Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jesus Myth Theory

This came up on Google:
If you say that someone is casting pearls before swine, you mean that they are wasting their time by offering something that is helpful or valuable to someone who does not appreciate or understand it.
Biblical reference is available.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PTK
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning

This video is really interesting but long, so heres an imperfect AI summary of it

 
You could derren brown most of the miracles attributed to yeshua ben joseph but the rising from the dead after being crucified one is beyond even derens powers imo. Spear in the side remember, no getting out of that one without some heavenly assistance
The spear wound in the side is suspiciously similar to Prometheus' wound where his liver keeps getting eaten. He too was strung up by his arms in penance for assisting mankind.

Makes you think, doesn't it?
 
I'm coming to the conclusion that at best there was a guy living around this time who's life and actions got turned into something that if he wouldn't even recognise that it was him they were talking about.

This i what I've decided occurred. The evidence is in the text imo. If the Romans had invented Jesus then he wouldn't have been attributed as saying all the inflammatory and anti Roman things that he did say. Also Jesus contradicts himself all over the place which is something that eastern teachers would do to provoke independent thought, but is alien to modern Christianity. I just think he was nobody special but that a legend about him grew, posthumously, to proportions that were impossible to ignore, in times when writing anything down would have been seriously risky in occupied Roman territory. There are texts, older than anything in the Bible, which suggest that Jesus was very much influenced by eastern philosophy and did not think of himself as anything but a man, and a teacher. There is a legend in India that Jesus visited in the years that is not covered at all in the scriptures, and then returns in old age to die. There's even an alleged tomb. I mean, nobody believes that he died on a cross and came back to life right? To me that all feels like a Roman fabrication. I expect when things got a big hot for him he escaped on a trade route out to India, which he'd used before when he was a younger man.

A lot of the stuff about him that is harder to believe does align with legends/beliefs that existed prior to Christianity - almost as if they just bolted on different elements to make him appeal to Roman citizens.

I mean there's also no direct evidence that Socrates actually existed either - just the writings of Plato.
 
for 9 days. 3x3. Also Baldr and his rebirth.
Have you read The Dragonbone Chair, by Tad Williams? (Tolkien-esque fantasy) In that, the fantasy Jesus-equivalent is hanged from a tree instead of crucified, and the main symbol of the religion is the Tree instead of the Cross.
 
Have you read The Dragonbone Chair, by Tad Williams? (Tolkien-esque fantasy) In that, the fantasy Jesus-equivalent is hanged from a tree instead of crucified, and the main symbol of the religion is the Tree instead of the Cross.
Ill see if theres an epub when I'm done with Rivers of London
 
Ill see if theres an epub when I'm done with Rivers of London
It was the first series I read where the setting was almost explicitly based on real places, so there's an Anglo-Saxon bit, a Welsh bit, Vikings, and a Rome (former Imperial capital and now the seat of the church).
 
A lot of the stuff about him that is harder to believe does align with legends/beliefs that existed prior to Christianity - almost as if they just bolted on different elements to make him appeal to Roman citizens.
There are surviving complete manuscripts of gospels that predate the Roman Empire's official adoption of Christianity.
 
It's the same as the Loch Ness Monster Myth Theory. Someone once said they saw something, which they may or may not have, which they said thought was something, which it may or may not have been. The rest is just Chinese whispers and manipulation for benefit.

It's completely fucking nuts that there is still anyone who believes anything more than that as factual
 
Last edited:
There's undoubtedly an element of syncretism in the development of Christianity, but I don't think that is strong evidence against the existence of a historical Jesus.
 
Counterpoint: It's not the same as the Loch Ness Monster Myth Theory. It's actually quite different and there's a reasonable body of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.
 
Counterpoint: It's not the same as the Loch Ness Monster Myth Theory. It's actually quite different and there's a reasonable body of evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

There's a reasonable body of evidence that someone thought they saw Nessie. The rest is just hearsay.

Highly likely that a human called Jesus existed, probably quite a few, in fact. The rest is hearsay.
 
It's the same as the Loch Ness Monster Myth Theory. Someone once said they saw something, which they may or may not have, which they said thought was something, which it may or may not have been. The rest is just Chinese whispers and manipulation for benefit.

It's completely fucking nuts that there is still anyone who believes anything more than that as factual
Myth??? :eek:
 
Does it actually matter if there really was a bloke called Jesus who did some unknown things, which later got blown out of all proportion?

It would matter if there was a literal Biblical Jesus who did the things literally described. Unless all that is true, though, whatever’s left over is irrelevant.
 
Does it actually matter if there really was a bloke called Jesus who did some unknown things, which later got blown out of all proportion?

It would matter if there was a literal Biblical Jesus who did the things literally described. Unless all that is true, though, whatever’s left over is irrelevant.
It's interesting though.

Denying the historical existence of Jesus is a quick and dirty way to 'disprove' Christianity. But I don't need to know whether he existed to know that he wasn't the Son of God (two natures in one individual who sacrificed himself to himself in order to atone for a sin that he himself provoked) or could do catering-based magic.
 
Does it actually matter if there really was a bloke called Jesus who did some unknown things, which later got blown out of all proportion?

It would matter if there was a literal Biblical Jesus who did the things literally described. Unless all that is true, though, whatever’s left over is irrelevant.
Think it's a bit more matter of degrees than an either/or - if there was a teacher wandering around Palestine with a heterodox version of Judaism and making claims about being the messiah/giving the sermon on the mount it would be more significant than your bog standard religious enthusiast drawing a crowd. Why the new message, why did it catch on etc? Those theories about salvationist aspects being a draw in a slave empire, for example.
 
Think it's a bit more matter of degrees than an either/or - if there was a teacher wandering around Palestine with a heterodox version of Judaism and making claims about being the messiah/giving the sermon on the mount it would be more significant than your bog standard religious enthusiast drawing a crowd. Why the new message, why did it catch on etc? Those theories about salvationist aspects being a draw in a slave empire, for example.
Well, whether or not there was an actual teacher doing those things, there were certainly people later that did those things, but just in the name of that (fictional or otherwise) teacher. So all your questions still apply and are still interesting, regardless.
 
Well, whether or not there was an actually teacher doing those things, there were certainly people later that did those things, but just in the name of that (fictional or otherwise) teacher. So all your questions still apply and are still interesting, regardless.
True, and I think in the long run it's the material/social background that matters but i do think individual persons and events can push history a bit to one way or another with lasting consequences.
 
Also interesting is the way that figures once generally agreed to have been real people start to get written out of history as mere inventions. Pythagoras, Homer, Jesus. You can even see it beginning to happen to Shakespeare.
 
Back
Top Bottom