Jesus Myth Theory

[Kaka Tim]

The simplest explanation would seem to be that there was a preacher we now know as jesus who was knocking around 2000 years ago who - by his words and deeds - inspired others to start of whole new religion - (you could say the same about Buddhism and Islam). The new religion/cult that spread out in all directions from 1st century judea - (the Egyptian Coptic church the Ethiopian church were founded independently of Rome)
All accounts - both cannon and not - say he was executed by the romans.

Also the gospel story of the passion (palm sunday to the crucifixion) dont sound like a mythological story - but a quite detailed account of the last supper, his arrest, trail and execution with not much in the way of miracles or heroic fights, fabulous stories - very different from the nativity story. Various real individuals are named - like pilate and heord - and it details a plausible sounding legal process.
I dont see any reason to disbelieve the core - non miraculous - elements of his ministry, teaching and death. The alternative - that he never existed at all but was a composite - seems more complicated and unlikely. Yes - pre-existing cults and myths were absorbed and adopted by Christianity at a later date - (see also - every other religion in the world) but I dont have any problem accepting him as a real person.
The "never existed" argument only really seems to establish that its possible he never existed - but it seems too much of a reach for religion that went from nowhere to spawning umpteen different varieties established across a massive swathe of the eastern Mediterranean, the middle east and east Africa in a few centuries whist being actively suppressed by the roman empire - it seems too big an inspiration for too many people for it to originate with some clever spin doctoring and marketing.

 

[Riklet]

Surely it's not controversial to state that organised religions like Christianity are examples of massive conspiracies.

I'd say it's totally controversial and also massively naive. Teenager with their first copy of Nietzsche stuff. Have none of you "critically minded" people ever read a basic intro to sociology? You're going to write off thousands of years of history and shared/communal/material existence, development of social bonds, "webs of meaning" yada yada yada within the development of Christianity to just be a massive conspiracy.

The main reason this is controversial however, not even getting started on the above (conspiracy by whom, against what, for what purpose.... so many questions!), is your claim of "organised religions like Christianity" - which would those be and what do you actually mean by this? And in what context are you analysing them to be meaningful/correct/conspiratorial?

This all just reminds me of some daft post a while ago that butchersapron ripped into, by some daftie who said they never visit churches or cathedrals because they don't like Christianity.

 

[mojo pixy]

Got any source to back that up?

The issue seems to be people's beef with christianity/theology here, but I thought we were discussing the historical basis for Jesus, which is well documented. Rather than what happened in the centuries after his death (growth of the church, spread of Christianity, "coopting" of radical ideas by the state perhaps).

If there was a single, identifiable 'he'.

When did Christianity really take off as a faith? What years? Where? I'm not demanding answers, those questions are really hard to answer conclusively.

The history if the early (pre-nicean) Church is very contested and lost in the fog of time and Roman history/propaganda. Copts are all but forgotten, Christianity in lands that later became Islamic is blurred and confused. Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church, which had ~1500 years to write its own history in Europe, free from any competition whatsoever.

 

[Serge Forward]

Got any source to back that up?

The issue seems to be people's beef with christianity/theology here, but I thought we were discussing the historical basis for Jesus, which is well documented. Rather than what happened in the centuries after his death (growth of the church, spread of Christianity, "coopting" of radical ideas by the state perhaps).

Have you got any sources for the historical basis for Jesus? By that, I mean Jesus as one actual person rather than a representation or composite of various rabbis from that time.

 

[Riklet]

Have you got any sources for the historical basis for Jesus? By that, I mean Jesus as one actual person rather than a representation or composite of various rabbis from that time.

Zzzzzzz this is so stupid. Here we go again. I'm done with this ridiculous thread.

 

[mojo pixy]

Maybe start a 'Jesus was Real' thread and post up the acres of historical evidence. I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Serge Forward]

Riklet you were the one talking about the historical basis for Jesus. I'm asking you to show and tell. For the record, I agree the "Christianity was a conspiracy" is bullshit, but I'm still curious about what historical evidence exists.

 

[JimW]

Riklet you were the one talking about the historical basis for Jesus. I'm asking you to show and tell. For the record, I agree the "Christianity was a conspiracy" is bullshit, but I'm still curious about what historical evidence exists.

Leaving aside any textual or archaeological evidence, the whole trajectory seems entirely consistent with the followers of a teacher founding a cult that spreads and morphs and much later gets co-opted. I imagine it was the salvationist elements that had the broad appeal and were somewhat novel.

 

[Brainaddict]

So .. if the majority of people who claim eg. 9/11 was an inside job are sincere in their beliefs, it's a religion not a conspiracy theory?

Think you're mixing up 'conspiracy' and 'conspiracy theory'.

 

[Pickman's model]

If there was a single, identifiable 'he'.

When did Christianity really take off as a faith? What years? Where? I'm not demanding answers, those questions are really hard to answer conclusively.

The history if the early (pre-nicean) Church is very contested and lost in the fog of time and Roman history/propaganda. Copts are all but forgotten, Christianity in lands that later became Islamic is blurred and confused. Not to mention the Roman Catholic Church, which had ~1500 years to write its own history in Europe, free from any competition whatsoever.

i'm sorry, but the roman catholic church did not have ~1500 years to write its own history in europe free from any competition whatsoever, being as eg the greek orthodox church wasn't entirely silent on its western co-religionists. in addition, the roman catholic church was rarely if ever one unified force - who can forget hearing about popes and anti-popes and babylonian captivities. anyone who has seen or read 'the name of the rose' knows how riven the church was within itself in the 14th century, and how much more so it must have been centuries before when the battle was fought for control of the church between the gnostics and the careerists, for want of a better term. so it's not like there's an rc history of the church like there was a short course in the history of the communist party of the soviet union.

it really isn't that nothing is known of the early church with everything lost in the fog of time and roman history/propaganda. books like geza vermes' 'christian beginnings' shed a fair bit of light on the subject, as do studies like robin lane fox's book about christians and pagans. sure, it's not like we know everything: but we're very far from knowing nothing.

 

[Brainaddict]

I'd say it's totally controversial and also massively naive. Teenager with their first copy of Nietzsche stuff. Have none of you "critically minded" people ever read a basic intro to sociology? You're going to write off thousands of years of history and shared/communal/material existence, development of social bonds, "webs of meaning" yada yada yada within the development of Christianity to just be a massive conspiracy.

The main reason this is controversial however, not even getting started on the above (conspiracy by whom, against what, for what purpose.... so many questions!), is your claim of "organised religions like Christianity" - which would those be and what do you actually mean by this? And in what context are you analysing them to be meaningful/correct/conspiratorial?

This all just reminds me of some daft post a while ago that butchersapron ripped into, by some daftie who said they never visit churches or cathedrals because they don't like Christianity.

Yeah, I think there's a temptation for some people who've never been inside a religion to believe (a) that it's all about propagating belief and (b) that the smart people involved can't possibly actually believe those things. Neither is remotely true.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah, I think there's a temptation for some people who've never been inside a religion to believe (a) that it's all about propagating belief and (b) that the smart people involved can't possibly actually believe those things. Neither is remotely true.

I think people are operating with different working definitions of 'conspiracy' here tbf.

 

[mojo pixy]

I agree the "Christianity was a conspiracy" is bullshit, but I'm still curious about what historical evidence exists.

I mean, it's not necessary to believe in 'conspiracy' at all. If Jesus wasn't a real, identifiable person - even if the story is an archetype based on multiple real people plus stuff like the Epic of Gilgamesh and the myth of Osiris etc - then why that story? Where from? By whom? Again, not questions I'm demanding answers to, but there they are.

i'm sorry, but the roman catholic church did not have ~1500 years to write its own history in europe free from any competition whatsoever, being as eg the greek orthodox church wasn't entirely silent on its western co-religionists. in addition, the roman catholic church was rarely if ever one unified force - who can forget hearing about popes and anti-popes and babylonian captivities. anyone who has seen or read 'the name of the rose' knows how riven the church was within itself in the 14th century, and how much more so it must have been centuries before when the battle was fought for control of the church between the gnostics and the careerists, for want of a better term. so it's not like there's an rc history of the church like there was a short course in the history of the communist party of the soviet union.

it really isn't that nothing is known of the early church with everything lost in the fog of time and roman history/propaganda. books like geza vermes' 'christian beginnings' shed a fair bit of light on the subject, as do studies like robin lane fox's book about christians and pagans. sure, it's not like we know everything: but we're very far from knowing nothing.

OK yes - the Eastern Empire and its related church are relevant. But in terms of Jesus, the Orthodox churches' story is not greatly different from the Catholic version. And of course the in-house history of the RCC itself is a tangled mess of lies and revisions. I overspoke and drifted off topic, thanks for the nudge. I'm not intending to post more here unless in response to a direct question because I don't have the books I once owned (including the excellent Vermes book you mention).

It's all germane IMO to the character of Jesus, because with all the intrigue and murder down the centuries he is the one shining light through the entire doctrine, really. A point of accord for many factions who would love to kill each other but instead figure out how to pray together instead. It barely even matters whether it was a real individual or not. That's not Jesus' function any more (and arguably never was).

 

[nogojones]

A crucifixion of Jesu sounds right.

Nailed it

 

[Santino]

What exactly were the Flavians supposed to have gained from inventing Jesus?

 

[mojo pixy]

What exactly were the Flavians supposed to have gained from inventing Jesus?

Rulership of Rome. What would that be worth?

Not that it mattered, in 96AD Domitian was assassinated and it was all over for that family. Till Constantine.
May be worth adding that it was the middle one, Titus, who was reponsible for the destruction of Jerusalem (while his dad Vespasian was emperor), and carting the contents of the Second Temple to Rome. That may have been worth mythologizing.

Esprit d'escalier...

Incidentally, that mission of Titus' to pacify / neutralize Judea was largely documented by Josephus, the same who provides most of the historical / non-biblical testimony as to the character of Jesus. This doesn't make him untrustworthy, but everything he wrote would have to be approved by his boss, Titus (and later Domitian)

The contents of the Second Temple were brought to Rome and placed on public display (bearing in mind this was stuff from the Holiest of Holies, it was an insult as much as anything else) in a new Temple of Peace. It is thought this temple was actually built on the orders of Domitian, as part of his efforts to associate his family with Judaism and its ancient mysticism, so as to bolster their position against many closing enemies (and as I said, he was assassinated in the end)

I don't think they ''invented'' Jesus - but I do think they exploited it, and I do think our Story of Jesus was essentially composed in the Roman Emperor's library in the 80's AD, or so.

Someone needs to mention Tacitus, and the Christus executed by Pontius Pilate that he mentions in his report of the great fire of Rome in 64AD (the one where Nero fiddled or whatever). He mentions it in passing but gives no details of who this was, just that Christians took their name from them. It's not a lot, but a lot hangs on it. Enough for anyone to build excellent stories around, sure.

 

[Santino]

Rulership of Rome. What would that be worth?

Not that it mattered, in 96AD Domitian was assassinated and it was all over for that family. Till Constantine.
May be worth adding that it was the middle one, Titus, who was reponsible for the destruction of Jerusalem (while his dad Vespasian was emperor), and carting the contents of the Second Temple to Rome. That may have been worth mythologizing.

What did the creation of Jesus achieve for them?

 

[mojo pixy]

Please see my post above. I don't think they ''created'' Jesus, just that they exploited the story, and what we have is basically what they made out of it. And the reason that is, is that later, another member of the same family also had a chance at the throne, and he converted very publicly to Christianity as part of his mission to gain it (the first leader as I recall to make his soldiers paint crosses on their shields). Anyway it worked. And the rest is literally history.

 

[Santino]

Please see my post above. I don't think they ''created'' Jesus, just that they exploited the story, and what we have is basically what they made out of it. And the reason that is, is that later, another member of the same family also had a chance at the throne, and he converted very publicly to Christianity as part of his mission to gain it (the first leader as I recall to make his soldiers paint crosses on their shields). Anyway it worked. And the rest is literally history.

What worked? How did the earlier Flavians exploit the story? What evidence is there for the use they made out of the story?

 

[mojo pixy]

Do you even really care, or are you just trying to trip me up?
Either way, you could at this point just read around it for yourself. I've got to pick the boy up from school now.

 

[Teaboy]

I'd say it's totally controversial and also massively naive. Teenager with their first copy of Nietzsche stuff. Have none of you "critically minded" people ever read a basic intro to sociology? You're going to write off thousands of years of history and shared/communal/material existence, development of social bonds, "webs of meaning" yada yada yada within the development of Christianity to just be a massive conspiracy.

Whilst I agree with your central point that years of spoken word history and teachings cannot be dismissed because it lacks the rigour of empirical evidence I'd also say it's always been true therefore it must be true is a poor starting position for the study of history or even theology for that matter

Because vast swathes of the bible is objectively and unambiguously a load of old bollocks its not an unreasonable question to ask whether any of it is based in historical fact. Dismissing that question out of hand is verging on intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Santino]

Do you even really care, or are you just trying to trip me up?
Either way, you could at this point just read around it for yourself. I've got to pick the boy up from school now.

I'm interested to understand the theory. I used to like the idea that Jesus was not a historical figure: not created as a lie but misinterpreted over the centuries. You have brought in the Flavians as a key part of this other theory and I want know what they are supposed to have done and why, and I want to do that the old-fashioned way, by arguing with people on the internet.

 

[mojo pixy]

Fair enough

 

[tim]

X

'Jesus' was invented by Romans (based no doubt on multiple real individuals) to de-judify Jews, pacify slaves, justify the Flavius family's dynastic ambitions and bolster Roman exceptionalism and manifest destiny. Resurrected later by another Flavian, Constantine, who converted to Christianity to win the throne of Rome; then set in stone by his Council of Nicea where the Bible was compiled.

Yes, or he was real.

But billions of people over two millenia are heavily invested in Jesus was a Real Man so not hard to see why the vast majority of opinion falls on that side of things. I'm not very inclined to believe it, mainly because it includes obvious bollocks like 'born of a virgin' and 'rose from the dead'. So if that not true, why should anyone believe the rest is true? It's a story for superstitious slaves, thats really all it ever was.

Good morning

Edit to add: "We killed the king of the Jews, but he came back from the dead to tell all you slaves to look for happiness and salvation after you die!" .. I mean, it's a bit transparent isn't it. With the benefits of hindsight, psychology, sociology, 2000 years of Christian history and conquest etc.

The Flavians are clearly the First Century equivalents of the Rothschild's in your conspiracy. I'm wondering what the First Century equivalent of a tin-foil hat is: a Samian-wear helmet, perhaps.

 

[tim]

Surely it's not controversial to state that organised religions like Christianity are examples of massive conspiracies.

I think it is pretty silly to believe that there are massive conspiracies of any sort, let alone ones that have been going on for millennia.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think it is pretty silly to believe that there are massive conspiracies of any sort, let alone ones that have been going on for millennia.

The clue is in the word 'organised'. It's more or less tautological to call organised religions conspiracies.

Some are more organised than others, of course. Christianity is certainly more organised than Hinduism, for instance. The Roman Catholic Church is super-organised, and super-conspiratorial.

 

[tim]

X

My son who lives in Alberta (but who also spent a bit of time in Arizona) tells me he's met numerous people who say things like Jesus is real and there's more evidence for Jesus being real than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar. We both agreed that such people are deluded idiots.

The former seemed to have no doubt about the existence of the latter, thought

9Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's

 

[petee]

X
The former seemed to have no doubt about the existence of the latter, thought

9Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's

correct, but just to be clear, "Caesar" became a title and the Caesar Jesus was talking about was Tiberius.

 

[tim]

The clue is in the word 'organised'. It's more or less tautological to call organised religions conspiracies.

Some are more organised than others, of course. Christianity is certainly more organised than Hinduism, for instance. The Roman Catholic Church is super-organised, and super-conspiratorial.

Are you channeling Ian Paisley? Or do you just read too much John Buchan?

1. Organised is not a synonym for conspiratorial in any dictionary I've ever checked.

2. The Church of Rome both at local, national, and international level is full of groups of people mainly but not exclusively make who loathe each other and organise politically against each other, Whilst some of those groups certainly conspire against each other, and there is no grand conspiracy with the Pope at the centre preying on the deluded masses.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's organised with a purpose. And that purpose is to control people by establishing orthodoxy and doctrine that must be obeyed.