Do you believe in the mythist theory ?

[viocjit]

This theory say that Jesus never existed.
I suppose that this is possible why ?

1.Why we don't have the report about his judgement by "Pontius Pilate" ?
2.Why only a historian wrote about Jesus and the source is not very reliable ? (I spoke about Josephus who was a historian).
3.Why Jesus has similar things with others religious characters (Buddha , Horus , Krishna etc...) ? I have two explications this is Satan who inspirated the writers about stories of Horus , Krishna etc... or all these stories was wrote by humans.
4.In this decade there are a lot of cults like the Essenians , maybe that Christianity is the only sect of these movements who survived ?
5.Why all these contradictions (maybe that I don't know use the correlation) and mistakes with the official history in the four gospels ?

[caseagainstfaith]

I believe mythism is reasonably likely.  Topic comes up regularly here.

[La Dolce Vita]

Recreating your old threads I see.

There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.

Though the fact that there's no traces of his actual name, Yeshua ben Yussuf, until hundreds of years later it would also be perfectly reasonable to assume he is entirely fictional - or based on numerous characters - or perhaps even inspired by one in particular. Though, the story got more and more complex the more recent the writings got, old writings often leaving out huge details you'd think would be key.

Having an opinion here either way, when nothing is proven, and both possibilities seem likely isn't something I'd get behind, so my opinion is just that: "Both are likely".

But the question of which there was a Jesus is really a rather irrelevant one. Of course, relevant to the believers as "No Jesus" = Everything was a lie - but we know Joseph Smith existed, and we certainly know this guy exists: //http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_de_Jes%C3%BAs

The existence of people claiming to be prophets, gods or something inbetween is far too common to have any faith in them until they can demonstrate that they are telling the truth.

[Mister Agenda]

I put it at about even odds.

[Solitary]

I used to believe Jesus existed because anyone throughout history that has spoken about peace and love has been assassinated even in our own time. But there is no evidence that He did at his own time. Everything written about him is 40-60 years later by Christians to support their religion. This could even be true about Buddha since the stories about him are so farfetched. However, I think both have made some good points whether they existed or not. Solitary

[Gerard]

I put it at about even odds.

Frankly, I'm sort of on the fence about this... For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires. True, those 'Chrestiani' could have been another group altogether than Tacitus thought they were, when he wrote that stuff down (citing a Jesus Christ who was condemned by Pilate, as their leader) and also true, Christians who called themselves that in 64 AD in Rome in considerable numbers? That has it's difficulties as well.....

And of course he wasn't contemporary with Christ. But it is not unthinkable that Tacitus didn't quote what he heard from Christians contemporary to him about the subject. This in itself doesn't 'prove' Christ, but it causes many people to think that he might have existed.

Gerard

[caseagainstfaith]

For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires.

FYI, to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but, to my understanding, many historians (not connected to Jesus mythicism) now feel the Tacitus claim is spurious, Nero didn't scapegoat anybody, Christians or otherwise, in regard to the fire.

[Gerard]

For the single reason of what Tacitus wrote about Nero and the fires.

FYI, to my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, but, to my understanding, many historians (not connected to Jesus mythicism) now feel the Tacitus claim is spurious, Nero didn't scapegoat anybody, Christians or otherwise, in regard to the fire.

Oh there are difficulties with the quote all right. He describes Pilate as a 'procurator' (procurators couldn't let people be crucified you know) while in fact he was a prefect. He also doesn't cite his sources when it comes to his description of the beliefs of these 'Chrestiani' he is talking about, that were  being targeted by Nero a considerable number of decades earlier. That led to speculation he had heard about a group called Chrestiani that were persecuted by Nero, and equated them with the Christians he knew from his own days. And that might be a.) what happened, and b.) a problem.... Several messianic groups might have used a name like that in Nero's days, that were not necessarily followers of the messias known as Jesus.... But on the other hand, the quote doesn't seem to be a forgery or interpolation and Tacitus was a serious historian who had no reason to "lie for Jesus" as some other writers (notably Eusebius). There is some doubt in my mind as to whether he may not actually have been referring to followers of Jesus in 64 AD which would be the most early reference there is by a non Christian writer.....

Gerard

[Gerard]

Also.....(on the other hand). In the last few days I have been re reading my old textbook on antiquity from college days. This book (published somewhere in the seventies) says something you still hear often. It says something like this: "Nowadays there are few historians anymore that doubt the historicity of Jesus". Whenever I hear or read that (and it's being said and written A LOT) it strikes me as odd that such a phrase has to be included in the first place. That is telling about the fact that there is indeed no contemporary evidence of his personal existence as an historical person. Which I do not deny! It's also telling about the lingering feeling of doubt that exists on the side of those historians.

In the other post I said:

the quote doesn't seem to be a forgery or interpolation

I wonder if there are any thoughts about that, that I might not know of...

Gerard

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Recreating your old threads I see.

There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.

More likely, a descendant of Joseph Maccabeus trying to kick the Romans out of Israel.  The Jewish conception of "messiah" is not the same as the Greek conception of "christ" and a Jewish Messiah is someone sent by YHVH to save Israel, not save souls.

[Gerard]

Recreating your old threads I see.

There could very easily have been a doomsday prophet named Jesus who had 12 disciples, there were plenty of people proclaiming to be the messiah back then (like now - just that more people usually took them seriously - though there is one guy claiming to be the second coming of christ with millions of followes + cults everywhere). One of those people could have been Jesus.

More likely, a descendant of Joseph Maccabeus trying to kick the Romans out of Israel.  The Jewish conception of "messiah" is not the same as the Greek conception of "christ" and a Jewish Messiah is someone sent by YHVH to save Israel, not save souls.

Well, not the Greek concept that was written down (in Greek) in the New Testament indeed, but I wonder what the Greek translators of the Old Testament (Septuagint) thought about that some centuries earlier. At that time, Hellenistic Greeks may not have been into the saving of souls, but perhaps into the concept of "Logos". An intermediary between the Divine principle and us folks here on Earth, that existed solely to be understood (by us) as an intermediary between our world and something impossible for us to understand. It is proposed that such notions existed and flourished, long before polytheïsm in the Greco-Roman and wider Indo-European sense (I know you have some opinions on that  :-D ) actually started to decline.

Gerard

[pato15]

I believe he was a real person, mainly due to the fact that the gospels seem to bend over backwards to explain away inconvenient details of his biography. For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?  
It's certainly not definitive proof, but I believe that Socrates and Homer existed on similarly thin evidence. It's not an area where I require a lot of evidence, since it's usually not that consequential either way and definitive evidence is often difficult to come by in these cases.

[Gerard]

I believe he was a real person, mainly due to the fact that the gospels seem to bend over backwards to explain away inconvenient details of his biography. For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?  
It's certainly not definitive proof, but I believe that Socrates and Homer existed on similarly thin evidence. It's not an area where I require a lot of evidence, since it's usually not that consequential either way and definitive evidence is often difficult to come by in these cases.

Funny you should mention Homer, because his existence is generally doubted. Unlike Socrates.... Perhaps that is related to the nature of discourse about them or from them. Myth and poetry versus something that looks like an historical account. Like Jesus (or Homer) versus Solon (or Alexander the Great). Or Romulus and Remus versus Hannibal.....

Gerard

[caseagainstfaith]

For example, they came up with the census story to place his birth in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth. If he were made up out of whole cloth, why not simply say he was born in Bethlehem?

The (potential) reason for that is that Mark, the original Gospel, didn't see Jesus as being the Messiah and thus didn't need to have Jesus come from Bethlehem.  It was later, when Jesus started to become associated with being the Messiah that they had to "retcon" the deal.

[caseagainstfaith]

Speaking of Homer, I recently heard than many historians now see Homer's works as historical fiction, that is, real events were the backdrop of the story at least to some degree.