The two threads of the Jesus Myth argument

[gstafleu]

I think there are two threads to the Jesus Myth theory, and I'd like to shortly describe them here. I will arbitrarily label these threads the D-thread and the P-thread.

The D-thread concerns itself with the Development of the Jesus concept. It argues one can discern such a development, both in the NT and in 1st and 2nd century literature outside the NT. The development starts with a Jesus that is a spiritual, non-human entity. As time progresses one can see the concept develop into a human walk-on-the-earth form. The D-thread argues that for an understanding and explanation of the earlier documents, a human Jesus is unnecessary. A forteriori it argues that there are places in the earlier literature that are in fact incompatible with a human Jesus.

The P-thread focuses on the Provenance of what Jesus, mainly the one from Gospels and Acts, is supposed to have said and done. It argues that just about everything he said and did can be traced back to other sources, either pre-existent or contemporary. The P-thread then argues that (1) therefore a human Jesus is not necessary to explain the acts and sayings, and (2) that such a collection of unoriginal deeds and utterings cannot be used as evidence for someone who is supposed to have originated them.

For completeness sake I should mention here the third of the two threads, the 0-thread. This thread observes that the historical evidence for a Jesus is thin on the ground. The main evidence comes from the not impartial religious literature. Evidence outside the canon is rare and disputed.

The Jesus Myth argument then consists of the following points:

0 - The historical evidence for a HJ is not convincing
P - Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources
D - There is a development discernable that starts with a non-human J and changes to a human one

Thread 0 can be countered by a "where there is smoke there is fire" argument: given all the stories there probably was someone on who they are based. This is no doubt possible, but it isn't much more than conjecture.

Thread P is more difficult to counter, except with a chicken-and-egg argument regarding the acts and sayings whose sources are not clearly antecedent: maybe an HJ originated these.

The way to counter thread D is to disagree with the analysis of the development. Doable, but not easy. One often has to fall back on arguments like "well, Paul just wasn't interested in Jesus' historical aspects." Not all that convincing.

In conclusion, each of the three threads has counter arguments. But the combination of the three is pretty much an HJ-killer.

Gerard Stafleu

[Clivedurdle]

Not sure if you have the following in your three threads, that the growth of the Christ is strongly explained by looking at existing mystery type thinking, that mythological beasties - especially godmen like Hercules are a real comparison - that the gospels are more in the literature/play genres than history genre, that Paul is very gnostic, that the eucharist is an alchemic formulation that turns bread into flesh, wine into blood and like the philosophers stone, death into life.

To summarise, the evidence explicitly points at myth.

[gstafleu]

Not sure if you have the following in your three threads, that the growth of the Christ is strongly explained by looking at existing mystery type thinking, that mythological beasties - especially godmen like Hercules are a real comparison - that the gospels are more in the literature/play genres than history genre, that Paul is very gnostic, that the eucharist is an alchemic formulation that turns bread into flesh, wine into blood and like the philosophers stone, death into life.
I think that all comes under P: Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources.

Gerard

[mens_sana]

P - Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources ...

Thread P is more difficult to counter, except with a chicken-and-egg argument regarding the acts and sayings whose sources are not clearly antecedent: maybe an HJ originated these.

Lack of originality is one of Archarya's arguments. Pretty weak one. Many respectable scholars today suffer from a lack of originality. If "history" is a matter of "probabilities" based on the information we have, then the I think the HJ is more probable than is a very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus.

Occasionally the ad hominum fallacy needs to be reexamined. While throwing epithets concerning personal background and demonizing the adversary as the "other," is genuinely an appeal only to emotions and group identity rather than to reason, there are aspects of ad hominum that are appropriate because they go to the credibility of the person. Is the person competent, trustworthy, of good will? Does the person use credible sources? Does the person's background and training make him a credible source? Does he have a good track record? Does the person have a bias or vested interest? Is there a clear basis on which the person reached his conclusion? I find that both the Fundamentalist/Evangelical and the hardened Mythicist have problems when held to these ad hominum standards.

[gstafleu]

Lack of originality is one of Archarya's arguments. Pretty weak one.
Argumentum ad non-autoritatem?

Anyway, why is pointing out that everything J is supposed to have said and done is non-original weak? The question is if there is something like an "original J". If all his acts and sayings can be shown to be derived, then at the very least it is clear that these acts and sayings cannot be used as evidence for an original J. Add to this that many Xians hold that what J said were "the greatest words ever spoken." If these greatest words turn out to have been spoken by someone else first, doesn't that say something about J?

The point of the P-thread is that you cannot use acts and sayings as evidence for someone's existence if you can show where they came from--and it is not from the person whose existence you are trying to prove!

Gerard

[Clivedurdle]

a very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus.

Pardon?

Where did that come from?

What did the docetists believe?

I see a series of logical errors, Chinese whispers that no one was able to correct or even saw as a problem!

Remember the alleged earliest writer never met the guy, is writing at least a generation later, and is extremely thin about the reality of his jesi.

Humanising is a natural thing to do. Writing plays to explain it is a natural thing to do, assuming characters are real is common.

I have argued elsewhere that the historicity of Jesus did not happen until the enlightenment. When you believe in God and the Holy Spirit and demons and angels, Jesus being the son of God is not a problem, but even then they did not sing off the same hymn sheet - look at all the alleged heresies - actually they are all equally valid interpretations - for example how can a son be equal to the father?

[mens_sana]

What did the docetists believe? ... I have argued elsewhere that the historicity of Jesus did not happen until the enlightenment. ... how can a son be equal to the father?

What did the Ebionites believe?

While the Docetists believed in Christ as an "apparition," did they ever believe that it was not a historical event, one happening on our plane, as it were?

"How can a son be equal to the father?" When they're both members of a trinity, of course. :) What does the irrationality of the trinity have to do with the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

[aa5874]

If "history" is a matter of "probabilities" based on the information we have, then the I think the HJ is more probable than is a very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus.

The probabilty of an HJ is not evidence of an historical Jesus. A unicorn is a plausible creature, but its plausibilty is not evidence of its existence.

The MJ postion is that there is no credible evidence to support an HJ. If anyone has the view that Jesus was indeed historical, then simply provide the relevant information, plausibilities and probabilities don't cut it.

There is no need to spread any conspiracy to turn mythical Jesus into carnal Jesus, since religous beliefs do not operate on reality. All supernatural beings are mythical. Jesus came into the world as a myth, lived as a myth, and left as a myth. Jesus is a myth.

[gstafleu]

There is no need to spread any conspiracy to turn mythical Jesus into carnal Jesus
Exactly. The three threads combined show that (a) there is not enough evidence for an HJ, and (b) we can see the creation of an HJ happening, without the need for any conspiracies. The HJ was probably created at or shortly after Mark. We only need other communities taking up the idea, no conspiracies are needed.

Gerard

[spamandham]

What did the Ebionites believe?

I've pondered whether the Ebionites might be the best evidence of a historical Jesus myself. The primary problems are that we only know anything about the Ebionites through writers who were not flattering toward them, and can reasonably have been expected to exaggerate the 'heresies' of the Ebionites.

Second, there is not strong evidence that they existed in the early/mid first century. Any time after that would be sufficient for Jesus to be turned from a character in a novel into a mythical figfure into a god-man historical figure, and then stripped of the magical aspects and converted into an ordinary holy man. The fact that the Ebionites used a Gospel purported to have been very similar to Matthew (but without the birth story and without magical aspects or atonement by crucifixion) makes it doubtful to me they were anything but later redacters. If they had original insight into HJ, it doesn't seem reasonable they would follow a version of Matthew.

[Vorkosigan]

I think the HJ is more probable than is a very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus.

I live for the day when someone attacking the mythicist argument actually takes the time to understand it.

Vorkosigan

[aa5874]

I live for the day when someone attacking the mythicist argument actually takes the time to understand it.

Vorkosigan

And, I live for the day when the difference between probability and evidence is fully understood.

As I have noticed, those who claim the historicity of Jesus only do so on probability, not on evidence.

Anyone who has been a juror in a court proceeding will know that guilt or innocence is based on evidence not on probability or plausibilties.

To me, the HJ position is simple, and it is this: Even though there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, I believe in my heart and have faith that Jesus Christ lived.

[youngalexander]

And, I live for the day when the difference between probability and evidence is fully understood.
Your day has come!

Perhaps an exposition of the difference would benefit us all.
Proceed.

[The Bishop]

I think there are two threads to the Jesus Myth theory, and I'd like to shortly describe them here. I will arbitrarily label these threads the D-thread and the P-thread.

The D-thread concerns itself with the Development of the Jesus concept. It argues one can discern such a development, both in the NT and in 1st and 2nd century literature outside the NT. The development starts with a Jesus that is a spiritual, non-human entity. As time progresses one can see the concept develop into a human walk-on-the-earth form. The D-thread argues that for an understanding and explanation of the earlier documents, a human Jesus is unnecessary. A forteriori it argues that there are places in the earlier literature that are in fact incompatible with a human Jesus.

The P-thread focuses on the Provenance of what Jesus, mainly the one from Gospels and Acts, is supposed to have said and done. It argues that just about everything he said and did can be traced back to other sources, either pre-existent or contemporary. The P-thread then argues that (1) therefore a human Jesus is not necessary to explain the acts and sayings, and (2) that such a collection of unoriginal deeds and utterings cannot be used as evidence for someone who is supposed to have originated them.

For completeness sake I should mention here the third of the two threads, the 0-thread. This thread observes that the historical evidence for a Jesus is thin on the ground. The main evidence comes from the not impartial religious literature. Evidence outside the canon is rare and disputed.I haven't been here for a while, but I can't really say that I ever noticed P being heavily promoted.

The Jesus Myth argument then consists of the following points:

0 - The historical evidence for a HJ is not convincing
P - Just about everything J is supposed to have said and done can be derived from other sources
D - There is a development discernable that starts with a non-human J and changes to a human one

Thread 0 can be countered by a "where there is smoke there is fire" argument: given all the stories there probably was someone on who they are based. This is no doubt possible, but it isn't much more than conjecture. Historical reasons for claiming an existant Jesus do go a little farther than a conjecture that amounts to "Well, with four biographies, there must have been such a person!". For my part, I was convinced in an HJ when I realised that two different accounts of a birth in Bethlehem were necessary to shoehorn Jesus into Messianic Davidic-line prophecy, but there was no reason whatsoever to have him be a Galilean - not from Scripture, anyway.

Thread P is more difficult to counter, except with a chicken-and-egg argument regarding the acts and sayings whose sources are not clearly antecedent: maybe an HJ originated these.This argument isn't hard to defeat at all. Just because every individual thing Jesus said was said by other people, doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus who said them all together. The same argument about someone who synthesised all the previous sayings of Jesus could be applied to Jesus himself!

You may as well argue that since all the building blocks of knowledge behind Relativity had been provided by Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell and Lorentz, then Einstein never existed!

It's nothing to do with chicken and egg, it's to do with the fact that very obviously somebody said all those things together, and you can't disprove someone's existence from the fact that all the things they said or believed were already said or believed by lots of different sets of people before them.

The way to counter thread D is to disagree with the analysis of the development. Doable, but not easy. One often has to fall back on arguments like "well, Paul just wasn't interested in Jesus' historical aspects." Not all that convincing.No, not if you put it that way. I haven't revisited here for a while, but a while ago I pointed out that every week there are thousands of words expended on Tony Blair and George Bush, nary a one of which will mention where they went to school, their significant career milestones or even, practically anything they've done while they're in office. Paul thought Jesus was God because he resurrected from the dead. As far as long term history is concerned, Bush and Blair were all about Iraq and almost nothing else. But all three of those people had lives and careers and an almost infinite sequence of events in those lives, about which their chroniclers are not at this stage concerned with.

In conclusion, each of the three threads has counter arguments. But the combination of the three is pretty much an HJ-killer.

Gerard Stafleu

I hope I've demonstrated the fallacies in that attitude. 3 wrong or weak arguments do not add up to a strong argument. What if there was a Historical Jesus in actual (unknowable from this distance) fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he never did are equally worthless!

[spamandham]

Historical reasons for claiming an existant Jesus do go a little farther than a conjecture that amounts to "Well, with four biographies, there must have been such a person!". For my part, I was convinced in an HJ when I realised that two different accounts of a birth in Bethlehem were necessary to shoehorn Jesus into Messianic Davidic-line prophecy, but there was no reason whatsoever to have him be a Galilean - not from Scripture, anyway.

This is the best evidence I've seen for the HJ position. Thanks!

I'd love to see a consolidated list of arguments like this for the HJ position. Such summaries do exist for the MJ position. It'd be nice to weight them side by side to make a judgement.

(of course, I suppose the counter would be that if you are historicizing a myth, you have to have him come from somewhere. )

[post tenebras lux]

A simple mix up (whether accidentally or on purpose) of the word Nazarene would explain the belief that he had been 'from Galilee'.

[The Bishop]

post tenebras lux, it's perfectly plain from the skimpiest of readings of the gospels and the letters, that the principal followers of Jesus were all Galileans. It just goes far too far to believe that all the Galilean elements, the Nazarene origins and childhood, living later in Capernaum, much use of the Sea of Galilee for stories and parables, and Peter's regional accent, were all specially written in to account for one misprint of Nazorite.

(of course, I suppose the counter would be that if you are historicizing a myth, you have to have him come from somewhere. )Since he had to be born in Bethlehem, have him come from Bethlehem! That's the whole point.

[gstafleu]

This argument isn't hard to defeat at all. Just because every individual thing Jesus said was said by other people, doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus who said them all together.
True enough, but it misses the point. Several points. The first is that Jesus was supposed to be extra-special. You'd think that if so, he would have said some extra-special things. If he just repeats what others said, that doesn't point to any extra-specialty. Second, while you indeed cannot use his repeating things as absolute proof for his non-existence, you can equally not use repeated material as proof for his existence. So at minimum this removes all repeated material as evidence for his existence. And if after that nothing is left, you're left with a pretty thin case.



No, not if you put it that way. I haven't revisited here for a while, but a while ago I pointed out that every week there are thousands of words expended on Tony Blair and George Bush, nary a one of which will mention where they went to school, their significant career milestones or even, practically anything they've done while they're in office.
What is mentioned is what is seen as important by the authors. In Paul's case this means that he apparently did not think that the large majority of gospel material was worth mentioning. Similarly journalists may not think various non-Iraq milestones worth mentioning. I find that understandable in the Bush/Blair case, B&B are currently pretty well defined by the Iraq situation. I do not find it at all understandable in the case of Paul. So you are comparing apples and oranges here. Paul leaves out stuff that everybody else sees as essential, journalists leave out stuff that is of lesser relevance to how B&B are currently seen.



What if there was a Historical Jesus in actual (unknowable from this distance) fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he never did are equally worthless!
You state the crux of the matter very well: unknowable. Scientific method then forces us to shelf the HJ hypothesis. Given that we have evidence for the MJ hypothesis, that then becomes the most likely one. If anyone can come up with real evidence for an HJ, as opposed to pointing out the weaknesses in the MJ case, reevaluation may be in order.

Gerard

[post tenebras lux]

post tenebras lux, it's perfectly plain from the skimpiest of readings of the gospels and the letters, that the principal followers of Jesus were all Galileans. It just goes far too far to believe that all the Galilean elements, the Nazarene origins and childhood, living later in Capernaum, much use of the Sea of Galilee for stories and parables, and Peter's regional accent, were all specially written in to account for one misprint of Nazorite.

Since he had to be born in Bethlehem, have him come from Bethlehem! That's the whole point.As far as I'm aware, the gospels came later Bish'. When do you think they were written, and by whom?

Oh, and I like that 'misprint' angle. We're not talking printing presses here, we're talking about the rants of itinerant roadside preachers passing on what they think they heard from another preacher (and/or what they were told personally by god in 'visions').

[gstafleu]

This is the best evidence I've seen for the HJ position. Thanks!

If so it is not doing too well.

Both the MJers and the HJers have to do two things: (a) present evidence for their position and (b) show why the other guys' evidence is weak. The 0-thread does (b) for the MJ position. The D and P threads then do (a). This constitutes a well constructed argument. You don't just say why the other guys are wrong, but you also present a model of the development of the NT that better explains the available data.

As far as I can tell, what The Bishop does is mostly saying why MJ is wrong, he does not present much evidence for an HJ. Except for the bit about Galilee. That is not uninteresting, but even if we take it at face value it doesn't constitute all that much in the way of evidence. In fact, I'm rather tempted to see it as a diversionary tactic ("let's see if we can discuss this Galilee bit instead of the whole MJ case"), but I'll concede that that is probably unfair.

Gerard


I'd love to see a consolidated list of arguments like this for the HJ position.
So would I ;).

[spamandham]

Since he had to be born in Bethlehem, have him come from Bethlehem! That's the whole point.

Don't most scholars believe the birth story was a later add on?

So someone figures out their fictional Galilean Messiah character came from the wrong city, doh! Let's invent a birth story that has him coming from the right city.

I'm not saying this is the case, but it doesn't require much to make it fit the MJ position, which means it is not conclusive evidence for HJ.

[Vorkosigan]

And, I live for the day when the difference between probability and evidence is fully understood.


Simple: the Jesus Myth isn't about an ultra secret, Church-wide conspiracy. Most mythers argue for an evolutionary view of one sort or another. A tiny minority has other views. No mythicist believes in a "very widely-spread, ultra secret church conspiracy designed to turn a mythical Christ into a carnal Jesus."

Michael

[RAFH]

I hope I've demonstrated the fallacies in that attitude. 3 wrong or weak arguments do not add up to a strong argument. What if there was a Historical Jesus in actual (unknowable from this distance) fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he never did are equally worthless! bold mine

And what if there wasn't an HJ in actual fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he ever did exist are equally worthless!

So, what's your point? Any rhetorical hypothesis is as meaningless as its direct opposite without supporting evidence.

[Didymus]

It's nothing to do with chicken and egg, it's to do with the fact that very obviously somebody said all those things together,

That is not a "fact" at all, let alone an obvious one.

The existence of an "Oral Tradition" regarding Jesus' sayings is an assumption, not a fact. And even if such a tradition existed somewhere - in the Diaspora? In Palestine? - We have no way of knowing - there's simply no way to ascertain its accuracy.

So even if Jesus existed, there's no independent evidence that the gospel authors were privy to his actual words. On the other hand, there's abundant evidence, including the Septuagint itself, that the gospel authors had access to other sources for "all those things" they attributed to Jesus.

Thus you have independent evidence of numerous non-Jesus sources and no independent evidence that a single individual named Jesus said "all those things."

Yes, I would doubt the existence of Einstein if the only "evidence" of his existence were quotations that could be found in Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell and Lorentz.

Didymus

[aa5874]

Historical reasons for claiming an existant Jesus do go a little farther than a conjecture that amounts to "Well, with four biographies, there must have been such a person!". For my part, I was convinced in an HJ when I realised that two different accounts of a birth in Bethlehem were necessary to shoehorn Jesus into Messianic Davidic-line prophecy, but there was no reason whatsoever to have him be a Galilean - not from Scripture, anyway.

Meaningless jargon. There are no prophecies in the OT related to any character in the NT. The Gospels is riddled with all out of context text, sometimes edited, to fabricate prophecies.

It is beyond me that two contradictory accounts of a character's birth, which would put anyone's historicity in doubt, would provide you with reason for historicity.

Just because every individual thing Jesus said was said by other people, doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus who said them all together. The same argument about someone who synthesised all the previous sayings of Jesus could be applied to Jesus himself!

Yor are not providing any information about Jesus, you are only refuting others' arguments. If the HJ position was the only view, you would still need evidence to support it.

You may as well argue that since all the building blocks of knowledge behind Relativity had been provided by Newton, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell and Lorentz, then Einstein never existed!

These are recycled arguments, if Einstein exist, then Jesus exist. Even if Einstein never existed, you will still have to prove Jesus exist.

It's nothing to do with chicken and egg, it's to do with the fact that very obviously somebody said all those things together, and you can't disprove someone's existence from the fact that all the things they said or believed were already said or believed by lots of different sets of people before them.

No one can disprove an existence, however if there is no proof of existence, then the entity is deemed to be non-existent.
No-one has proven Jesus existed, therefore Jesus is deemed to be non-existent.
No-one has proven a unicorn exist, therefore a unicorn is deemed to be non-existent.

Paul thought Jesus was God because he resurrected from the dead.

I am of the opinion that if Paul was a real person, he would have known that no-one could have been resurrected from the dead after three days.


3 wrong or weak arguments do not add up to a strong argument. What if there was a Historical Jesus in actual (unknowable from this distance) fact? Then all the different strands of argument that he never did are equally worthless!

You have not provided one iota of evidence, to support yor view, just imaginative what ifs. Your statements have no substance whatsoever. HJ is an evidence based position, not one of speculation and imagination.

[rlogan]

but there was no reason whatsoever to have him be a Galilean - not from Scripture, anyway.

Yes there was - and precisely so.

Matthew 4: 12-16

12: Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
13: And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
14: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
15: The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

This is straight out of Isaiah ch 9:

1: Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2: The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.


One of the tiring things about dealing with "historicists" is that these demonstrations are so exact - so perfect - requiring absolutely ZERO interpretation, but a historicist will run with the faintest of evidence like "kata sarka" or whatever to "prove" that it really means they are talking about a historical person.

There is nothing of significance about Jesus that comes outside Hebrew Bible dumpster diving - and some of it very sloppy indeed.

His coming "out of Egypt" is mined from Hosea 11:1. His birth in Bethlehem is mined from Micah 5:2.

The story to get him to be born in Bethlehem requires a lie about the census. The story getting him into Egypt requires a lie about the slaughter of the innocents, which is just recycled Moses trash.

Demonstratable lies. And there are so many of them.

And so what do we do? Oh, we ignore them all and pretend there is some "kernel" beneath it all.

But there is nothing left once you remove all the dumpster diving midrash.

[EarlOfLade]

To me, the HJ position is simple, and it is this: Even though there is no evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, I believe in my heart and have faith that Jesus Christ lived.
I can tell you that you are my favorite juror in the case I would be accused of first degree murder because you would have faith in me when I say that i didn't kill anyone, wouldn't you?

Taking something that is not provable as the ultimate truth makes you look rather foolish.

When it comes to JM, I think it was necessary to redesign jesus into a physical person. All the claims that the NT makes about the origin of jesus is totally illogical and totally contrary to anything we know today. And not to mention that there is ZERO evidence for the life and existance of NT's Jesus, it has become more and more evident to me over the years that Jesus was never a real person.

[gstafleu]

Oh, we ignore them all and pretend there is some "kernel" beneath it all.
As to that kernel, one of the better formulations of that was when someone said he believed there was a Historical Jesus, but that that person need not necessarily have been called Jesus. I think this is a useful thesis, and I'd like to slightly extend it. Jesus may not have had just one precursor, but several, not unlikely syncretism-wise. After all, we all stand on each other's shoulders and all that. Furthermore, these precursors, or kernels, need not all have been called Jesus.

Hence I would like to present my

Universalized Historical Jesus Thesis
Before the gospels were written, there were other people around. These other people were not all called Jesus.

I think we can all agree on that.

Gerard

[seeker]

Even supposing an HJ is it even likely that much of what is attributed to him isn't myth? The first Gospels don't even show up unti early in the second century AD and are full of geographical errors as well as historical ones.

It's a little like the George Washington story. Sure he existed but the cherry tree story is pure myth that was created by Mason Weems shortly after he died.

Similarly we can see that popular myths like the virgin birth, resurection, healing, raising the dead etc were not only told about Jesus but about Pythagoras, Julius Ceasar and a host of mystery gods. Even supposing HJ existed he was probably nothing like the portrayal of him.

In a way it doesn't matter if he existed.

[RAFH]

I can tell you that you are my favorite juror in the case I would be accused of first degree murder because you would have faith in me when I say that i didn't kill anyone, wouldn't you?

Taking something that is not provable as the ultimate truth makes you look rather foolish.

When it comes to JM, I think it was necessary to redesign jesus into a physical person. All the claims that the NT makes about the origin of jesus is totally illogical and totally contrary to anything we know today. And not to mention that there is ZERO evidence for the life and existance of NT's Jesus, it has become more and more evident to me over the years that Jesus was never a real person.

Earl, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe aa5874 was not making a statement of his personal beliefs but that of the typical HJer. He was saying a HJer would ignore the lack of evidence and simply rely on their faith as the basis for their position on the existence of HJ. Like I said, I may be wrong about this, perhaps aa5874 can clear that up.

[Amaleq13]

Earl, perhaps I am wrong, but I believe aa5874 was not making a statement of his personal beliefs but that of the typical HJer. He was saying a HJer would ignore the lack of evidence and simply rely on their faith as the basis for their position on the existence of HJ. Like I said, I may be wrong about this, perhaps aa5874 can clear that up.

No, you have it right. aa5874 is firmly positioned in the mythicist camp.

[aa5874]

I can tell you that you are my favorite juror in the case I would be accused of first degree murder because you would have faith in me when I say that i didn't kill anyone, wouldn't you?

Taking something that is not provable as the ultimate truth makes you look rather foolish.

I think you have completely mis-read my post, I am MJ. I have not seen any evidence to support Jesus Christ being a human being, and those who claim He lived do so only from faith and imaginations.

I was just giving my interpretation of the view of those who believe Jesus was a real person.

All the claims that the NT makes about the origin of jesus is totally illogical and totally contrary to anything we know today. And not to mention that there is ZERO evidence for the life and existance of NT's Jesus, it has become more and more evident to me over the years that Jesus was never a real person.

Your statement reflects my view, and in fact the Jesus story may have been a deliberate distortion, known to be fictitious at the time of writing.

[Tangent]

Just because every individual thing Jesus said was said by other people, doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus who said them all together. The same argument about someone who synthesised all the previous sayings of Jesus could be applied to Jesus himself!

Do you believe in a historical Homer?