Just wow. I had no idea that the argument against a historical Jesus could have so much footing. I first questioned this about 7 years ago but the answer was always that no scholar actually doubted a historical jesus. So since then I never took the mythicist theory too seriously. But since buying Not The Impossible Faith, reading Carriers blogs and listening to his and prices interviews, I'm really doubting the existence of a man Jesus
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ Mikhael
Yes, back when every Bible history student was a theologian, 100% of them (as their lives and/or incomes depended on it) thought that an historical Jesus existed.
Since then the advances in archeology, textual and contextual analysis have completely demolished the "Divine Jesus" myth.
The existence of evan an historical human jesus is hotly debated with the 'mythicist' faction gaining ground due to the complete lack of contemporary evidence for such an exact figure.
My personal verdict is "Not Proven" (A scottish legal concept) In other words the proponents of an actual jesus figure have failed to make their case, but, equally the Mythicists have not completely (or at least to my satisfaction) made their case that the Jesus figure was a complete fabrication.
I am open to convincing evidence.
I think where I stand right now is that if there was a human Jesus he is very far removed from even the human attributes of him in the bible. With so much contradiction within the gospels and so much doubt about the origins of the sermon on the mount, if there was a historical man Jesus I can't imagine he was nearly as remarkable as even the more believable stories make him out to be.
Of course that's just my thoughts on it
@ Mikhail
You are in good company. Many historians think as you do at the moment.
I can't remember if it was Carrier or another Mythicist on The Thinking Atheist, but someone mentioned that they believed that this view and the full mythicist view would gain a lot more traction now, since for most of history most bible scholars were Christian and coulsnt even entertain the idea of a non jesus. What do y'all think?
@ Mikhael
See my answer above!
Keep it up MIkhael, you are winning the race.
When I truly realized I was an atheist and joined this forum, I have learned a lot, and most of it has reinforced my belief that almost all of the jesus stories and other stuff is either incredibly inflated stories with a kernel of truth, or just borrowed from previous cultures.
For example, the "virgin birth" story is predated by other cultures the Jews were exposed to. Just as borrowed is the rebirth story, especially in the spring. Many cultures had gods who died and were reborn as signs of fertilty in the spring.
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/rebirth-and-re...
The arguments against a real jesus just keeps adding up, while the proof of his existence becomes more and more tenuous.
It's a fucking exhausting race that I never wanted to run and imma kill whoever signed me up for this shit, did they not see me in PE growing up??
But yeah I'm trying to get back to the roots of Judaism and Christianity and focus on that I stead right now. Listening to tons of Seth Andrews at work, he's great and approachable and a wonderful gateway to a lot of new people.
The thing is that a lot of this isn't entirely new to mw, it was just ways through a Catholic lenses which told me it wasn't believable. Like when I first heard of Zoroastrianism years ago and learned it was an influence on other monotheistic religions I thought oh wow, that's definately a point against Christianity, but then like the first source I found googling was a Christian website that told me it was actuslky eeally new and could never have influenced Christianity. A claim I have since learned is bullshit
Price is a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Not much of anything the Astrotheology bunch says has any backing to it. You have to be very careful with the stuff from Astrotheology, Price, Jordan Maxwell, Milne Murdock, and others. When you begin hearing stuff about astrology and Christianity, check your facts carefully. A whole lot of this stuff is built on nothing but fluff. In my opinion, you want to stick with the actual historians. Carrier, Eherman, (Eherman defends the existence of Jesus but does so very poorly and he most certainly denies the divinity of Jesus.) (Carrier simply asserts Jesus probably did not exist, and if he did, he was a nobody. ) This is probably the most accepted current HISTORICAL position. Another closely related hypothesis is that Jesus was a compilation of stories attributed to someone that might have began as a real character but over time simply became a fantasy.
According to Carrier; If we look at Paul's version of Jesus as an old testament angel who never manifests in human form, we get the story of a Euhemorized Jesus (A god who takes human form like Zeus, Apollo, or any of the other Greek or Roman Gods). I think most of the facts seem to line up with Carrier's Mythacist position. Jesus was an old testament angel that was given a life through mythology and stories.
When did Jesus Become Christ?
ACCORDING TO "ACTS" (AFTER HIS DEATH)
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless man . . . This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses . . . Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
ACCORDING TO MARK (DURING HIS MINISTRY or AT HIS BAPTISM)
In Mark's Gospel, however, there is a story of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi in which he asked his disciples what people were saying about him and they gave a variety of answers. When Jesus asked Peter what he thought he received the reply, "You are the Christ."
"Christian theology to what was called the "adoption theory" of the "Person of Christ." In short, Jesus was born as an ordinary human being until God, at the time of his baptism by John, adopted him as his Son. This is why there are no birth stories in Mark. This view was eventually declared heretical though it continued to break out from time to time. It became heretical for the simple reason that the belief that Jesus became the Christ only at his baptism, still common when Mark was writing about 70 c.e." Modern Adoptionist groups include Unitarianists.
The Gospel of Luke has Jesus becoming the Christ at his Birth:
Luke 2:11, "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
The Gospel of John asserts Jesus was the Christ at Creation:
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God . . . all things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made . . . and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father . . . grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known . . . (John 1:1–18)"
I think these facts and more backing them, give us a demonstration of the evolution of the Christ Myth Theory in action. Historical evidence certainly supports the theory and yet we can not actually rule out the possibility of an actual man named Jesus. In fact, there may have been more than one man named Jesus. One of them might have even been named Apollonius of Tyana, but then that is another story.
In the end, the waters are actually very murky and many of these theories were held at the same time by different groups of ancient Christians. The chronology is not as clear as one might like. Nevertheless, to me, it seems to make perfect sense. Jesus was a Euhemerized angel who developed a mythical ministry over time and became more and more powerful as myths were pile upon his life story.
https://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-did-jesus-bec...
I had not heard that about price, I only know of the beliefs he has shared on Seth Andrews show, and I enjoyed what I heard there. I never took much stock in astrology besides to make jokes about being a stubborn fucking Taurus , so I'll be sure to separate out any astro mumbo jumbo i come across if I read more from him!
I'm familiar with some of these arguments from Carrier and from Earhmans How Jesus became god speeches; I need tobgive those a relisten though as I was doing housework listening to them and I don't think I absorbed as much as I could have.
Didn't he begin as a theist and become agnostic?
Eherman began as a theist, moved to agnostic (he uses the term wrong) and now admits to being an agnostic atheist. (terms used correctly)
Carrier didn't really care but assumed Jesus was real. The more he researched the more he realized there was no reason to make the assumption anyone named Jesus the Christ ever existed. The evidence is horrible.
I'm honestly amazed at how little there is? Because I always heard about all the other "references" to Jesus and honestly I don't even need to hinge my opinion on the forgery of Josephus (which does seem likely) because as others have said, it's not saying anythting that you couldn't get from joe Catholic on the street?? And it's not even contemporary? Like even as mesaed up as my brain is stuck in Christian doctrine even I look at these supposed references and I think...this is what you have ?
@ Mikhael
The truth is: There are NO contemporary references to a jesus figure as described in the gospels. None. Not One. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Empty Vessel.
I have answered this question to exhaustion with various theists such as JoC, Jo and others. There are no contemporary references to a human or divine Jesus/Yeshua figure at all. None.
References to a ghost/hologramic/spiritual jesus start with "Paul". Some 20 to thirty years after the gospel accounts end the jesus figure. Paul only transmits messages from the 'dead' jesus he sees in dreams.
The gospel ("Mark") is composed not before 75CE, Matthew and Luke copy large chunks of it, and make up a lot of stories to suit their audiences from about 80CE.
John is then written based on Mark, but includes more fanciful stories for his (actually their as it was written over many years by more than one author) audience.
Tacitus only mentions the beliefs of Christians, and then approx 100 years after the gospel told events.
Josephus 1st reference is a a 3rd century interpolation.
Josephus 2nd reference could mean many things but also, like Tacitus was written as an historical account (and some say speculative) not an eye witness account.
Seneca is a forgery.
Pliny the Younger only talks about christians and how to tax them (as Jews or not) and is again about 110CE.
Find me solid contemporary evidence of the jesus figure and I will eat one of Cogs soiled nappies.
Ok 1, thank you for that image it will do wonders for keeping me on my diet
2, ice been reading those accounts and honestly they leave looking around like....come on guys where is the rest? Theists, where you hiding the real evidence? Like, coming out of it with like 4 toes still in the church door I just don't know how they can hang their hat on so little? Like honestly it leaves me with more faith in mythological gods that never claimed to be great living people on earth because at least with those figures, you don't find evidence? Well no one ever claimed there was any, unlike Christians.
I also grew up hearing stories and seeing specials on tv about the ark, about the manager where he was born, and always took it for granted that we had at least some evidence for it.
And now here I am learning that mainstream scholarship already agrees that there was most likely no central modes or Abraham and I'm like just yeah. The foundation isn't here
@Mikhael: Jesus has a ministry for 4 years. He dies in 33 CE. Josephus is born in 37 CE. Christianity isn't even a religion yet. (In 325 CE, Constantine's alleged conversion, Christianity was only 10% of the population of Rome.) Flavius Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews, around 93–94 CE, and lived to 100 CE. He wrote 60 years after the alleged death of the Jesus character without ever knowing him. It's just not evidence of anything. Pile on top of it the accusations of forgery and it is completely useless.
He never met Jesus. He did not grow up around Christians.
Indeed. It's another one where I look at Christians asserting this as proof and, even assuming it WAS real, it's still not contemporary.
It reminds me a lot of how Christians argue so hard that their Christmas traditions have nothing to do with pagan traditions even though they indeed do, but they will still go back to the same 4 or 5 apologist threads, just worded different
@Mikhael
Hey there! Glad to see you on the path of rational thinking. Feels good, doesn't it?... *grin*... Here's a little something more I hope will help you a bit along the way...
For starters, it is great you are learning these things for yourself now. Keep up the good work on that. Quality knowledge is a powerful tool. However, you might be interested to know that I had my doubts and escaped religion before ever knowing anything about any of the "big name" historians/scholars/critics/atheists that are regularly cited around here. It was only after joining the AR that I started learning about all those folks, and they really only served to reinforce my position and confirm a few things I had always suspected. In other words, my lack of belief is basically independent of any scientific or historical studies.
Instead, my atheism stems primarily from reading the bible and from what I was taught about God/Jesus during all those years as a kid in church. Because when it comes right down to the very core of the matter, the entire concept/premise of the Christian dogma I was taught makes absolutely ZERO sense in and of itself. Any of the things I have learned from this site and other sources after making my escape have only served to help me better understand and more easily articulate WHY it never made sense to me.
I am telling you this so you can be assured that the very foundation of the religious beliefs out there are built on incredibly unstable foundations (at best). Meaning that anything else built on that foundation should not be trusted, and that you do not have to rely on any other "outside" sources to see/determine that for yourself. See what I mean? Sure - absolutely - the more you learn the better prepared you are. Definitely continue to learn and seek knowledge. Just know it is not necessary to base your conclusions on the views of others. Everything you need to know to debunk all the ridiculous religious claims is right there for you to see in the very bible that makes those outlandish claims. Anything you learn from others outside of that is just icing on the cake. Keep up the good work, young man.
I really appreciate you sharing that sentiment, how you were able to discern the bullshit right on your own.
I personally have not had that experience. Maybe ots because Catholicism wraps itself in a nice blanket (they accept evolution, they aren't bible literalists, etc) that makes it harder to see the fallacies. Maybe its because I've been fearful of such woo my whole life (panicked for months seeing a checkout stand tabloid talking about the end of the world as a kid for example). I'm sorr of predisposed to believe the woo. I love ghost stories for example, and I have a predilection to be very earth goddessy about being in nature. So I woulsn t say yet that my natural state of being is very skeptical or able to look past woo. I tend to believe woo first, ask questions later. If my meltdown didn't make that obvious !
So for me at this time I am getting a lot of benefit going the education route, though as a friend pointed out to me, that could be because of my Catholicism too- they taught you had to be 100% sure of every actions correctness before taking said action. It's also keeping up a solid wall between me and my doubts; it would still be very easy for me right now to go read about instantly healing wounds at Lourdes circa 1902 if I stay idle for too long
@Mikhael
Re: "So for me at this time I am getting a lot of benefit going the education route..."
I totally understand. Recovering from strict religious indoctrination is different for everybody. I am very well aware of how difficult it is to get past certain aspects of it. So you definitely continue doing whatever it is that works best for you. It may seem like a distant goal at the moment, but there will come a day when you wake up one morning and realize all the doubt is gone, and you will wonder why you ever had a problem letting go of all the bullshit in the first place. It happened with me, and it can happen with you.
Re: "...how you were able to discern the bullshit right on your own..."
Well, I'm not sure there is a simple answer for that. Yes, I was raised to believe in the bible and God and Jesus and heaven and hell and Satan and all of that. Oddly enough, though, at the same time I was encouraged to be my own person and think for myself and to learn as much as I could about as many things as I could. School work and such always came easy to me, and I was always in the top of my class academically. So, in a way, I guess all that combined allowed me to "think laterally" and more critically than most other kids my age. As a result, I began to notice all the contradictions and inconsistencies of my religious teachings at a very young age. The problem, however, is that I was too young to fully realize and articulate WHY none of it made sense. Moreover, I was an obedient child who was taught to trust and respect my elders. Because of that, the concept of hell and eternal punishment became firmly implanted into my young brain without my realizing it. And, quite frankly, that is pretty much the only reason that it took me so long to break away, despite all the doubts I had even into my adult years.
As for how I was able to "discern the bullshit", all the contradictions and inconsistencies are basically right there in plain sight. Most people simply choose not to see them or prefer to ignore them if they do see them. All you have to do is open the bible and start reading. That's it. Hell, you cannot get though even the very first book of the bible without running into a massive wall of outlandish nonsense. In my opinion, anybody who is able to read that and still be able to say, "That is the work of a PERFECT omniscient and omnipotent god," is clearly in desperate need of remedial reading comprehension lessons or very high dosages of strong meds. As I have said on this site a few times before, I am fairly confident even I could have written a more clear and comprehensive manual for humanity during my high school English class. And all you have to remember is that the bible is THE SOLE FOUNDATION for a few thousand different religious sects, all of which believe THEY are the only ones who follow the TRUE AND CORRECT interpretations of this "PERFECT" holy book that was created under the guidance of a "PERFECT" god. Like I said, the very foundation of the entire concept is basically quicksand at best. Would you buy and live in a house that was built on a foundation of quicksand?
You know the "build your house on a foundation of quicksand" argument really hits me because that's where I have trouble. I can see the house is build on quicksand, I see how absolutely shoddy the foundation is, I know its held up with twine and crossed fingers, but I still go inside. I can absolutely listen to Carrier or Andrews or even aron ra or Jimmy snow and think yeah, this religion is built on bullshit, but there's still sticky stuff upstairs to work on
Which is why I've bought some books on kindle. Not the impossible faith is a good read for me because he's very thorough and goes over each point from multiple angles. Things don't stick very well with me so i like the repition! Beat that shit into my skull
@ Mikhael
"I can absolutely listen to Carrier or Andrews or even aron ra or Jimmy snow and think yeah, this religion is built on bullshit, but there's still sticky stuff upstairs to work on."
All you need is George Carlin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tp0UNcjzl8&t=6s
I love the "but he loves you!" Quote! I didn't even know where that came from and I use it
I don't have work today so I guess I'm laying on bed with my cats watching half an hour of Carlin, cool beans
@Mikhael: Here is a secret for you..... EVERYONE LIVES IN QUICKSAND. All of our houses are built on quicksand. The real difference is that some of us know and accept this while others struggle against it. We can question anything and everything we believe; however, at the end of the day we all have to function as best we can in the world around us. When your beliefs no longer help you do that, it is time to let them go.
Mine stopped helping a long time ago.
When I identified as a pagan, I got asked a couple times how I knew my religion was true. And I gave a typical hippie new age answer of, I know it's true because I can see the evidence of my religion. I can see the cycles of each season and the inevitability of change and death, and how things that happen to us aren't good or evil, they just are, and we have to deal with it as we can.
And while I don't ID as pagan now I think there is still something to be said about looking around and starting with what you know is true. It's actually a grounding technique people use when they are dissociating; you tell yourself your name, you describe what you can see, hear, feel. You start with what you know.
Well, I don't know much, but I know the bible is not a history book. I know most of its people can not be proven to have existed. I know donkeys don't talk and the dead did not rise in 33 ce. I know the Catholic church has a long history of violence and scandal, I know they are more powerful than they ought to be. And maybe I can't answer every question I wish I could answer, but I can at least shove a few sticks in my quicksand to hold myself up for now
@Cog
"All our houses are built on quicksand" ....yep.
Dealing with that reality is the mark of the emotionally mature.
So fling so e more poo you emotionally matured creature, just leave the goddam cookies alone.
:-)