There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Legion]

... Legion, do you even listen to the stuff you say?

 

Yes, I do! And I listen to you too. Behold, I have been among the philosophers. It is well known among them that if one encounters a determined solipsist then there is no way to dissuade them from it.

 

There is also no proof or ironclad argument that an objective world of phenomena exists which is governed by causality. I've looked. It's not there. Yet I still believe.

 

Legion, say it ain't so! You're going against the conclusions drawn by Schopenhauer's "sehr kluger Pudel" (very clever poodle). When S. stood at the side of the window and drew the cord on the just-installed curtains, the dog jumped around and barked, trying to figure out who was behind the curtains. He knew that some creature had caused them to move! lol

 

Do you know that I love you Ficino?

[Stamps1962]

I recdently read a book "Did Mohammed Exist?"- the author made a good case that he was sort of a contrived character, used by Arab nationalists to unify their forces at a criticalmtime. Can't say I bought it totally. What was interesting is that I mentioned this to a fundy friend and he was enthused about it, felt it was a great book, etc. He is one of those fundies who think Muslims are planning to take over the world. I remember thinking with amusement that it was so easy for him to think a guy about whom there is at least some evidence did not exist, but then he buys into the whole Jesus thing. If pressed, he'd probably fall back on how he knows Jesus was real because "He lives in my heart."

[Akheia]

* A baby from the same place the NT claims for him (whoops, sorry, Nazareth didn't exist then)

 

 

Hi Akheia, mix me one of your mythic cocktails sometime! I'm sure this has been discussed, maybe by you previously, but can you elaborate on the claim that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century CE? I've seen claims that there are buildings with 1st century Nabatean inscriptions from there.

 

This is a nice start. The Wikipedia page about it is also pretty thorough. I suspect the more accurate question is not "did Nazareth exist" but "was Nazareth a town during Jesus' putative lifetime". I think there's plenty of archeological evidence supporting the idea of people living in the general area for a good long while, but no evidence that it was an organized town that called itself that (or anything similar) during that timeframe. Sources and archeology support that yes, there was a town there (not called Nazareth though) some centuries before Jesus' putative birth, and Nazareth as a town begins to be mentioned a couple centuries after, but I don't think anybody's ever found evidence for it being an active, organized town called that during that time. What I've seen of the corruption of "Jesus the Nazarene" into "Jesus of Nazareth" sounds a lot closer to the truth. Even today most Christians have no earthly clue what the difference is.

 

BTW, I've got a lot of affection for the Nabatean mythos If you know of 1st-century Nabatean inscriptions regarding Nazareth, I'm happy to be schooled. It's all about learning to me. I just re-checked my info and saw nothing about that.

 

Ouro, I don't worry about *why* the NT is false or *why* people forged its various books and made up its various claims. The evidence simply is what it is. You could drive yourself crazy wondering why liars and conmen do what they do. People lie even when they don't have a pressing reason to do so, and when religions are starting, there's a lot of power and authority swirling around. You've never met a Christian schmuck who is convinced of some great theological truth that only he knows? Is such a twit trying to destroy Christianity? No; he's just grabbing a piece of the pie and reveling in the attention. I think you could go nuts trying to over-analyze the motivations of liars and conmen. THAT the NT is a pack of forgeries by anonymous authors whose identities we will never know is beyond question; we know we don't know who wrote almost any of it. THAT its claims are demonstrably false isn't up for debate; we know they are almost all mythic, irrational, and illogical. I'm not sure why I have to worry about *why* a con is a con, if I know that it is a con.

[Ouroboros]

A lot of these suppositions seem to run into the problem of how they could ever be falsified. Anyone who can imitate a style of writing can produce a forgery. Reminds me of the joke that the works of Shakespeare were not written by the bard from Stratford-on-Avon but by another guy of the same name.

Yeah. That's the problem here.

 

I think it's clear, even from the Roman documents, that there were a cult in the second, perhaps first, century empire. And I think it's safe to say that they believed there had been a real, human Jesus, of some kind.

 

If fake-Paul, fake-Peter, fake-James, fake-Hebrew, and so on, all wrote different hoaxes during that time, it still doesn't explain where those cult followers came from originally. I doubt that fake-Paul started fake-churches all around Rome to write hoax-letters just for fun. Or should we assume that all churches and people fake-Paul talked to/about are all fake too, and there were never any churches of Antioch and what-not? The hoax becomes extremely large and complex if this is true. Well done, whoever it was, for pulling it off. It's almost on the level of the moon landing hoax. And we know there's no Moon really either. It's a myth invented by NASA.

 

When the hoax theory becomes too elaborate, I think it's easier to go middle way. My compromise in the Jesus-myth theory is that it's more likely to have been a first cult of Jews who followed a charismatic leader they called Jesus. That's my compromise. And it doesn't scare me that there might be some small, little, tiny truth in NT. It doesn't threaten my existence, identity, or belief that Christianity in general is false.

[Legion]

I think the value of reading tea leaves is underestimated.

 

Try picking up a book, any book, in any language. Consider it carefully. Ask "why?" about it. Don't be satisfied with merely one answer. Find as many answers as there may be.

 

When you consider the question along with the answers, then what have you found?

 

A glimpse of the truth.

[♦ ficino ♦]

A lot of these suppositions seem to run into the problem of how they could ever be falsified. Anyone who can imitate a style of writing can produce a forgery. Reminds me of the joke that the works of Shakespeare were not written by the bard from Stratford-on-Avon but by another guy of the same name.

Yeah. That's the problem here.

 

I think it's clear, even from the Roman documents, that there were a cult in the second, perhaps first, century empire. And I think it's safe to say that they believed there had been a real, human Jesus, of some kind.

 

If fake-Paul, fake-Peter, fake-James, fake-Hebrew, and so on, all wrote different hoaxes during that time, it still doesn't explain where those cult followers came from originally. I doubt that fake-Paul started fake-churches all around Rome to write hoax-letters just for fun. Or should we assume that all churches and people fake-Paul talked to/about are all fake too, and there were never any churches of Antioch and what-not? The hoax becomes extremely large and complex if this is true. Well done, whoever it was, for pulling it off. It's almost on the level of the moon landing hoax. And we know there's no Moon really either. It's a myth invented by NASA.

 

When the hoax theory becomes too elaborate, I think it's easier to go middle way. My compromise in the Jesus-myth theory is that it's more likely to have been a first cult of Jews who followed a charismatic leader they called Jesus. That's my compromise. And it doesn't scare me that there might be some small, little, tiny truth in NT. It doesn't threaten my existence, identity, or belief that Christianity in general is false.

 

I once told my 8th-grade Latin class that no one ever actually spoke Latin, that it and the supposed ancient texts written in it were made up by nineteenth-century German scholars. The kids just gave me blank looks.

[Ouroboros]

Ouro, I don't worry about *why* the NT is false or *why* people forged its various books and made up its various claims. The evidence simply is what it is.

Eh. So we're having a discussion about "what" but not "why"? Ok. Well. You win.

 

You could drive yourself crazy wondering why liars and conmen do what they do. People lie even when they don't have a pressing reason to do so, and when religions are starting, there's a lot of power and authority swirling around. You've never met a Christian schmuck who is convinced of some great theological truth that only he knows? Is such a twit trying to destroy Christianity? No; he's just grabbing a piece of the pie and reveling in the attention. I think you could go nuts trying to over-analyze the motivations of liars and conmen. THAT the NT is a pack of forgeries by anonymous authors whose identities we will never know is beyond question; we know we don't know who wrote almost any of it. THAT its claims are demonstrably false isn't up for debate; we know they are almost all mythic, irrational, and illogical. I'm not sure why I have to worry about *why* a con is a con, if I know that it is a con.

Basically, you're making the case that I should shut up. Got it. I shouldn't give my opinions and views and thoughts and reasons behind it, because you say so. Thanks.

[Ouroboros]

I once told my 8th-grade Latin class that no one ever actually spoke Latin, that it and the supposed ancient texts written in it were made up by nineteenth-century German scholars. The kids just gave me blank looks.

Awesome.

 

Actually, it wasn't a nineteenth-century German scholars either. It was Jewish-Chinese Illuminate, who forged it to make it look like these German scholars faked it. It's obvious. They're the same who faked the moon landing and invented the idea of a universe. Actually, Earth is flat too, but I'm sure you knew.

[Ouroboros]

I recdently read a book "Did Mohammed Exist?"- the author made a good case that he was sort of a contrived character, used by Arab nationalists to unify their forces at a criticalmtime. Can't say I bought it totally. What was interesting is that I mentioned this to a fundy friend and he was enthused about it, felt it was a great book, etc. He is one of those fundies who think Muslims are planning to take over the world. I remember thinking with amusement that it was so easy for him to think a guy about whom there is at least some evidence did not exist, but then he buys into the whole Jesus thing. If pressed, he'd probably fall back on how he knows Jesus was real because "He lives in my heart."

All religious leaders and charismatic cult creators are just figments of our imagination. They were all created by a super-hoax. No one was really part of it or led it. It's just became that way, like the Cube.

[Akheia]

Basically, you're making the case that I should shut up. Got it. I shouldn't give my opinions and views and thoughts and reasons behind it, because you say so. Thanks.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, Ouro. I expect better than that from you. That was an attempt to chill me out of giving my opinion and I'm not going to accept it.

 

You're going nuts trying to figure out *why* someone would make up the NT myths. I'm asking why it matters what motivates conmen. There's no evidence of a single person who might have inspired the Jesus myths. There's no proof that the NT was written by anybody we can identify, much less anybody we can trust. There's certainly no proof that any of the NT's particulars is true. I need to know why I need to give two shits about *why* it's a fraud.

 

If all you can do in response is make a straw-man out of something I never fucking said to chill me, then I've got to wonder how strong your case is.

[Ouroboros]

Basically, you're making the case that I should shut up. Got it. I shouldn't give my opinions and views and thoughts and reasons behind it, because you say so. Thanks.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, Ouro. I expect better than that from you. That was an attempt to chill me out of giving my opinion and I'm not going to accept it.

Ok. And I'm giving my opinion as well. Telling me that you don't care about my opinion... well, I don't care if you care for the same things.

 

You're going nuts trying to figure out *why* someone would make up the NT myths.

Because of the same reasons someone would want to try to understand why the government supposedly orchestrated the whole 9/11 or a moon hoax. If I'm not allowed to ask those questions, without someone telling me that I'm going "nuts", it's the same as telling me to not to ask.

 

I'm asking why it matters what motivates conmen.

I don't think the first believers were all conmen. All Christians are conmen? Were you a Christian? Were you a conman? I sure didn't feel or think I was conning people when I was Christian. I'm sure you didn't either.

 

And even if fake-Paul was a conman, there were cult churches there already. They were conned by someone else, perhaps someone called "Jesus"?

 

There's no evidence of a single person who might have inspired the Jesus myths.

Agree that there wasn't one inspiring all the myths. But it's very possible that one inspired the first idea of one person was preaching stuff.

 

There's no proof that the NT was written by anybody we can identify, much less anybody we can trust. There's certainly no proof that any of the NT's particulars is true. I need to know why I need to give two shits about *why* it's a fraud.

You don't. I just found it interesting to discuss it. My bad. I shouldn't give a two shits about it either since you're not giving two shits about it.

 

If all you can do in response is make a straw-man out of something I never fucking said to chill me, then I've got to wonder how strong your case is.

My case is: there's no evidence for a physical Jesus, but ... there is evidence for a bunch of cult churches who did believe there was a physical Jesus, and they went to lengths to believe it. it's just slightly more probable that there was a guy they followed at first and the myth escalated from there than all of it being a con by some mysterious and unknown group. Slightly more probable doesn't means actual fact. Of course it's possible that all of it was made up by aliens or Romans or Illuminate, but I just think that's slightly less probable.

 

I'm not making a case for absolute certainty. I'm not making a case that is absolutely undeniable. I'm just making a case for what seems to be more likely. Not based on photographs or Roman documents, but by circumstantial evidence that there were a cult-following of a guy they called Jesus. So what is most likely? All of them were hired conmen?

 

Also, I'm not making a case for a magical miracle worker sent from heaven or born by a virgin, but just a simple (like any other) cult leader (con man). Why can't Jesus be the first conman instead of fake-Paul?

[Akheia]

Ouro, I appreciate you writing back. I genuinely wanted to know why you felt that was important. I was not making a value judgment on you. I did not want you to feel that I was denigrating something you feel is important. I hope you're done being absurd now.

 

You don't. I just found it interesting to discuss it. My bad. I shouldn't give a two shits about it either since you're not giving two shits about it.

 

.... or maybe not. I never said that all Christians past and present were conmen, and I never said that you're not allowed to wonder anything. So we're still making strawmen and pulling passive-aggressive stunts like putting words in others' mouths? Fuck. I wish I hadn't just taken these painkillers... see, they make me FUCKING LOVE EVERYBODY, and I'm just not in a fighting mood, man, let's try again tomorrow, okay? I'm sure I'll say something tomorrow that you can blow out of proportion and misstate. I LOVE YOU, MAN. Seriously, you're acting kind of out of character. I'm getting concerned about you.

 

A lot of guys were making the sorts of claims the NT has Jesus making. There wasn't just one. The idea of a "messiah" figure wasn't new to that time and area. The sort of myths we ascribe to Jesus weren't even original to Judaism/Christianity. I'm totally comfortable with the idea that several of these weirdos had a cult following that blew out of proportion, and years later some anonymous writers conflated one man's cult with another's and added lots of Torah tie-ins and pagan oneupsmanship myths for good measure to make the NT's basic outlines.

 

I also never said that I didn't think that these Jewish cults' leaders weren't also conmen. Some might have been sincere, some might have been genuinely convinced they were Yahweh's sons, some might have really thought they were going to rise from the dead and bring about a new age of Jewish supremacy, but it seems unlikely that they were all so. Even if they were all totally sincere though, and even if the embellishments were done in good spirit and in the spirit of previous risen-god-mens' myths, we're left with the earliest Christian leaders being either massively deceptive en masse on purpose, something I have trouble accepting, or that a few of them were massively deceptive and the rest were just sincerely deluded/deceived, something I have no trouble at all understanding. All it takes is a few key people to be willing to "lie for Jesus," and a movement begins.

[mymistake]

I have a couple of questions because I'm a little confused about some of the forgery conspiracy ideas.

 

Who are you directing this to? I wouldn't call what Rome did a conspiracy. Rome dictated. Whatever Rome said to believe was the right belief. Rome exterminated those who would oppose. It's a very different way of controlling ideas.

 

Are all the letters and books in the NT forgeries?

 

Unlikely. In antiquity they had a tradition where a follower or even a follower of a follower could write in the original leader's name. Perhaps they through the teachings would be properly preserved. So which books you would consider a forgery depends on if you are going to include this tradition. But generally scholars agree that a few of the Pauline letters are indeed authentic. Many of the NT books were written anonymously. So those are not a matter of forgery so much as somebody giving them a name which stuck. The name probably didn't correspond to the actual author.

 

All of them written by someone (or multiple) with the agenda of creating a new religion? Was none of the written by believing crackpots?

 

I would be surprised if any NT author had been an atheist, if that was what you were getting at. Of course we can't really know because we know so little about the NT authors. There were a lot of Judeo-Christian sects in the early Roman period. It's hard to generalize about which ones thought they were new. Based on my religious experience they probably told themselves that they were right. People often chase after the Real True religion.

 

What was the purpose of this conspiracy? What was the end goal? To ruin the Jewish religion? Why did they make it a Roman movement if that was the case? Or was to ruin the Roman pagan religion?

 

I'm not sure if you were directing this at me or somebody else. The purpose of the Roman religious reform was to give the Empire a unified, strong culture. I would say they were very successful since we still have a Pope all these years later.

 

If the forgers could forge letters from religious leaders, why couldn't they forge some official documents to make it look like these people lived? They were smart enough to create an elaborate scheme for this new belief, but they were not smart enough to build their case?

 

It wasn't a conspiracy. You don't have to make it look like you have a case if you can simply murder anybody who voices a less than submissive opinion. Besides back then people were more impressed with relics. Creating fake apostle bones or fake cross shards was far more important to them then having paper trails in the background.

[mwc]

Are all the letters and books in the NT forgeries? All of them written by someone (or multiple) with the agenda of creating a new religion? Was none of the written by believing crackpots?

Forgeries? Define "forgeries."

 

Most of the texts are anonymous or pseudonymous. They had names attributed to them. For example "The Gospel according to <NAME>." How is that really a forgery? No one pretended to be "<name>" but someone certainly decided "<name>" was the guy who wrote that text even though it's never stated.

 

I would also not state they were written with any "agenda" behind them especially that of "creating a new religion." If any agenda needs to be attributed it could be survival and perhaps evangelism but this would be debatable depending on the eschatology of the sect. The religion already existed. It's clear they're practicing it in all their texts. Everything they write might be about their religion but that's not the same thing as forwarding an agenda. It actually addresses your last question.

 

All the texts were more than likely written by "believing crackpots." We just can't say (for certain) who they were or when they were (all signs point to the second century). They wrote about their religion, as each individual author knew of it, and since evangelism was a part of the religion (for some) this could be seen as their "agenda" I suppose (but they really had none).

 

What was the purpose of this conspiracy? What was the end goal? To ruin the Jewish religion? Why did they make it a Roman movement if that was the case? Or was to ruin the Roman pagan religion?

 

If the forgers could forge letters from religious leaders, why couldn't they forge some official documents to make it look like these people lived? They were smart enough to create an elaborate scheme for this new belief, but they were not smart enough to build their case?

I don't think there was a "conspiracy" of this sort so I'm not going to speak on this aspect. If the Jews weren't thrilled by this sect we wouldn't really know it from surviving 1st century documents. No one seemed to care.

 

There were at least the Epistles and the Acts of Pilate. Read the link and it touches on the whole thing well enough. People did make the documents.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I doubt that fake-Paul started fake-churches all around Rome to write hoax-letters just for fun.

 

It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

 

Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,--but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the gaolers to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrine (as he was still called in those days) became for them "the modern Socrates." In some of the Asiatic cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice. The activity of these people, in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense.

 

Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.'

 

To return, however, to Peregrine. The governor of Syria perceived his mental warp: "he must make a name, though he die for it:" now philosophy was the governor's hobby; he discharged him--wouldn't hear of his being punished--and Peregrine returned to Armenia.

From The Death of Peregrine.

 

Some people think this is Simon Magus. Some Paul. (Late dating them of course) Who knows exactly who "Peregrine" is but he does exactly what you think "Fake-Paul" just wouldn't do. But he starts churches. He writes texts. He becomes their leader. God even (if we believe this literally and Simon Magus is described as a god elsewhere by others). And just because he's that type of conman (and cash of course).

 

It's a good 2nd century description of the religion by an outside observer though. They're "misguided" and obviously are easily conned easily parted from their money. Not too bad considering Lucian is a satirist and could have been rather harsh.

 

One more bit from the above letter. After more shenanigans they put him to death on a pyre which Lucian witnesses and is the reason for this letter. He is leaving the event at this point:

At this point I met a number of people coming out to assist at the spectacle, thinking to find Proteus still alive; for among the various rumours of the preceding day, one had been, that before entering the fire he was to greet the rising sun, which to be sure is said to be the Brahmin practice. Most of them turned back when I told them that all was over; all but those enthusiasts who could not rest without seeing the identical spot, and snatching some relic from the flames. After this, you may be sure, my work was cut out for me: I had to tell them all about it, and to undergo a minute cross-examination from everybody. If it was some one I liked the look of, I confined myself to plain prose, as in the present narrative: but for the benefit of the curious simple, I put in a few dramatic touches on my own account. No sooner had Proteus thrown himself upon the kindled pyre, than there was a tremendous earthquake, I informed them; the ground rumbled beneath us; and a vulture flew out from the midst of the flames, and away into the sky, exclaiming in human accents 'I rise from Earth, I seek Olympus.'

They listened with amazement and shuddering reverence. 'Did the vulture fly East or West?' they wanted to know. I answered whichever came uppermost.

 

On getting back to Olympia, I stopped to listen to an old man who was giving an account of these proceedings; a credible witness, if ever there was one, to judge by his long beard and dignified appearance in general. He told us, among other things, that only a short time before, just after the cremation, Proteus had appeared to him in white raiment; and that he had now left him walking with serene countenance in the Colonnade of Echoes, crowned with olive; and on the top of all this he brought in the vulture, solemnly swore that he had seen it himself flying away from the pyre,--my own vulture, which I had but just let fly, as a satire on crass stupidity!

 

Only think what work we shall have with him hereafter! Significant bees will settle on the spot; grasshoppers beyond calculation will chirrup; crows will perch there, as over Hesiod's grave,--and all the rest of it. As for statues, several, I know, are to be put up at once, by Elis and other places, to which, I understand, he had sent letters. These letters, they say, were dispatched to almost all cities of any importance: they contain certain exhortations and schemes of reform, as it were a legacy. Certain of his followers were specially appointed by him for this service: Couriers to the Grave and Grand Deputies of the Shades were to be their titles.

He made shit up to mess with stupid people. If he thought they looked reasonable he just told them the straight facts otherwise they got they embellished nonsense story and they quickly embellished it and passed it on themselves. He appeared (alive?) in record time by someone who didn't seem to even know him. Magic. Sure there's some guy here but this is all made up. No vulture. No quake. No appearance. No nothing. Dead con-artist in flames whose name we really can't know (I believe this is something like the traveling shapeshifter...don't quote me). He's just some guy at best and a lot of bullshit at worse.

 

mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

If you know of 1st-century Nabatean inscriptions regarding Nazareth, I'm happy to be schooled. It's all about learning to me. I just re-checked my info and saw nothing about that.

 

 

 

Hi, I can't find the website right now, but if I do, I will post it. As I remember, it cited inscriptions that show that the area was inhabited in the first cent. CE. I do not recall that the inscriptions referred to Nazareth by name as a municipality.

 

How far can we push what I accept for now is lack of any named reference to Nazareth in the first century? The village where I live was incorporated in 1864 when a railroad was put through. Before that it was just farms. If a writer post-1864 used the name of the village in reference to people who lived in the area in, say, 1800, it would be understandable and not necessarily a falsification. If Matthew was written, say, at the end of the first century, or in the second, would it be a falsification to refer to the area by its name current at the time of writing, even if that name had not been used yet during the events portrayed in the narrative?

[mwc]

Hi, I can't find the website right now, but if I do, I will post it. As I remember, it cited inscriptions that show that the area was inhabited in the first cent. CE. I do not recall that the inscriptions referred to Nazareth by name as a municipality.

 

How far can we push what I accept for now is lack of any named reference to Nazareth in the first century? The village where I live was incorporated in 1864 when a railroad was put through. Before that it was just farms. If a writer post-1864 used the name of the village in reference to people who lived in the area in, say, 1800, it would be understandable and not necessarily a falsification. If Matthew was written, say, at the end of the first century, or in the second, would it be a falsification to refer to the area by its name current at the time of writing, even if that name had not been used yet during the events portrayed in the narrative?

You're going to fail and I'll tell you why. Both G.Luke and G.Matthew show that Nazareth was a city (polis). This means it would have to meet certain standards. Even if we severely lower those standards a few people living in the sticks is not a city by any stretch of the imagination. From Wikipedia:

During the Roman era, some cities were granted the status of a polis, free city,^[4] self-governed under the Roman Empire. The last institution commemorating the old Greek poleis was the Panhellenion established by Hadrian.

Anachronism or no there is no reason to believe there was a polis of this sort *outside* Roman territory and *inside* Herod's tetrarchy. The Roman's had no reason, and questionable power, to do anything like this in his lands so why would Herod grant such a thing? It's absurd.

 

No literal polis. No point worrying about Nazareth. It's a metaphor.

 

mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

Interesting point, mwc. I notice that Nain and Arimathea are also called "polis" in Luke (7 and 23). Does "polis" have the legal sense in these connections that you attribute to it in connection with Nazareth? Wikipedia says that the city of Arimathea is otherwise unknown, although two places have been proposed for it. If Luke (and/or Matthew) uses "polis" in a vaguer, less technical sense, could the author be cut the slack to retroject a name used later into a narrative about people living in the same spot at an earlier time? I think this stretches things, but I'm trying to consider whether fundies have any scrap of hope of defending Nazareth's historicity in the gospel narratives.

[Ouroboros]

I was just trying to make a point, but somehow I think I'm being misunderstood.

 

I really don't give a shit if there ever was a Jesus, Paul, Tiberius, Simon Magus, or any other characters or person ever mentioned in history. And just so I don't continue to make the impression that I'm going nuts over trying to explain myself or that I'm somehow obsessed with the topic that I haven't talked about for years, I'm done with this thread personally. Y'all go ahead continue this futile exercise.

[mcdaddy]

The idea that Jesus might not be historical is kind of a new one and it isn't entirely 100% accepted in all circles.

 

The theory that Jesus never existed is not new. Below are links to some free E-Books.

 

Christianity and mythology (1910) John Mackinnon Robertson

A short history of Christianity (1902) John Mackinnon Robertson

The Jesus problem; a restatement of the myth theory (1917) John Mackinnon Robertson

The Christ myth (1911) Arthur Drews

The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus (1912) Arthur Drews

 

Bible scholars will never admit to a Mythical Jesus. They would lose their careers.

 

Paging Dr. Ehrman.

[Legion]

Thou Art That is a compilation of previously uncollected essays and lectures by Joseph Campbell that focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Here Campbell explores common religious symbols, reexamining and reinterpreting them in the context of his remarkable knowledge of world mythology. According to Campbell, society often confuses the literal and metaphorical interpretations of religious stories and symbols.

 

http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php?categoryid=83&p9999_action=details&p9999_wid=64

 

Metaphor is ubiquitous. If you, yes you, believe that you are free of it, then you are probably neck deep in it.

[mcdaddy]

[mcdaddy]

Man, Ouro's getting out right when Im about to dive in to my favorite topic of all time, mythicism.

 

Bummer.

[Akheia]

Interesting point, mwc. I notice that Nain and Arimathea are also called "polis" in Luke (7 and 23). Does "polis" have the legal sense in these connections that you attribute to it in connection with Nazareth? Wikipedia says that the city of Arimathea is otherwise unknown, although two places have been proposed for it. If Luke (and/or Matthew) uses "polis" in a vaguer, less technical sense, could the author be cut the slack to retroject a name used later into a narrative about people living in the same spot at an earlier time? I think this stretches things, but I'm trying to consider whether fundies have any scrap of hope of defending Nazareth's historicity in the gospel narratives.

 

John Loftus makes a good point about Arimathea being a metaphor along the lines of "Joseph from Good-Disciple-Town" to show how a proper disciple *should* be treating Jesus Christ's body after death (as opposed to those other not so good disciples who would have let him just rot, I guess). Especially as you reach the end of the Roman era and start crawling into the Dark Ages, like when most of the NT was finished being written and compiled, Christianity wanted to give names, backstories, and birthplaces to every single person mentioned in the entire NT narrative. Fictional towns were part of the metaphor.

 

I looked and looked, but all the archaeology I've seen indicates that the Nazareth area was depopulated as a city for centuries prior to Jesus' day, and it wasn't populated again as a city till way after. And Nazareth is not mentioned in any Roman legal records of Jesus' day or really in any other records. If it had such a bad reputation (which the NT definitely thought it did), it's hard to imagine it slipped everybody's minds. I'm okay with it being a historical town during Jesus' day if that's the evidence. But there's no evidence that I've seen yet that it was. I'd welcome any you have to the contrary.

 

I think the reason I care so deeply about this topic is that I spent most of my childhood and young adulthood thinking that of course this all had to be true, or else why would people say it? It never occurred to me that someone in Christianity's earliest days might have lied about something that important. I knew modern people lied about all sorts of things about the religion--this was in the early days of the first megapastors' falls from grace and that 1988 Rapture hogwash--but surely not the Gospel writers. When I found out how little of the Christian mythos is supported by actual evidence, it devastated me. So I find the subject fascinating now

[Antlerman]

Thou Art That is a compilation of previously uncollected essays and lectures by Joseph Campbell that focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Here Campbell explores common religious symbols, reexamining and reinterpreting them in the context of his remarkable knowledge of world mythology. According to Campbell, society often confuses the literal and metaphorical interpretations of religious stories and symbols.

 

http://www.jcf.org/n...ls&p9999_wid=64

 

Metaphor is ubiquitous. If you, yes you, believe that you are free of it, then you are probably neck deep in it.

Yep. Been saying this for years.

 

I continue to find this question of did Jesus exist or not to be a question besides the point. So what if it is shown scientifically one thing or the other, one way or the other? Is what is conveyed through that dependent upon it? Does its value or lack of it depend on its scientific/historical veracity? To look at those questions either to support the myth or reject it, misses what is right smack in front of their faces, and which continues to influence and inform them whether they are aware of it rationally or not. Cultural ethos is deeply informed by these, and their truths create the invisible backdrop of reality that we somehow imagine, because we can reason and analyze, we are somehow free of them!