Jesus Myth Theory

[butchersapron]

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being born free of Original Sin, nothing to do with Jesus Mary and Joseph.

 

[ska invita]

What! Sorry but this is absolutely mad, the Socrates that occurs in Plato's writings, while based on a real person, is quite clearly a literary device. The Platonic Socrates is used by Plato as a tool for Plato to advance his philosophy.

I was talking about whether Socrates existed or not, in parallel with whether Jesus existed or not, just to make the point that the nearest contemporaries of Jesus are a not the most impartial or trustworthy sources.

 

[redsquirrel]

I was talking about whether Socrates existed or not, in parallel with whether Jesus existed or not, just to make the point that the nearest contemporaries of Jesus are a not the most impartial or trustworthy sources.

(my emphasis)
And neither are the nearest contemporary accounts of Socrates.

 

[Addy]

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being born free of Original Sin, nothing to do with Jesus Mary and Joseph.

Like I said, it was covered in the Ladybird book which holds as much weight as the holy bible.

 

[danny la rouge]

Like I said, it was covered in the Ladybird book which holds as much weight as the holy bible.

The Immaculate Conception isn't in the Bible. It was only codified by the Catholic Church in the 19th Century.

 

[Addy]

I didn't say it was in the bible ...... gosh, you all jump to conclusions on serious thread

 

[butchersapron]

I was talking about whether Socrates existed or not, in parallel with whether Jesus existed or not, just to make the point that the nearest contemporaries of Jesus are a not the most impartial or trustworthy sources.

It's the very impartiality of some sources that make them valuable sources.

 

[danny la rouge]

I didn't say it was in the bible ...... gosh, you all jump to conclusions on serious thread

Much as your levity is appreciated, it's hard to tell if a point is intended or if it's just a lark.

 

[Addy]

Well, based upon the legitamacy of the words in the bible, take this as a lark

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, based upon the legitamacy of the words in the bible, take this as a lark

Do you think you're breaking anything to us here? The usefulness of the books of the NT here is not their accuracy (as has been discussed), nor as evidence for the divinity of Jesus (he was a preacher not a god), but how they provide evidence that he - Jesus the man - existed. To dismiss them as entirely mythological is to miss the point.

 

[phildwyer]

'Joseph was a peado'

That was Socrates.

 

[Humberto]

Apart from Jesus God never shows himself? He did come once and he was crucified. Think that would do it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The main thing is that if Jesus was real and behaved more or less as described in the gospels then he'd not want fuck all to do with the churches that now bear his name. Not least because of their demented obsession with abortion and gay people, two subjects to which jesus devoted about as many words as you'll find interesting people at a Coldplay gig.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

The main thing is that if Jesus was real and behaved more or less as described in the gospels then he'd not want fuck all to do with the churches that now bear his name. Not least because of their demented obsession with abortion and gay people, two subjects to which jesus devoted about as many words as you'll find interesting people at a Coldplay gig.

You know, most churches are NOT obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You know, most churches are NOT obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.

Most churches in this country maybe. Christian fundamentalist oppression of gay people is still endemic in much of the rest of the world.

 

[butchersapron]

What is it about this closely defined subject or similar threads that seem to say to posters, post anything you like about religion here - anything at all. It doesn't matter what.

Maybe you like jesus? Maybe you think it's a fairlytale? Something else? Either way, post it here.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In reality, there are two non-Platonic depictions of Socrates: Aristophanes' and Xenophon's.

Xenophon's is identical to Plato's, while Aristophanes is a declared piss-take. It's reasonable to conclude that Plato's Socrates is historically accurate.

?

I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure Russell thinks that Xenophon's Socrates is very different from Plato's - more the fool than the wise man. Also, redsquirrel is right that Plato's Socrates is a dramatic device. We call it the Socratic method, but really, it's the Platonic method. Plato may or may not have learned such techniques from Socrates, and the ideas Plato presents may or may not have originally been heard by him from Socrates, but it is more likely to think that Plato is using 'Socrates' to put across his own ideas. Doesn't mean Socrates didn't exist.

I think there are parallels with Jesus and his sermons. The authors use 'Jesus' to put across their ideas. Most, some, little or none of the ideas may have been Jesus's. I'd go with 'some', probably, as I would with Plato's 'Socrates'.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think there are parallels with Jesus and his sermons. The authors use 'Jesus' to put across their ideas. Most, some, little or none of the ideas may have been Jesus's. I'd go with 'some', probably, as I would with Plato's 'Socrates'.

Indeed. And there's a body of analysis that compares biblical accounts of Jesus's sayings to try to discover which of them came from a common source.

 

[butchersapron]

?

I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure Russell thinks that Xenophon's Socrates is very different from Plato's - more the fool than the wise man. Also, redsquirrel is right that Plato's Socrates is a dramatic device. We call it the Socratic method, but really, it's the Platonic method. Plato may or may not have learned such techniques from Socrates, and the ideas Plato presents may or may not have originally been heard by him from Socrates, but it is more likely to think that Plato is using 'Socrates' to put across his own ideas. Doesn't mean Socrates didn't exist.

I think there are parallels with Jesus and his sermons. The authors use 'Jesus' to put across their ideas. Most, some, little or none of the ideas may have been Jesus's. I'd go with 'some', probably, as I would with Plato's 'Socrates'.

Can't see many parallels with socratic method there to be honest - the lack of substantive dialogue sort of rules that out. What the gospels authors were presenting was closer to internal propaganda, arguing for the perspective of their particular churches position against that of others within the debates then taking place in early competitive christianity - i.e about gentiles, about whether the jewish law should apply only to jewish christians (and roman law to roman christians etc) or to all all christians and so on. This is where the contradictions and nuances come in. They often are based around allusions or direct quotes to jewish bible writings and aren't supposed to function as proper biographical reconstructions but as establishing intellectual or religious positions -almost like some hacks use Marx said this therefore i'm right. Which is why when some people say that john said this but mark said that therefore jesus couldn't have existed, they are rather missing the point.

 

[Humberto]

What is it about this closely defined subject or similar threads that seem to say to posters, post anything you like about religion here - anything at all. It doesn't matter what.

Maybe you like jesus? Maybe you think it's a fairlytale? Something else? Either way, post it here.

haha yes it was a fucking stupid comment

i'll hold me hands up to that one

good thread btw

 

[danny la rouge]

Seems to be some confusion/missed crossover between tacitus and josephus in the last few posts. He (J) later also made reference to 'the brother of jesus' as well which has not been challenged. And to go back to the OP, paul also mentions meeting jesus' bother (and other apostles) in jerusalem - the name etc being consistent with other sources giving the same names and bases of operations for those early churches.

For those not familiar with it, this is "the James Passage":

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned[...]"

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[N_igma]

I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who actually existed and led a religious cult that would eventually develop into what we now know as christianity. I was reading some stuff by Reza Aslan about this a bit back - we actually know a lot more about his brother James (who was arguably more important than the messiah himself in orgnising and expanding the cult into one of the three major monotheistic religions.

There is enough non-biblical evidence to back up the existence of someone called Jesus of Nazareth who claimed to be the king of the jews and was crucified for banditry for me to have no doubt. There is less

Where did he come from? I'm pretty sure there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century AD and was only built up a few hundred years later.

Also in reference to what we might expect to find in archeological terms, his empty tomb would be great. Archeologists have scoured the deserts in the Middle East hoping to find evidence of Biblical prophecies and have found pretty much nothing. I think that says a lot too.

 

[krtek a houby]

You know, most churches are NOT obsessed with abortion and homosexuality.

That's your belief. My belief is that they are.

Anyways; I reckon JC did exist and inspired people who then added and interpreted his sayings and fashioned them into the dogma we have today. Was he divine? Not a chance.

 

[JimW]

Where did he come from? I'm pretty sure there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century AD and was only built up a few hundred years later.

Also in reference to what we might expect to find in archeological terms, his empty tomb would be great. Archeologists have scoured the deserts in the Middle East hoping to find evidence of Biblical prophecies and have found pretty much nothing. I think that says a lot too.

Be surprised if there was no settlement at what later we know as Nazareth given the usually continuity of occupation at similar sites.

 

[butchersapron]

Where did he come from? I'm pretty sure there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century AD and was only built up a few hundred years later.

Also in reference to what we might expect to find in archeological terms, his empty tomb would be great. Archeologists have scoured the deserts in the Middle East hoping to find evidence of Biblical prophecies and have found pretty much nothing. I think that says a lot too.

Modern scholars (and that's a link to a very sceptical one) i've read believe that Nazareth existed but was a very poor small town of a few 100 people so doesn't appear in records being so insignificant. They have recently found what are claimed to be religious bathing wells as well as a house and tombs.

What have prophecies got to do with it? There is plenty of modern archaeological evidence for much of antiquity - aside from prophecy.

 

[danny la rouge]

Also in reference to what we might expect to find in archeological terms, his empty tomb would be great.

Why would that be a) great, b) realistic?

There are kings whose tombs we haven't found. Why would we find the tomb of a nomadic first century preacher?

We don't have Socrates' tomb, occupied or not.

 

[Sprocket.]

Like I said, it was covered in the Ladybird book which holds as much weight as the holy bible.

On average the bible is 548g heavier than a Ladybird book.
Science wins through again!
Interestingly standard bibles weigh approximately 666g.

 

[Pickman's model]

Like I said, it was covered in the Ladybird book which holds as much weight as the holy bible.

i think you'll find a bible holds more weight than a ladybird book.

if you use a ladybird book to bridge the gap between two bricks and try to stand on it your foot goes straight through it. the same cannot be said of the bible i used in this experiment.

 

[phildwyer]

The main thing is that if Jesus was real and behaved more or less as described in the gospels then he'd not want fuck all to do with the churches that now bear his name.

Yep. Organized religion is Antichrist.

 

[ska invita]

Whatever else can be said, and to take the OP title at its most literal, for certain, yes Jesus is a Myth - the Jesus story is pure mythologising, from start to finish. Practically defines myth.