Do you believe in the mythist theory ?

[Colanth]

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?

They made up a story about the census, long after Rome held censuses, because Rome never required people to return to their place of birth for a census, it required them to return to their place of residence.  Which wouldn't have placed Mary and Joseph in the predicament of requiring a "place at the inn", Jesus would have been born at home, like everyone else was.  If they had told that story while Rome still held censuses, everyone would have laughed at it.  It would be like a story told today, in which everyone had to go to Washington, DC to vote.  Tell that 5,000 years after the end of the US (we have access to records, they didn't - so things were easier to fake back then), and it might well be believed.

But the rest of the story wouldn't have worked that way.  A literary analysis tells us that the entire story - birth in a manger, three wise men, star in the east, etc., etc., was therefore made up.  There's nothing new in the Jesus story.  The virgin birth is straight out of Osiris - and wasn't mentioned until a few centuries after it supposedly happened.

And if all that was made up, Jesus probably was too.  There's absolutely not a single contemporary word written about this man who walked around performing miracles.  In fact, the earliest writing about Jesus was about a spirit, an aspect of God.  The earliest mention we have of a human Jesus is from about 187 CE.  (Josephus and Tacitus both lived earlier, but we don't have any of their writings dating from that early.  We have either copies of copies of copies ... or we have others mentioning writings that supposedly existed - at some time centuries after they died.)

And it's known that "historians" of the time invented "earlier" writings.  Even Christian so-called scholars refuse to accept these invented histories - unless they back up the Biblical assertions.  Supposed histories that contradict the Bible are called fakes or inventions of the enemies of Christianity.  But if a supposed history backs up the canon texts?  It's 100% proof of the accuracy of the Bible.

"Jesus of Nazareth"?  That's a known miscopying of "Jesus the Nazorite" - which has nothing to do with a place called Nazareth.

Bottom line?  There's no actual evidence that the Jesus in the Gospels ever existed, and plenty of evidence that many of the claims for his existence were made up or otherwise erroneously arrived at.  (We don't even know who wrote the Gospels.  No, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John aren't the names of 4 men who hung out with Jesus and wrote the Gospels.  If they were, they were in diapers when they were hanging with him, or so old when they wrote the Gospels that they were drooling into their manuscripts.  "Luke" even claims, right at the beginning, to be not an eyewitness account but what we'd call a meta-account these days.  Yet Christianity swears that every word in it is true.)

Actual evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels existed?  There's far more evidence that Superman existed.

[pato15]

They made up a story about the census, long after Rome held censuses

My point was, why would they make up the census story, if they were creating the Jesus character out of whole cloth? They could have simply said he was born in Bethlehem.

[caseagainstfaith]

My point was, why would they make up the census story, if they were creating the Jesus character out of whole cloth? They could have simply said he was born in Bethlehem.

I gave you a possible answer already on prior page.

[Sleeper]

If you've got the time...

[youtube:iv5z2sxw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc[/youtube:iv5z2sxw]

[Colanth]

If you've got the time...

I did.  It was extremely interesting - thank you.  As I've said many times, Christianity has very little to do with the Bible.

But try getting a Christian to believe Carrier.

[Sleeper]

I'd also recommend TruthSurge's YouTube series "Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?" Very thorough.

[Gerard]

If you've got the time...

Writer posted a YouTube video

I have today.... I'll be watching this.

Thanks,

Gerard

[Gerard]

Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).

Gerard

[caseagainstfaith]

Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).

You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all.  He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical.  I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards.  He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.

[GurrenLagann]

I don't tend to accept the oft-put forward mythicist hypotheses because they're usually predicated on bad comparisons between Jesus and other mythological figures like Osiris and Mithras, and claiming Jesus to be an obvious reworking of said character (something historical scholarship tends to show as being rather faulty). Basically, if you're using that Zeitgeist movie as your informant then you're going down the wrong path.

To me, it's a more solid case (in more general discussions) to demonstrate the existence of common, general mythological elements and narratives present in Christianity such as being the son of a divine power,  having a chief deity with multiple aspects (Egyptian and Hindu tri-aspect gods like Ra and Vishnu predate Christianity's Trinity by thousands of years), virgin birth that you see everywhere, to name a few.

I'll be sure to check out Carrier and Doherty's work; my interest has been piqued. I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)

[Gerard]

Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).

You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all.  He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical.  I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards.  He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.

I never read Carrier's work on this. It's been a few years since I read Doherty.

Gerard

[caseagainstfaith]

I never read Carrier's work on this. It's been a few years since I read Doherty.

Gerard

Well, his book will be out later this year.

[Sleeper]

Nice that Carrier mentions Earl Doherty as the mythiscist with the best and most convincing arguments. His was the first book I read about the subject and I was impressed by it (which is not often the case with books of that type).

You must not have read Carrier on the subject at all.  He has many many times said that it was Doherty's work that got him thinking that Jesus might be purely mythical.  I'm looking forward to the release of his book, which I am a $1000 donor towards.  He is more rigorous than Doherty, but, basically accepts his premise.

Carrier said that people were telling him that Doherty's book was the most compelling mythicist argument at the time.

[Sleeper]

I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)

Erhman isn't a mythicist, but he sure makes a lot of mythicist points.

[GurrenLagann]

I've mostly stuck to Erhman's work with regard to Christian history, so I guess branching out could deepen my understanding and knowledge. :)

Erhman isn't a mythicist, but he sure makes a lot of mythicist points.

Hm, I've not really seen them in either his Misquoting Jesus or Lost Christianities. At least not overtly.