Elijah

Yea I know, when summarized and vague it looks fine but on examination there are HUGE holes in a highly unlikely hypothetical. But I encourage all the mythical Jesus believers to keep on trying to get something together because there is a real possibility that you contribute something to the conversation like a correct understanding of the story, even if you are incorrect about the origin of the story.

aa5874

But, you cannot show that there are any holes in the mythical Jesus at all. All you can do is just blow hot air.

Look at some massive holes in the historical Jesus.

Matthew1.18
Acts 1.9-11 The authors of the NT and the church writers presented a myth, from conception to ascension, witnessed by his mother and by the disciples.

And according to Tertullian, "Only his flesh is in question." But he was answered earlier by Marcion. Marcion, according to church writers was the son of a God, but had no flesh, he only looked real, perhaps like a ghost like creature.

The gospels are fiction novels not biographies.

Elijah

Lay out your theory then. Who wrote it? What were they writing? Why? How did it get confused for history? Provide any evidence that you think supports any point you have.
It doesn’t matter what they thought about him or the claims they made about him. They could have said he was made of butter and birthed by a duck from outer space, that doesn’t help you prove the person in question is fictional in origin and not an exaggerated or symbolized person. You can point out things said about him that aren’t possible till you’re blue in the fingers but that isn’t ever going to address if the person behind the tales was real or symbolic of something else.

aa5874

The mythicist has history on his side. Jesus was presented as a God, born of a virgin and ascended through the clouds and his flesh was questioned even by his followers like the Marcionites and Marcion.

Jesus as a suicidal man could in no way compete with the Gods like Apollo, Zeus, Dionysius, Jupiter, Hercules, Serapis, the Gods of the Egyptian, or any of the multitude of pagan Gods.

In order for Jesus to have been worshipped as a God, he must have been presented to the populace as a God with awesome power that matched or exceeded those of the pagans.

And indeed he was presented as a myth, born of a virgin who could predict his own death, resurrect, and ascended through the clouds.

There is critical information missing about Jesus, even though there are hundreds of texts written about him, no author of the NT or the church writers gave a physical description of Jesus, or the date of his death or his age when he died or was crucified.

Suetonius wrote about the Lives of the Twelve Caesars and gave physical descriptions of the Caesars and time of death, and age at death, sometimes within the hour, day, month and year.

This is Suetonius on Tiberius I cannot find anything credible about the date of the death of the suicidal man or his age at death. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was over fifty years old when he died, but over fifty is very ambiguous, maybe over fifty is over 80, and if he died over fifty when was Jesus born?

And I found this about Jesus in Mark16.6 Now look at Suetonius on the birth of Tiberius And look at the birth of Jesus in the NT, Matthew 1.18
Jesus was presented as a God, born of a virgin and ascended through the clouds with questionable flesh. All the signs of a myth.

Elijah

Comparing the evidence of an emperor of one of the largest empires of the time to the son of a carpenter whose major contribution to society was dying on the cross is insane. I think you realize that but wish to have some semblance of an argument to support your case so you continue on with this line of argument no matter how ridicules it looks.
Don’t care how Jesus was presented. It’s not helping you with his origin. What I asked was…
Present your case and show it’s more than just wishful thinking on the skeptics’ part.

bacht

You want to reject everything the NT says about Jesus yet still believe that he was a carpenter who was crucified?

Why do mythicists need a complementary theory to offset or counter-balance the traditional story? Doubt simply means that the existing explanation is insufficient. If I say that I doubt the existence of Santa Claus do I have to provide a completely self-contained theory explaining every feature of the folk tale?

How about this: Greco-Romans were hungry for salvation and mystery religions. The ancient Asiatic Jews provided enough exotic flavour to pique their interest. After the destruction of the Jewish state gentiles started rifling Jewish scriptures and re-interpreting their meaning eg. the word "messiah." That's for starters.

dog-on

Great. Point out the huge holes, if you don't mind.

Casper

I'll take that one more step and say it allowed a person to identify with a recognized ethnic group and benefit from it, even if they alone made up that ethnic group and there weren't many jews involved. Maybe a grandparent here or there for legitimacy. Then the term jew took on a new, less tasteful implication, so they became something else.

Bandwagon of faith in order to escape religious persecution. Twice.

aa5874

Why do you think it is insane for me to point out that no writer of the NT or church writer ever gave a physical description of Jesus or his age and date when he died or was crucified?

Based on the NT, he had thousands of followers, and there are hundreds of texts that are extant, yet some of the most critical and important information to augment his historicity was never recorded.

You don't care to know.

You know the origin of Jesus by the way he was presented by the authors of the NT and the church writers, and in their presentation it was claimed Jesus was born without sexual union and did ascend through the clouds.

The origin of Jesus is mythical, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus originated from the Holy Ghost of God. See gMatthew, gLuke, Acts of the Apostles, the writings of Tertullian, Origen and other church writers.


The written statements or evidence about the myth called Jesus have already been recorded, you just read and you will see for yourself. Start with Matthew 1.18 and end with Acts 1.9

Behold the myth.

Matthew1.18Acts1.9 Now, you present your history of your suicidal man.
You cannot.

Elijah

I believe what is possible is possible; what is impossible, impossible.
Calling themselves mythiscists they already have a complementary theory. Now they need to fill in the theory to make sure there is any substance to it or is just vaportheory.

If you say that you doubt the existence of Santa Claus that’s fine because you know that Santa is parents at night putting gifts under the tree but if you say you that the origin of Santa is mythical and not historical then you need some reasoning for that. You can’t just believe what you want to believe.
Very very very vague and ambiguous. Like I said when summarized it looks fine. But who wrote it, when, where, what was the story, how did it get confused for history and let’s see if it matches up to any of the information we have.