R. G. Price - On the Mythic Jesus

[Zenith]

However, when you go on to say,

b) I do believe that people are rather to take a historical person and fill him with fairytales, rather than creating one from scratch.

most xtians will draw the line as soon as you say "so, then you think that Zeus and Osiris and Thor and Quetzlcoatl and Shiva and Enki and Borvo and Asshur and Astarte and Sin and Marduk, etc., etc, etc. also have an actual person behind them.

Well, it is possible, at least for some of them.

Again we come full circle to the idea of a "founder." Was Osiris real? If not, explain how Egyptian religion lasted from sometime before 3000 BC to the 4th century AD when it was forcibly stamped out by xtians? Greek mythology begins in the Middle Bronze Age and continues for 2 millenia....how could it have done so without an actual Zeus?

I didn't mean that: Zeus was not the founder of the greek 'religion', neither Osiris the founder of the egyptian 'religion'. And It doesn't matter how much time the religion lived.

Anyway, regarding the existence of Jesus Christ, it's like this:
- we have Islam, the Qur'an, the stories about Muhammud, what he did, etc. Did Muhammud exist or was created afterwards? (and I've heard no one so far claiming that Muhammud is actually the result of a conspiracy)
- We have Buddhism - though I didn't study Buddhism, I know it's about the teachings of Buddha. Now, who denies the existence of Buddha?
- We have (or, had) Zoroastrism, which seems to have been based on Zoroaster. But who claims that Zoroaster never existed?
As about Judaism, we don't say that if Judaism existed, then YHWH exists, but that if Judaism existed, then most surely its founder, Moses, existed.

These above are other reasons I think it's foolish to firmly claim that the Christianity's founder never existed.

And the least seed of truth about Jesus Christ should be something like: A Jewish man in the land of the Jews claiming to be the Messiah, who was ok (i.e. did not teach blatant things against the law, like "go and rape every child and virgin you find!"), and lived by the jewish laws as other jews, but taught somewhat strange things for the jews, like proselytism, and finally got killed by the romans - all these seem very plausible.

That goes against what you've quoted:

The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. ...there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ".... "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed.

And if you believe that the guy you've quoted is right and I'm wrong, then perhaps you can prove me how the hypothesis I wrote above is refuted.

most xtians will draw the line as soon as you say "so, then you think that Zeus and Osiris and Thor and Quetzlcoatl and Shiva and Enki and Borvo and Asshur and Astarte and Sin and Marduk, etc., etc, etc. also have an actual person behind them. At that point they bail out and resort to special pleading that they only mean the "real god."

I didn't make an objective of life to convert people to my beliefs (i.e. my "truths"). I don't care what everyone believes, or what most believe.
As about methods used: if it is very possible that a Jesus ever existed, with a "seed of truth", I don't agree with using lies (e.g. promoting something that is perhaps impossible) to convince people of the "truth". That's politics: picking one side and doing everything you can to protect it and to throw dirt on all others, to promote your theory and convince people of your truth, never caring who's right and who's wrong about anything. This is politics, which everybody does - christians, muslims, jews, atheists, satanists, wiccans, etc.

There had to be 100 people named Jesus, son of Joseph wandering around 1st Century Palestine. The fact still remains that we have no historical record of any of them doing anything....least of all coming back from the dead after being crucified by a Roman magistrate.

First off, I don't think there were quite 100 of people named Jesus. It is possible for that name not to be unpopular or fantastic, but the number you suggested is quite impossible. It is possible, however, to have been 100 people calling themselves the Messiah (i.e. Christ). And they needn't be sons of Joseph - it wasn't written anywhere in the Jewish Bible that the Messiah's father should have been called Joseph.

As about historical record, this looks a bit tricky: If Jesus Christ did indeed miracles, then anyone who could have written a historical record about them should have been or have become christians. Except stuff like the darkness during the death of Jesus (which should not quite be called a miracle, if it is possible to have been a solar eclipse or something like that).

Consider this:
a) During Jesus' life: the Jesus of the Gospels preached and walked only in Jewish areas. Now, if there were Jews that did consider him a false messiah and a deceiver, then they would have done everything possible to forbid and deny the jews' possibility to believe him (and saying, "look what wonderful miracles this Jesus did!" the effect was right the opposite) - so they would not mention them, so that no jew would have come to believe Him by them (i.e. people are usually very attracted to miracles), while among each other they would have called them sorcery or something. As about romans, like Pilate, they did not stand near to Jesus to see everything he did, but could have only heard that the jews say that he did some kind of supernatural things. The Pagans were also believing in their own miracles and foolish fairytales, while a politician/governor was most likely regarding such things he would have heard with skepticism, perhaps even superstitions, like all the rest, and was seeing of his own business (rather than asking everybody and going to that Jew, filled with enthusiasm).

b) After Jesus died: It is very possible that no one wrote anything about Jesus Christ during his life. So we talk about who could have written about this "failed messiah" that didn't redeem his people, which discouraged all people and all his followers that everything he did had worthed anything, because he was killed. There were a bunch of Jews that afterwards claimed that Jesus has resurrected - they are the ones who could have written about Jesus' miracles, and all that believed them. But all the other Jews that saw Jesus as a failed false messiah, would have never propagated the 'signs of the prophet', because they wanted to erase any trace that would have led to the deceiver, the "false messiah", especially because some people started to claim that Jesus got resurrected, and He started to get followers, again.

Secondly, "sons of god" walking around was far from a foreign concept in the Greco-Roman world.
Asclepius was the son of Apollo who in turn was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Hercules was also a son of Zeus and another mortal woman.....randy old goat that Zeus! These were far from unique examples.

I am aware of that. The "son of a god" was popular in the time of Jesus, even long before the time of Jesus. However, there is the difference that the Jews had also a definition (i.e. an understanding) of "son of God" which did not correspond to the greek version. And the Jewish culture has been lost by Christianity, in time, being replaced with the greek fashion.

One might almost think of this as part of the "sales pitch" to a Greco-Roman audience. As indeed the early xtian writer Justin Martyr wrote to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

Can you imagine a later xtian equating jesus to pagan gods and not being declared a heretic for it?

Well, you know, that's how religions pervert themselves to keep up with the fashion and new theories that become popular and to all which is modernism and "current thought". The same as nowadays you see a lot of people denying the violence in their religious scriptures (even muslims) because everywhere it is taught how evil such things are (so they struggle to turn them into metaphors). The same happens with embracing the modern science in their scriptures: We have "micracles in the Qur'an", and in the Christian Bible, even Hindu scriptures (I believe I do not mistake, it is Hindu scriptures) claim the Big Bang in their scriptures! And not to mention how all religions have embraced the theory of evolution! (And we see the Qur'an and the Bible mentioning a literal creation, while they say that it's metaphorical and it actually means... I don't know what). This way Justin the Martyr, in order to show Christianity more pleasant and acceptable, has struggled to make a bridge between paganism and Christianity, so that Christianity would become more close for the pagans to reach.

As far as the messiah goes, the Jews expected a military leader who would vanquish their enemies and gather all jews together and rebuild the temple. One can hardly blame them for rejecting what they were handed by the rather inept jesus.

Yeah, that's a good reason why they were satisfied with Jesus being thrown to the romans to be killed: if he was the messiah they expected, then He could have not died. And their great desire for a military savior that would relieve them of the romans is very understandable: nationalism, politics, their own desires. And the Christian theory is that Jesus Christ was supposed to be both the suffering (Isaiah 52.13-53.12) and the reliever (Zechariah 14, Jeremiah 33.15). The problem is that the prophecies about the Messiah are not compact: they are not found all in one place claiming "this is about the Messiah, only about the Messiah, all that must be known about Him, and nothing about him would be said afterwards or elsewhere: ...", which makes the verses quite interpretable, and could have allowed the Jews to pick the version they yearned for.

If you take the time to read Bart Ehrman you'll see that the growing anti-semitic tendencies of xtians follow an increasing tone of vehemence. And why not? The Jews were exceedingly unpopular. Between 66 and 135 there were 3 serious revolts which the Romans had to suppress. By the end of it they were a stateless people. As the second century writer Celsus wrote:

"You are fond of saying that in the old days this same most high god made these and greater promises to those who gave heed to his commandments and worshipped him. But at the risk of appearing unkind, I ask how much good has been done by those promises have done either the Jews before you or you in your present circumstances. And would you have us put out faith in such a god? Instead of being masters of the whole world, the jews today have no home of any kind."

Definitely an unpopular group!

I know about the Jewish wars with the Romans. They were very stubborn believing that the military Messiah would come and would relieve them from all occupation. That has cost them a lot, and it was foolish: they could have not forced the will/plan of God by believing that He would do as they desired.

But these can't forgive the Christians for slaughtering and persecuting the Jews since the middle ages onwards: they did that because they did not convert to their religion and because they killed the messiah! I'm sure that after the jews have finally been crushed they've ceased dreaming about the military messiah coming immediately - they were spread all around with no power and no hope at all.

In the 4th century, Constantine rewarded his xtian supporters in the war against Maxentius. While he legalized xtianity it was not until after the reign of Julian the Apostate that xtians realized they had to take steps to secure their livelihood. The pograms against the pagans began in that time period. When you give a church a sword control becomes simple. If you give me the power to torture and kill people I could have millions believing in a holy toaster in 20 years. "Greet with joy the warm bread which is the staff of life, brothers..... And if you argue I'll tie you to a stake and burn your ass."
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon.

I don't think the really violent approach began just after Justinian. The paganism was already dying in the time of Julian the Apostate, and he persecuted the christians, but not by a violent approach (i.e. he forbade them to go to the schools, because the schools were pagan, and was allowing them to go there only if they accepted the philosophers' religion as well, not only their philosophies, etc.). The violent persecution of pagans by christians began later, perhaps since 1000 or so. The first idea of a holy war in Christianity was in 1096-1099 (the first crusade), which was caused by the fact that the Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire was having real problems with the muslims, and a holy purpose could have convinced the Catholic Pope to give a help against the muslims, and the crusaders conquering and defending Jerusalem would have been a new target for the muslims (a bit of time to breath for the Roman Empire).

---

Zeitgeist may have some good points, but I pretty much agree with Void. I dont think it is COMPLETE bullshit, but there is a hefty helping of Bullcrap in it.

This is nothing but conspiracy theory bullshit made into an emotional video.

They post the 9/11 conspiracy crap as well...that is a MAJOR red flag.

I remember a thing in the time Zeitgeist (the religious part) appeared: it had at the back the list of the "hundreds" of "son gods", the prophet Mohamed! (it was written "Mohamud or Mahomet, of Arabia"). I had also found a youtube video, after that time, in which muslims were joyful that they finally threw him out of the list :)) In that time I had also found a video on youtube defending Zeitgeist claiming that they got their info from secret, hidden, untranslated into english sources, that are hidden from the people, by some kind of christian conspiracy (as if nowadays all you hear is christian theology and no one dares to reject it publicly). And it was funny to think how the authors of Zeitgeist had access to those sources!

The funny thing about these theories of conspiracy is that they claim that no-one can see what they have seen and no-one can find out/know what they had found out and what they know, even that everybody around lies, and only that themselves are to be trusted and only they have the ultimate truth! And they use manipulation methods such as shouting, raising the voice in certain moments (emphasizing certain phrases), etc.

Oh, and I remember how a 20 years old girl said two years ago, firmly and frustrated, how the christianity has been founded by the priests in the middle age, and that in that time they decided to write the Bible! :))