Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that any theory can adequately account for everything. I'd tend to follow the lead of E P Sanders and profess ignorance. Something convinced people that a man had risen from the dead, I have no idea what that was.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Dean Anderson

Mythical Jesus proponents don't say that Jesus didn't exist because Santa Claus doesn't exist. They merely use Santa Claus as an example. In my opinion, a better example would be King Arthur - someone whom most people simply assume to be historical but whom on closer inspection isn't (at least in the popularly recognisable form).

Until Newton, Aristotlean physics were presented as truth by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. We now know that they aren't true.

Until Einstein, Newtonian physics were presented as truth by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. We now know that they aren't true either.

Just because everyone assumes something is true, doesn't make it true.

Which 'reputable witnesses'? All we have are anonymous writings of people who never actually claim in those writings that they are eyewitnesses - and which were written anything up to 100 years after the alleged events.

Besides, your "99.5% textually pure" figure - apart from being laughably false, as demonstrated by looking at the differences between different translations in use today - would only demonstrate that today's stories are the same as the stories from about 1800 years ago, and give no indication whether or not those original stories were true.

The gospels appear to have been written to give a pseudo-biographical account formed out of midrash to an existing mythical character.

The intention of the writers appears from the text to be literary in character, rather than historical.

So do the stories about Sherlock Holmes. After all, I have visited Baker Street in London, and seen it for myself. Similarly, there are lots of historical references outside of the Sherlock Holmes stories about a certain "Queeen Victoria" of England who was apparently alive at the time. The stories are also uncannily accurate in their portrayal of the historical, cultural, religious and political context of late 19th century Britain.

As you can see, such incidental details give no indication of the truth of a story.

Besides, the Gospels are full of historical and cultural mistakes.

So if the fact that we have no evidence that reindeer can fly adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story, why does the fact that we have no evidence that people can walk on water or rise from the dead after three days not equally add to the irrationality of the Jesus story?

The Gospels were not written by people who "knew Jesus personally". They were written by unknown authors about a century after the alleged events took place. Please provide some kind of evidence to back up your claim that you know who the authors were.

Which makes it telling that the Bible admonishes Christians to "believe like a child" rather than "think like an adult"...

Anyway, neither of them can be reasonably supported to exist.

For a Christian to accept Jesus's existence based on the Bible demonstrates the inability for the Christian to destinguish between historical verifiable documents and known constructed statements of religious belief.

Neither Jesus nor Santa are actual historical figures.

Please give us some of these sources - any of them. There are no reliable sources that prove this.

There is much more historical evidence of Genghis Kahn's existence than of Jesus's. As for Socrates - he may be historical or he may not be. Thankfully, I don't have people trying to run my life for me or run my country for me based on their assumptions that he was historical.

That site is a joke. It presents documents that are known to be pseudoepigraphical propaganda and presents them as if they were solid historical records.

Okay, let's look at it in detail...

Since no other writer writing anywhere else in the world at that time mentions this darkness, why should we believe that there was a darkness that covered the Earth? Don't you think that at least someone would have recorded it?

So, Thallus wrote about an eclipse, and Julius Africanus writes 150 years later that - contrary to what Thallus writes - the "darkness that covered the whole world" can't have been an eclipse.

In other words, Thallus is talking about an eclipse visible from Samaria. He is not talking about a darkness covering the whole world - and Julius demonstrates that Thallus's eclipse cannot be the Biblical darkness.

This leaves us with precisely zero records of a darkness covering the whole world.

Yes. We know that there was a localised eclipse in the area around this time. However, we have zero evidence of a global darkness. That Phlegon records the local eclipse is completely irrelevant.

Nope. It only records that Julius Africanus believed in 220CE that darkness had covered the Earth 190 years previously - despite the fact that there are no contemporary records of it - and that he believes it was not the eclipse that Thallus recorded.

Nope. Since we have no record of darkness, there is no need for a cause.

Nope. Julius simply assumes that a darkness happened when the author of the Gospel of Matthew says it did. For sources to agree, you need more than one of them...

Nope. What it means is that there is absolutely no evidence to support Matthew's claim that the entire world was plunged into darkness for a couple of hours.

Yet strangely, no-one else who was alive from 30-35CE mentions an unexpected worldwide 2-hour darkness - almost as if it never happened. Spooky, that.

We have already established that there could not have been an eclipse at that time.

No. You don't appear to understand your sources. This is Julius Africanus's statement, not Thallus's.

Agreed. There was no eclipse or any other darkness. The author of the Gospel of Matthew made it up.

Agreed. This is basic astronomy.

Agreed. There was no eclipse or any other darkness. The author of the Gospel of Matthew made it up.

No. It means that either a supernatural darkness occured over the Earth or no darkness occured over the Earth. Given that no-one else anywhere on the planet recorded a supernatural darkness, then any rational person would go for the second of those possibilities.

Only according to one person who wrote a midrashic pseudo-biography nearly 100 years after the alleged event. No-one who was alive at the time recorded it - they only recorded a normal and mundane eclipse, which we have already eliminated as a candidate for the alleged darkness.

Nope. No evidence of darkness, no evidence of a universal response, no evidence of a creator, no evidence of a death.

Nope. the eclipse happened. From a scientific point of view we can see that it was a perfectly natural occurance. We can also see that it was at the wrong time of the lunar month to be the darkness that the Gospel talks about, only local, and too short in duration (the eclipse lasted 10 mins, the alleged darkness lasted 2 hours) to be the alleged incident that the author of the Gospel of Matthew refers to.

Except that you still haven't provided even a scrap of evidence that Christ even existed - never mind died and got resurrection.

There wasn't one - unless you include the naturalistic theory that it never happened and the story was written later.

Now that, at least, is something we can agree on.

You know, I'd like someone to build an ark to the dimensions listed in Genesis and sail it on the ocean for half a year and prove it's a valid theory if they really believe that it is.

Rubbish. Firstly, there is no evidence that the disciples were all martyred outside the myths of the Catholic church. Secondly, if you believe that people would not die for a lie then I assume you fully support Islam because it's adherants wouldn't die for a lie either.

No it wasn't. By Strobel's own admission he was an alcoholic who was converted because of the emotional support that he got from his Christian wife. His stories about an academic search for the "truth" behind the Bible are merely apologetic propaganda.

lpetrich

One does not have to be an atheist to believe that there was no historical Jesus Christ. One can believe in some religion other than Xianity -- or even in certain early Xian sects that had taught that Jesus Christ had not had an earthly existence (Gnostics, Marcionites, etc.).

I think that the best Jesus-myth case I've seen in recent times is in Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle; you might also want to check out The God Who Wasn't There.

Except that that is long after the fact, and that rationalist skepticism was not exactly common in those days. Overcomer, do you really believe that Jesus Christ's biological father had been a Roman soldier, as the Talmud says?

The old medieval-manuscripts argument, I guess. The same can be said of whatever other documents survived the Middle Ages. But the Gospels show internal evidence of having been tampered with, like about divorce, "Kingdom of God" vs "Kingdom of Heaven", etc. And the first accounts of Jesus Christ ever, by Paul, show little awareness of what the Gospels say was his earthly history. Even when invoking JC's alleged earthly history would be convenient for Paul.

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. One can easily "demonstrate" that historical novels are Real History using that argument. And also that Islam is the One True Religion, since Islam's account of its founder Mohammed is full of all those things.

(on how Santa Claus leaves no physical traces...)
However, Jesus Christ had promised:
Does that ever happen?

Except that they received their canonical form some decades after JC had allegedly lived, meaning that there was plenty of room for revision.

That's because it is not immediately obvious that he was a myth. The usual secular account of him is that he was a 100% human religious prophet who had a human biological father and who never worked any miracles. Overcomer, is that what you believe about him?

However, his biography fits Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile very closely, putting him in such company as Oedipus, Romulus, Theseus, Hercules, Krishna, etc.. And well-documented people tend not to fit that profile very closely.

(Thallus, quoted in Julius Africanus, on the Crucifixion darkness...)
Richard Carrier discusses him thoroughly in Thallus, an Analysis. It's NOT certain exactly what Thallus was referring to, since his works have not survived; it could just as well have been a solar eclipse.

Furthermore, nobody whose works have survived had either seen that darkness or had known anyone who had.

Philo Judaeus of Alexandria was about 50 years old at that time
Pliny the Elder was about 10 years old at that time
Josephus was born at around that time

All three gentlemen wrote voluminously on history, and they would have mentioned such a mysterious darkness if it had happened. Consider that Pliny's Natural History is full of farfetched things, so it would have been completely in character for him to describe that darkness -- if it had happened.

And that does not even begin to cover:

The earthquake
The rocks splitting
The tearing of the Temple curtain
The corpses taking walks outside of their tombs

Except that several religions and sects have survived the presence of similar counterevidence. Mormonism, Christian Science, and Scientology have all survived exposés of their founders as fakers, and end-of-the-world sects have kept on going after the failure of the world to end at their predicted dates.

Something which might also account for how intellectually feeble his apologetics are. And I wonder what were Lee Strobel's strongest arguments for atheism while he had been an atheist, and why he now rejects them.

Sven

This is now the seventh thread with exactly one post by overcomer. Apparently, he has problems to find his threads again.

How about some evidence for these two claims?
(reputable witnesses, reliable transmittance)

One more assertion without evidence.

One more.

:rolling: Yeah, especially since Jesus was somehow able to be born twice.

Nice contradiction. Show me one method of copying which is error-free, then we can continue.

We can assume no such thing since so far we only have unsupported assertions.

Oh, and now we have an appeal to popularity. Didn't someone tell you that this is a logical fallacy?

:rolling:
Get real.

Well, present them.

Maybe that's because we either have writings by those people themselves and/or no miracles are ascribed to them?

:rolling: Get real.

[quote]Here is a link where you can see the numerous sources showing that Jesus was a real person:
[snip crap - if you had searched this forum for those quotes, you would have saved yourself some embarrasment]

Was he? How do you know?

There are enough examples for people who survived a crucifiction. And what exactly makes you think he was without food and water for three days? :huh:

How do you know?

Nice. Got any evidence for their martyrdom?

Lee Strobel? Just search secweb.org for more on this kook.

Again you assume that people have never seen the crap which you think makes your case. It doesn't at all.

Derec

There are no contemporary writings dealing with Jesus. Even the gospels have been written 30-60 years after teh purported events. And gospels are not historical documents. There are some 1st century references such as Testimonium Flavianum but they are very brief, lack details, do not imply independent knowledge of any Jesus of Nazareth. TF is considered an interpolation, at least in part, by historians. Tacitus reports what the Christians believe, not what he independently knows.

Quote:

Santa Claus originated with a possibly historical St. Nicholas who lived in Turkey in 3rd and 4th centuries CE. So we have a possibly historical Jesus from Gallilee who was mythologicised as Christ and similarly a St. Nicholas from Turkey who was mythologicised as Santa Claus.



Presented by whom? And being "presented" does not mean anything. In the movie "Batman Begins" Bruce Wayne was "presented" as a real person wearing a bat costume.

Quote:

These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably

No, the scholarship rejects the claims that gospels were written by eyewitnesses, much less reputable ones.

Relative to what? 4th century manuscripts. Which is hardlyu surprising given the power the church has had between then and now. But what about earlier manuscripts than that? Missing ressurection narrative from Mark alone would torpedo the 99.5% figure.

Much like the Jesus Christ is now purported to live in a fictional place called "Heaven".



The intention of the gospels was to promote a certain religion and its moral imperatives. It included descriptions of rewards and punsihments. The intention of the Santa myth is to promote certain behaviors by promissing presents and threatening a lump of coal. Not so much different really.

Quote:

And what abpiy a Jesus who can travel through air (see Assumption, Second Coming), who prepares mansions for all his followers and casts all others into a fiery furnace and who watches all you do dispite being dead for 2000 years.



As do stories about St. Nicholas in Turkey.

Quote:

Bollocks. Stories about Jesus in Heaven (supposed present state of affairs) have even less "integral contextualization" than Santa Claus. Actually Santa's North Pole is as fictional as Jesus' Heaven.



Neither was Jesus. He still lives, right?

Quote:

We also have no evidence that men can walk on water or raise themselves from dead. Actually we have evidence against that.

That's because he has a stealth sleigh, oh ye of little faith.



There is no evidence of that and atcually there is evidence against it.

Quote:

that the gospels are historically accurate,

No.

Quote:

superbly transmitted to us through the copying method,

What does that prove except that the texts were deemed worthy of preservation by the Church?

Quote:

we can then assume at the very least, that Jesus was an actual historical person.

We can't assume it, but it is a good possibility. However, a historical Jesus would be different from the Gospel Jesus. Also, there is a good possibuility there is a historical Santa, as it were.

Quote:

Nor do we have any evidence that Jesus, had he existed, was more than a man. We certainly have no evidence that he is alive today, living in Heaven. We have found no angel footprints in any Christian homes for example.

And we have video evidence of Jesus?

As to why we can't find evidence of Santa on teh North Pole dispite the technoplogical evidence, that is easy. That myth is aimed at little children, preschoolers, not adults. We are not arguing that Santa exists here, ok.

Wait? Disciples of Jesus performing miracles? Oh not today you say. Only in distant past, when it can't be verified? I see.



Existance of a historical Santa is as likely (if not more so) than a historical Jesus. However that has little bearing on the full-blown mythological versions of both characters.

Quote:

we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality

I am afraid many adults lack that capacity too. Especially when the Jesus myth, unlike the Santa myth, is not shattered by the verty adults that fed it to them in the first place.

There are no contemporary historical sources on Jesus at all. Earliest non-gospel source, the Testimonium Flavianum, is from the very late 1st century writing. However it is a later forgery, at least in part, although some scholars think it is forged in full.

I call BS on that.

Effectively this is a third century attestation. Way too late.

He does no such thing. There are only later apologists that purport to quote him. If there really had been an untimely eclipse in that area there should have been a myriad of independent confirmations. Yet we have nothing until much later when the veracity cannot be verified and indeed must be doubted very much.

Take a look at this little essay:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

Or rather, a non-event.

Derec

Malintent

The OP:
The best naturalistic theory I can think of to account for the origin of BELIEF in Jesus' resurrection is the human fear of death. Self-preservation dictates we should claim to believe what the people with the hot irons, whips, and chains tell us to believe.

How is this different than the Santa tale? Be good or you won't get any presents / go to hell.

There is extensive evidence of there existing a "first Santa" - The church recognizes this.. they sainted him - um, SAINT Nickolas.... aka st. Nick, aka Santa. He gave presents to children and the story went wild. Jesus may or may not have existed... but I have faith that he did as a criminal of Rome that was executed. Now there is a story that REALLY went wild.

Mageth

Also known to be caused by heavy clouds, volcanic eruptions, big forest fires, dust storms, etc etc.

Eikonoklast

I think that the best naturalistic theory is that the resurrection is not an actual resurrection -- that is, someone coming back to life after being brain dead for three days. The story of the crucifixion and the resurrection are actually an allegorical story of the experience of ego death and loss of freewill after ingesting entheogens, and the subsequent regaining of one's ego after the effects have subsided.

The best theory that I have ever seen on this is put forth by Michael Hoffman at www.egodeath.com

He isn't published yet, and it looks like he's been working on refining the theory of several years. There's a lot of material to read, but I feel that he is definitely on the right track. His theory would actually encapsulate most all of the mystic religions.

Weltall

Ahh, a fellow lover of the great detective. Tell me, did you count the steps?
To answer the OP however, the best explanation would be 'It didn't happen; it's just a story'.

TedM

I think there were three strong motivations for resurrection appearances in some form:

1. A beloved person, publically known, considered by some to be the Messiah, died.
2. The culture was desparately seeking a Messiah
3. The manner of death appeared to fulfill a number of OT passages thought to be Messiac in nature (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22)

These all could have contributed to 'sightings' like we see by followers of Elvis or Jim Morrison, etc.., or dreams or even in some cases visions.

Without any one of the 3 legs above I doubt the sect would have had enough believability to have lasted.

ted