,

That's like saying that Porky Pig proves Donald Duck. Do we start assuming these "prophets" are real, too?

If the character of Daniel who is a "minor" Prophet cam be used as a guide, a lot of these Prophets in the Old Testament were initially mythical or semi-mythical characters who later got historicized or were credited with this or that prophecy.

---

The Hebrews stole Yahweh from the Canaanites. Yahweh was the storm god and lesser god under the head god El and the lesser gods were Elohim.

Your superstition is merely a spin off of prior polytheism.

The Hebrews were Canaanites, perhaps some of the priestly class came from somewhere else. However in the archeological record shows that culturally the "Hebrews" (and that is being charitable) were identical to the "Canaanites". The only difference being that in Iron age sites in the highlands of Canaan pig bones are not found, however in other sites in Canaan pig bones are plentiful. I suspect that these groups who settled the highlands in the Iron Age were pastoralists who had settled down and become farmers.

If you believe the Old Testament was written in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the term Canaanite was used by the Priestly "reformers" to try and marginalize those who still followed the Old Hebrew religion, which was essentially the same as the Canaanite religion (with different patron gods depending on the location).

[Minimalist]

If there was an historical Jesus he'd have been raised on Jewish traditions which would have included Jeremiah.

It is those traditions which are in dispute. Like "jesus" and a whole shitload of other characters, Jeremiah only appears in the bible. In much the same way as Darth Vader only appears in Star Wars.

[Confused Ape]

It is those traditions which are in dispute. Like "jesus" and a whole shitload of other characters, Jeremiah only appears in the bible. In much the same way as Darth Vader only appears in Star Wars.

Traditions don't have to be literally true in order to reflect the way that people behave.

http://www.moshereiss.org/christianity/0...hillel.htm

In some ways he is comparable to the radical Prophet Jeremiah almost killed by the Jews several times,

From English history -

Anabaptists Persecutions And Migrations

The Tudor regime, even the Protestant monarchs (Edward VI of England and Elizabeth I of England), persecuted Anabaptists as they were deemed too radical and therefore a danger to religious stability

People with radical ideas aren't always popular. Even if Jeremiah is just a story, the Jews who tried to kill him were acting in a realistically human way. Even if Jesus is just a story, people wanting to get rid of him because he had radical ideas were acting in a realistically human way.

One question I do have from all this is why the idea that there might have been an historical Jesus is so terrifying to some people. He'd have been an ordinary human like everyone else on the planet so it wouldn't mean that supernatural beings really exist. Sir Francis Drake really existed but that doesn't prove the Wild Hunt on Dartmoor is true.

I honestly don't mind if there was an historical Jesus or if he was just a fictional character in a mushroom cult - if either was ever proved to be true I'd just find it very interesting.

[Zen Badger]

One question I do have from all this is why the idea that there might have been an historical Jesus is so terrifying to some people.

Why should I be terrified?

In fact, until recently I thought Jesus was a real person. Just a victim though of the propaganda machine that is religion.

I never really questioned it, afterall everyone acted like he had existed.

And then I researched what was on record by going straight to the horses mouth so to speak.

I looked up what the RCC had to say on the matter.

And you know what? They had NOTHING.

And if the organization supposedly based on his ministry can't produce any evidence.........

[Confused Ape]

Why should I be terrified?

I said some people - I didn't name anyone in particular.

I looked up what the RCC had to say on the matter.

And you know what? They had NOTHING.

And if the organization supposedly based on his ministry can't produce any evidence.........

I still find Tacitus of interest, however, because of what he doesn't regard as superstition in his account of early Christians.

Tacitus Lifetime

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire.

If Jesus had existed he would have been within living memory for part of Tacitus's lifetime. In his later years most people would have had parents who'd lived when Jesus was supposed to have lived.

Autenticity And Historical Value Of Tacitut's Account

Andreas Köstenberger states that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe.[46] Van Voorst also states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity.[40] John P. Meier states that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[47]

Now to his sources.

However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that given his position as a senator Tacitus was also likely to have had access to official Roman documents of the time and did not need other sources.[23]
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[56] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[57] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23

So on to Tacitus's report.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Tacitus doesn't regard the story of Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilate as superstition. So what could he have meant by "and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome"? Maybe he regarded the Jews hoping for a Messiah as being superstitious.

The Messiah in Judaism

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

This would definitely be a mischievous superstition from a Roman's point of view because Judea was under Roman occupation at the time. The last thing the Romans wanted was somebody claiming to be the Messiah and leading a rebellion.

Back to the article by a Rabbi -

CHRISTIANITY: A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

When Jesus overturned the tables at the Temple the Sadducees had him arrested. Pontius Pilate the Roman Prefect was led to believe he claimed to be a Messiah; a pretender to the throne of Caesar. There were at the time Jewish pretenders claiming to be the King of Israel. At his trial before Pilate Jesus probably spoke of God and his being God’s agent. Pilate and Jesus could hardly understand each other. Pilate had Jesus crucified as a royal pretender.

This suggests that an historical Jesus could have been a bit like Brian Cohen in 'The Life Of Brian' - he hadn't been starting a rebellion against the Romans but Pilate was led to believe that he was claiming to be the Messiah and was intending to start one and so Jesus was executed. This could account for Tacitus's statement "and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment,"

Back to the Rabbi.

After Jesus’ death several of his disciples at different times and different places claimed to have seen him. This news spread and shortly people began to believe that he was the resurrected Messiah God had promised who would bring in the Kingdom of God.

Several disciples claiming to have seen him could have the rational explanation that they had grief hallucinations and thought they'd seen him. It's how people started to interpret the stories that led to further superstition and these people would have been Jews. "and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil,

A resurrected Messiah isn't the ordinary human being that Judaism insists the Messiah will be but this doesn't mean that some Jews in Judea couldn't have had barking mad ideas. After all, a quick look round the internet reveals that modern humans still come up with barking mad ideas - David Icke is just one example.

There's still the puzzle of how barking mad ideas which originated with some Jews in Judea spread to Gentiles and got mixed up with pagan themes, though.

None of this proves that there was an historical Jesus, of course, but Tacitus, who had access to resources dating from Jesus' supposed lifetime, didn't think it impossible that a real man was executed by Pontius Pilate.

[Zen Badger]

But Tacticus was still writing after the event, and "Christos" or "Chrestos" is greek for "Messiah" and since quite a few people at the time were proclaiming themselves as messiahs it could have been anyone.

But the important issue here is that the legitimacy of christianity relies on the miracles that JC as the son of god was supposed to have performed.

Take them away and it's just another myth.