Jesus Myth & Why It Endures

Yea I'll just stick with game of thrones.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Grasscity Forum mobile app

 

That's great and all, but jesus fucking christ, man. If you're going to post about something, FUCKING TELL US ABOUT IT. Posting a lurid title and then a bunch of links is titty bullshitty of the first order.

Because, if you can't even be bothered to write about it, and it's your post, why would we be bothered to actually read or watch anything on there for more than a minute and move on? I'm betting you read and watched everything you linked to. Instead of dropping links, write us a summary and why you believe it. This is just a google result for a topic nobody searched for.

 

And exactly WHO made this guy the authority on Jesus? You're listening to an idiot. Stop believing what somebody says just because they say it... Disprove Him yourself. You can't. There is absolute concrete evidence that he existed on earth over 2000 years ago AND that he still exists today. I pray you find a clearer path or open up your mind to the truth. We have very little time left here on this earth and you better get your heart right before it's too late. TWW

 

So what is this "absolute concrete evidence" that he still exists today?

 

An unshaken act of faith is his only concrete evidence and sadly, that will be enough for others as well to believe.

 

are you an alien? dudebraman chill. I'm not a christian but ive gotten high enough to look at it as: a state of mind increasing positiveness . Theres alot of narly stuff we do to things to get our agenda. Religion being a major one.

 

The most concrete evidence for Jesus existing are physical manuscripts from less than 200 years after his death.
The oldest gospel fragment is from the gospel of john and is from 90-110 CE (Rylands Library Papyrus P52). Historians believe that the original gospel of john was written in 60 AD, based of its contents. That is a gap of 30 years, which is rare considering that paper was a luxury, and impressive for ancient history. When people find ancient texts, their first response now is to essentially place it on ebay, or to burn them. Not to give them to museums.

Monasteries after 700 AD also sold their library texts in scraps as magic amulets and spells across Europe. They also burned texts in greek that they could not read on the basis of witchcraft. they could not read Greek writing.

The Alexamenos graffito in Rome explicitly depicts someone worshiping a donkey on the cross, complete with a picture. The graffito dates from 200 AD. Tertullian in Ad nationes 1:11 et 1:14 describes this.

Historians believe that the gospel texts circulated around the same time as the gnostic and deuterocanonical books. Since we are talking about Christ, and not aspects about the divinity of Christ we can include Gnostic texts as evidence. There are 54 of them, and the Gospel of Thomas created before 200 AD. Irenaeus responded to several in writing, meaning that they date before his death in 200 AD.

Gnostics were hated by trinitarian Christians, and the catholic church systemically burned their books whenever they found them. The only books that we have from them are the ones which were buried in dumps or secret caches instead of being burned.

The "Jesus myth" fails as a historical theory, as it does not explain the reason that all of the Christian and many of the Gnostic texts describe the same person. It does not explain the name christian appearing in roman literature.

Suetonius on Christians, from his Twelve Ceasers:
Claudius 25
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
(49 AD)

Acts of the Apostles (18:2)
"And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them"

Early 100 AD writing was done phonetically, so Chrestus would have had the same meaning as Christus.


Mara bar Serapion on Jesus: (Mid to late 100 AD):
What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea and the Jews, desolate and driven from their own kingdom, live in complete dispersion.

A valid historical theory must consider all evidence. We do not ignore the Nuremberg chronicle because it depicts magic. Why ignore biblical texts because they contain miracles?

Was there some biblical conspiracy on three contents to fake Jesus' existence, while Christianity was illegal? Should Suetonius be ignored just because he mentions Christ?

 

Probably portrayed better than William Wallace. The movie Braveheart added miracles that did not occur, laws that did not exist at that time, and were not even heard of until much later. That idea of a nationalist guerrilla, as he was portrayed, did not exist for centuries after his death, when nationalism was created. Pretty much everything in the film is wrong.

George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, the South, the civil rights movement, and the roman empire are portrayed unhistorically.

One of the intolerable acts which led to the boston tea party was the inability to invade and commit genocide against native populations. The Quebec Act of 1774 was intended to keep aggressive American settlers away from land held by native and french immigrants in the Ohio river valley and beyond. America was founded with genocide clearly in mind.

 

I appreciate you writing that large post. I really do. But I was specifically asking The Widow White to explain their "concrete evidence" that Jesus Christ still exists TODAY. They made a highly specific and controversial claim, and I'm looking for that proof.

 

This thread TRUELY needs to be moved to the "Religion, Beliefs, and Spirituality" forum...

In the sense that anything posted here should be considered "relevant"...

 

You should read more, out of your own comfort zone...

Your "evidence" reeks of apology, and those that prescribe to such...

Chrestus/Christus... Gimme'a break...

Here's a textual rebuttal from some random dude that's done quite a bit more research than the rest of us have, apparently...

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Historians contemporary to the life and times of Jesus Christ DID NOT write about him...

 

I took Latin at a University Level. Latin in in his period was often written phonetically because Latin and writting was seen as a luxury in ancient Rome.

Ancient Rome did not have the internet. Posting some random stuff from someone else does not make you smarter or more knowledgeable and does not destroy Occam's razor.

You have no idea what textual means, because if you did, you would not try to dispute the graffito or the existence of carbon dated manuscript evidence. I actually listed two sources that wrote about Jesus.

Your link does not address my argument and is not used by you as a citation or reference, and therefore is neither a rebuttal nor a response to what I said.

 

"davros of skaro, post: 22521618, member: 661939"]Plutarch wrote "Life of Romulus". This is a history of the son of the God Mars, born of a Vestil virgin, founded Rome, died then resurrected. Even if we had Plutarch's original copy (not a scrap of paper with an incomplete word) does it make Romulus real?

Plutarch wrote "Life of Romulus". This is a history of the son of the God Mars, born of a Vestil virgin, founded Rome, died then resurrected. Even if we had Plutarch's original copy (not a scrap of paper with an incomplete word) does it make Romulus real?


1. Plutarch is not a source for the Romulus creation myth. Romulus existed several centuries before Plutarch was born.

2. The existence of Romulus as a king is potentially real. Romulus may have been based on a real person, born in a normal way. Romulus would have defied himself like later emperors, and generations later, ended up in a creation myth.

This is a far more reasonable theory than some conspiracy about Romulus being created out of nothing later on to control people’s minds.

3. The difference between Romulus and Christ is significant. More written works existed about Christ within 100 years of his death than Romulus, and Romulus’ entire existence is not spoken of by any source outside of Rome.


Founding of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


, “born of a Vestil virgin, founded Rome, died then resurrected.”


This is not part of my argument. Nice try. I never made any arguments concerning these claims, and do not intend to. My arguments were to address the Jesus Myth as a failed hypothesis, not any other statement outside of his physical existence.

I never made any claim of how he got there, what he did, or how he died.


“Even if we had Plutarch's original copy (not a scrap of paper with an incomplete word) does it make Romulus real?”

This is not how history works.

If Plutarch wrote about Romulus it means that Plutarch thought that Romulus was real. If two other people think that he is real, he may have existed in some form. In history these are called sources.

Historians would then look for conflicts of interests, and examine the context of the evidence.

There are very few ancient texts in full form, very few originals, which are called autographs, and creating copies was extraordinary expensive.

 

Mainstream secular scholars (not fringe, crank, or faith based)

First off, people who study history are called historians. Scholars just refers to people who study a subject

II. It is perfectly legitimate to hold a religious view and to study a topic. There are no separate drinking fountains in History. Insulting someone’s religion as a means of Historical discussion is seen by academic professionals as puerile and not professional.

place the four canonical Gospels as written between 65-125 CE (Common Era).

I never said anything else.

“The first Gospel is Mark 65-75 CE (They are anonymous and named by Church tradition).”

No, some of the Gospels do in fact mention authors within the text.

Besides that, I actually cited many Gnostic gospels as evidence as well.


“Mark has no Nativity scene, the original ending has the woman running away from the empty Tomb "telling nobody because they were afraid"

This was not part of my argument, and was not important to my point, so you speaking in an echo chamber with yourself. It is moot.


“(Jesus post crucifixion appearance, Xtians able to drink poison, handle deadly Snakes is a centuries later interpolation).”

Nice echo chamber there.


The next Gospel Matthew adds the Nativity, post crucifixion appearance, corrects Mark's geographical mistakes, and misunderstanding of Judaic laws.


Still in an echo chamber.