Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Quantum Quack, Jan 11, 2009.

  1. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    The Jesus Myth Hypothesis is less than a myth, it's just plain stupidity. Nobody even thought of it until 1700 years later. What more needs to be said?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    You do by claiming the bible as evidence.

    Of course, you don't.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    By claiming the bible as evidence, you do.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Clearly, nothing. It's just plain stupid to not believe in magic. :thumbsup:
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Just to illustrate the laughable idiocy of that statement lets have a little fun with........

    Things that didn't get thought of for a long time

    General relativity

    Special Relativity

    Natural selection

    Plate Tectonics



    Heliocentric solar system

    Spherical earth.

    Following your logic - all of these things must either be false or non-existent simply because it took mankind a long time to come up with them - which is clearly not the case.

    Now I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt here Woody - clearly you never meant to say something so banging-your-head-on-an-anvil-repeatedly stupid - I'm guessing you meant something else but simply phrased it badly.

    So please retract this statement and re-phrase and elaborate please.
  8. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    It's not my logic, rather it's your straw-man of illogic, as you compare apples to oranges for your own personal entertainment. We were talking about history not physics. Now using the car example you gave : if you say you have an old beat up car once owned by Elvis Pressly before anyone ever heard of him -- yeah we have something to talk about in the realm of history. Now it's not just a physical car, but a car owned by Elvis for a certain period of time. How are you going to prove it without a historical record?

    How about a notarized title in his name dated say 1948 from Memphis, Tennessee? This is a human record. Historians deal with human records, not plate tectonics, etc. etc. (as in the non-sequitor examples you give) and human records aren't something new that somebody just thought of like this Jesus myth crock that ignores a heck of a lot of personal and historical records in favor of an atheistic hypothesis about religion which they think they understand, but really don't have much of a clue about. This is kind of like a blind man (since birth) telling us that vision is a myth, as his blind kindred agree wholeheartedly.

    The Jesus Myth hypothesis is really kind of dumb, and thought up like 17 centuries after the fact (how convenient) by atheists (who else???). It is truly in the minority opinion of bible scholars and history scholars. This point isn't fit to debate. If there was any credible evidence then it should be presented at one of the Jesus seminars or any other world forum where scholarly opinion is debated. I see no sense in rehashing what the scholars have already discussed. There is nothing new to add.

    from the source:

    So the cornerstone of this atheist hypothesis says that christian ontogeny recapitualtes world religion phylogeny.

    Where have we heard that crock of illogical nonsense before?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    An atheist named Haeckel came up with this moronic stupidity using a touch of artistic liscense. I guess it took an athiest for the ultimate lying ding-dong award pandered off as "science." "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny": Nice catchy buzzwords there, gobbled down ravenously by the atheists of that day. An analogy really sucks bad as a logical proof. Such is the Jesus Myth hypothesis -- another "Haeckel" analogy as it were -- deceiving and being deceived -- and filling in the gaps with artistic license where there is no credible evidence.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2009
  9. geeser Atheism:is non-prophet making Valued Senior Member

    This is why telling them lies and threatening them with devils and gods wrath is a sort of child abuse, It's because they don't have prejudices or a personal agenda that they believe the lies their told, to the point that they become convinced in later life.
    Some! the lucky ones, manage to deprogrammed themselves.
    Hence why, when the theist(a lucky one) manages to deprogram himself, and revert back to the norm and becomes again the atheist he was, he regains that open-mindedness he had as a child.
  10. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Not only do atheists reprogram themselves but they become history-revision activists to change the history books without any historical evidence to back up their vain imaginations, to match their own idea of what religion is as in the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

    Take the biogenetic law for example. Here an atheist paints the portrait he wants to see based on an analogy. Analogies are great for illustrations but very poor for logical proofs. Likewise the Jesus Myth Hypothesis is an analogy that assumes its own conclusion while ignoring all written text from the 1st century.

    As I said before, the fact is this theory came up 1700 years after the gospel accounts appeared. It waited far too long. Now if the Jesus myth hypothesis showed up shortly after the gospel accounts (say within 50 to 100 years because of the limitations of papyrus publishing technology), then it would have a plausible basis, especially if it was supported by direct evidence with an author and source in the first century that can be compared to other authors and sources in the same period..
  11. mustafhakofi I sa'id so Registered Senior Member

    When did they actually start ignoring the Sumarian legends, or the Greek, Egyptian, when did they start calling them myths.

    Myth: a fictitious narrative presented as historical but without any basis of fact.
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the meanings
    1a. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon", citing the Westminster Review of 1830 as the first English attestation.[7]
    1b. "As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre." (1840)
    2a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief". (1849)
    2b. "A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious)." (1853)
    2c. "A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth." (1928)

    It's irrelevant when it started if it has no basis in fact, under the myth definition. It only means they where more enlightened 1700 year after tis all.
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2009
  12. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    So in other words you you have no answer to that point so would like to dodge it instead

    Oh wait now you are back to saying that the time that somwething was thought up does have relevance as to its validity again - can you make up your mind please - are you just a simpleton like that statement would suyggest- or are you in fact a liar?

    I know what this means in relation to biology - and Haekel's ideas were found to be very wide of the mark a very long time ago - and thus have little place in modern biology - I'm at a loss to understand how it relates to theology though - are you saying that because we know that much of the basis of Judaism was fictional (i.e all of Genesis - most of Exodus and on from there) that it is reasonable to assume that much of the basis of christianinty is eqwually made up?
  13. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    I answered your point which is a total non-sequitor to the points it supposedly addresses. Sure people discover new things all the time and come up with new theories as well. This is good. It does not, however, change an event that happened in the past. So if you come up with a new theory that says Mohammed was really the spaghtti monster, I can't stop you. On the otherhand you better have historical proof of it rather than "analogy of allegory." Theories don't work as a basis for determining history. History is based on facts, not theories, and not on metaphors or allegories.

    The time to address the reality or fiction of the historical person of a teacher named Jesus was when the facts were most readily available. As time passes this becomes more difficult. 100 years is ok because human's live that long and longer. Some of the testimony can be second or third hand too, and there are ways to verify that. But 1700 years is not ok because humans don't live that long, and the testimony isn't recoverable anymore. Does this make sense to you?

    It was in my biology text, and it's still around today. It continues to show up in misguided school texts as a proof of evolution when it is not. Neither is the "Biogenetic law" a law at all, rather it is a fictional explanation of observable phenomena.

    Analogy is weak logical proof, and that alone is sufficient reason to question Haekel's ideas -- just because something "appears" to have a similar trait doesn't mean it came from the same thing.

    Humans have more than 95% of the same chemicals a mouse has. Does that make humans 95% of a mouse? No.

    The point is that the Jesus Myth Hypotheis is based on the same flawed assumptions in logic as the biogenetic law. The Jesus Myth Hypothesis assumes that the ontogeny of Christianity is based on the phylogeny of its supposed predecessors going all the way back to Eastern, Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, and pre-abrahamic religions.

    It is a hypothesis that matches differerent ideas, from different religions, from different periods of time which may have some resemblance to the Christian doctrines of a "sacrifice for sin", " a supernatural God", a "resurrection", etc etc. Then the hypothesis goes on to say that Jesus was not a real historical teacher, but rather the gospel accounts and epistles are an analogy of allegory. The so-called similarities are proposed as the strongest "proof" of the hypothesis.

    The Jesus Mythers in effect create a new "biogenetic law" based on the way things "look". It is art not logic, and hence has little use in a historical analysis of factual events.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  14. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Their supposed "enlightenment" did not come from additional evidence about the time period in question, which is the 1st century.

    To me it's like the police showing up at the scene of a crime 1700 years after it happened. This just isn't good detective work IMHO.

    You need to seperate the History of a teacher named Jesus from the Claim that He was God.

    You can call the God claim a myth if you wish, where perhaps a real Jesus was made bigger than life in the accounts told in the gospels.

    On the otherhand there are different external historical records that make mention of this teacher in Jerusalem.

    There are no historical records where any religious leader or government leader said, "I lived there in Jerusalem when this supposed Jesus was crucified by the roman government at the request of Jewish leaders and nobody in Jerusalem ever heard of any Jesus." Such statement would have removed their stigma of "God Murderer" and put an end to the unwanted Christian movement that followed. Yet the blame still falls on roman governor, Pontious Pilate, even today. None of the guilty parties ever denied crucifying Jesus -- so they, their families, and grandchildren had to live with it.

    If I was in such a position of power and visibility, I'd want my name cleared along with all the other lies. I'd have the authority to do this. Wouldn't you want to do the same? Looking at what this unwanted new religion cost the roman government, wouldn't they want to do the same?

    They made Jesus a hero by killing him, and never denying it.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  15. mustafhakofi I sa'id so Registered Senior Member

    And you know this how!
    From that Could I say your a creationist also.
    Why! what has it to do with it, we are discussing jesus' Histocracy, not whether a god exists.
    Have done, and do.
    And whether one existed in the first place.
    Why! hardly anybody could read, everything went by word of mouth, chinese whispers tends to sneak in here and there, when stories are told that way.
    Thats because the bible states that, not because any other record does.
    I very much doubt that, the romans kept meticulous records, Nothing was ever written about a jesus person, and if it was kept secret (for what reason it would, evades me)The story would have died with pilate and any other guilty party.
    If you where in a possition of power you could hide any incriminating evidence.
    It did not cost them anything, it was a source of free labour and entertainment, for the roman people for three hundred years.
    Huge Fail, only the bible states that, no other records do. So no need for them to deny it.
  16. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  17. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    There are plenty of places you can go for the research, but I'll give you a start:

    Historicity of Jesus

    The Jesus Myth hypothesis (that the person never existed), on the otherhand, has no historical evidence, and I challenge you to show it.

    Consider the Jews:

    They have been living with it ever since as "Christ Murderers", and that in itself is a testament. The finger of accusation is pointed squarely at them, and yet you say Jesus did not even exist. Well geee, don't you think they would have pointed it out if Jesus did not even exist and was not crucified?

    From the Levitt letter

    then he goes on to explain:

    The jews do not say the person of Jesus never existed, and they were accused of the crime. If Jesus never existed to start with, then why don't they say so?

    You tell me musta, how did the jews murder a metaphor?
  18. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    I apoligize if I did not make this clear and I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time with the way history is evaluated. As I said before history is based on recorded events, not theories. The Jesus Myth is a theory. Show us evidence in a historical context where the rabbi, Jesus , did not exist in the early first century and we have something to talk about.

    On the otherhand, with the laws of science (that you cited as example) it clearly makes no difference when a law is discovered and I agree with you in that assessment. Such can be said of the laws of physics. The laws can be demonstrated at any time. Not so for a specific human event that occurred in the past, or the person that recorded it.

    If we can't have an understanding on this point, I suggest we debate it no further. In the end history is based on observed events that occured in the past. Those events were recorded by humans IN THE PAST, and can be subject to the same bias a news reporter has.

    You can not go back in time and repeat the event. Hence your point (repeatable and presently observable phenomena) is valid, but totally unrelated to an exigisis of past events that can not be evaluated the same way. As I said, and will continue to say -- you are comparing Physics apples to History oranges. History isn't the subject of physics class and vice versa.

    If we can not have an understanding on the foundations of historicity, then I suggest we drop this.

    I think the failure here is that you've gone outside the scope of the historical discussion, with a point that is valid about physics. It is true and logical, but unrelated to historical analysis (though you think it is relevant). A theory (without historical evidence) some 1700 years after an event happened is way too little way too late for a historical analysis. The trail has grown cold, and I think this is rather obvious to rationally minded people.

    The Jesus Myth theory doesn't really prove anything "historically-speaking" based on comparative religion. As a side discussion, religions are very unaccepting of foreign doctrine. It usually resulted in a death sentence. The Jesus myth ignores the rigor of doctrinal issues where they think everybody just throws their arms open to any idea that comes along and merges it into their own dogma. Not so.

    That evidence has been around longer than the bible, because it happened before the bible was written, and you confirm one of my points made already. Who knew it better than the egyptians that existed in that historical context? As time passed the information was lost, not gained, and it is still physical evidence that we are talking about not some new theory after the fact.

    I am merely pointing out that an analogy is a great way to explain an idea, but a very poor way to prove it -- it is not a logical proof of anything. On face value, the biogenetic law fails for this reason alone, as does the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

    In addition, the laws of physics today have little bearing on when a particular human event occured in the past, with the exception of dating techniques on the recorded media.

    A theory you think up today has no bearing whatsoever to a specific human event that occurred 1700 years ago. We will just have to agree to disagree on that point and call me evasive, while I call your points true about physics but irrelevant about history. I've said enough already.

    I thought the subject of this thread was about history and how history is evaluated. Is it a physics thread instead? :shrug:
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  19. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Hell all,

    Not true.

    Many early writers challenged the stories :

    The NT book 2 John warns of those who don't
    "acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".
    This shows some did NOT believe Jesus came in the flesh.

    Various early Christians believed Jesus was a phantom.

    Marcion, in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :
    “Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

    Basilides, in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
    "Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm,"

    Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
    "...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?" -

    Tatian, in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:
    “Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories

    Celsus, in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
    "Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

    Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :
    "For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."

    Porphyry, in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
    "... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

    Julian, in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
    "why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
    "I am convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”

    In short, doubts and critiques about the Gospels stories arose from the earliest times.

    Woody is wrong.

  20. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    and the Jews have paid for it ever since. So do tell us how the jews murdered a metaphor in Jerusalem.
  21. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Hi all,

    Ah yes,
    you can tell when an apologist is losing an argument about the historicity of Jesus - they'll start spouting nonsense about evolution - it never fails.

    Here are the facts :

    Embryos of different creatures DO show similarity, you can see this in photos :

    See that photograph Woody?
    See how the embryos ARE similar?
    And these similarities ARE related to our evolutionary history.
    This is a simple fact.

    Haeckel came up with a theory about that similarity.
    Haeckel's theory was wrong.
    Scientists showed he was wrong.
    Creationists FAILED to show he was wrong.
    Science won.

  22. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Hi all,

    Not true.

    I posted some examples of criticisms from as far back as the 2nd century.

    Will you be addressing those, Woody?

  23. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member


    Not true Woody.
    Some silly people make arguments based on anology - and these arguments are ignored as nonsense.

    It appears you have never actually read any serious arguments about a Mythical Jesus - i.e. scholarly works which are NOT based on an analogy argument.

    Such as Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle, a popular web site.

    You've obviously never read this Woody, which is why you keep making such basic errors about what the JM says.

    Will you read that page Woody?
    To find out what the JM hypothesis REALLY claims?
    I look forward to reading your response to that site.


Share This Page