Firsthand accounts of Christ seem to be missing -- why?

[Big Mac]

He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

[Asmodean Prime]

He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Why is that, Bigmac?

[Big Mac]

He had Simon carry his cross. That's a pretty shitty thing to do.

Why is that, Bigmac?

YOu'd think the son of God could carry his own cross.....right?

[Asmodean Prime]

Well, Bigmac, according to the bible, He carried everybody's sins, (not His own, for He was guiltless) and was cut off from God for doing so, as well as suffering abuse, hunger, persecution, injustice, betrayal, etc.  Do you really think that carrying a wooden cross for a few hundred yards would have really meant that much of a difference?  I think He allowed this, though, to give Simon of Cyrene an opportunity to partake in His sufferings.  Just my take on things, by the way.

[Huxley]

There are several points, as outlined in "The God Who Wasn't There" that do bear some thought, mostly to do with timelines. It runs like this(I paraphrase):

Jesus is born. Dies 33 years later. The average age of people in those days was 35. The first gospel, mark? was written, at the very earliest, according to biblical scholars in A.D 70. It is unlikely (although not impossible) that someone could have witnessed Jesus birth story and lived until Ad 70. So the first gospel writers were not witnesses but passed on.

After Jesus is killed; what happens? Nothing. The church of Jerusalem (his family) consider his 'messianic' mission a failure and we hear nothing about him or the spread of christianity until Paul. In AD 40-45? who never met Jesus and appears to know nothing about Jesus life or any of his history. The birth, escape, Egypt, the miracles; nothing. All Paul mentions is the events leading to his arrest and the resurrection. Yet the Paulian story was passed onto the gospel writers. A man who never met Jesus onto men who never met Jesus and were the first to write the story down.

To this day, Christians find it difficult to explain what happened to Christianity post Jesus and pre-Paul.

No One else mentions Jesus throughout his life. He is walking round Galilee, curing people, raising the dead and it never attracts any attention from anyone. A historian during Tiberius reign mentions the christian movement(afterwards); nothing more.

The (convenient) references to Jesus by Josephus are now thought to be false and added later by the history writers. Biblical scholarship is in general agreement of this. Plus, (I think) Josephus refers to Jesus as the Messiah. Big mistake. Josephus was a Jew and as such did not recognise a Messiah.

We hear little about him from anyone until the gospels are accumulating, probably by now second hand if not third hand stories; nearly all originating from Paul - who was the first incidentally to credit Jesus with deity. it appears he thought he knew the spiritual Jesus better than his family who lived with him.

After that, Jesus becomes more and more an article of committee, finally acheiving full god like status at the Nicea meeting 325 years after his death. A God by committee.

Finally, the character of jesus dots all the 'i's and crosses all the 't''s to be a God. He gets born of a virgin (which is always a good career move for a God), born on 25th Dec. and of Royal lineage. Of course he is . Measured against all the other has been and never was Gods, he scores fewer than Mithras, Osiris, Dyonysus and all these other Gods that just happen to have the same impressive, repetetive, C.V.

When all the dead rose up and walked around Jerusalem city after Jesus died, no one, not the Romans, or the jews, or indeed the scant few members of the cult itself, happened to mention it. Not even the Jerusalem Times! That is very strange; one would think it would attract somones attention but no.

During the time jesus was said to be alive, there were several Jesus's and many accredited miracle workers, including one called Simon Magus who did far more impressive miracles than our Jesus character, and it seems better recorded.

One can certainly make a case for Jesus having never existed; his physical existence never drew the attention of anyone at all. This is without even drawing on the fallacies of his existence, such as Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt, being chosen to die instead of Barabbas etc.

Beleivers attempt to draw parallels with other 'historical' characters, tempted to state that we doubters accept the reality of another person with far less demands of fact. But the fact is, there are extraordinary claims made about the character of Jesus. Whether Socrates was a real person or a literary tool for Plato, is irrelevant. No one, least of all Plato, makes extraordinary claims about Socrates.

It is not impossible that jesus was a real person and if that were that; so be it. But the claims made about him, never made by him, or written down by him or recorded by anyone else during the time he was said to be alive are just far fetched and exactly in accordance with the dreams of writers intent on starting (yet another) new cult.

Holy shit. Sorry for the long post.

[Whitney]

To nit pick:  Jesus actually wasn't born on the 25th of December...it was moved to that date in order to make it easier to convert pagans to Christianity.

Here's an explanation of how his actual stated birth date can be found in the bible:  http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/birthday.htm

[Huxley]

I realise that; I am saying that the date was selected; just as it was for Mithras and a few others. The date had pre-pagan significance indeed. It was another element that was utilised, later, to fit the profile.

In other words. He wasnt born then. They made it up.

[Whitney]

I realise that; I am saying that the date was selected; just as it was for Mithras and a few others. The date had pre-pagan significance indeed. It was another element that was utilised, later, to fit the profile.

In other words. He wasnt born then. They made it up.

I get what you were saying now.

[iplaw]

I am going to start posting this link whenever I see people post "facts" from that movie.  Atheists should use better material containing some actual scholarship as opposed to stuff like this.  There are far better sources like Oppy  who actually make decent arguments.  Reminds me of the movie "loose change, second addition" though.

[Huxley]

Unfortunately for believers these 'points' are neither born out of or exclusive to the movie. Most have been part of the theological argument ever since it became illegal to burn someone for considering them.

[iplaw]

Unfortunately for believers these 'points' are neither born out of or exclusive to the movie.

Ahhh, so this makes them true?  I watched the movie, have you actually read any of the material I linked to?  If you disagree with Holding please tell me where and why.

Here is an even better one from Mike Licona. Link

I'm interested in hearing your response.

[Huxley]

I do not claim it makes them true; I state these points are not exclusive to the film and are debated by Biblical scholarship and theologists for many a year. It would be remiss of me to base an assumption on one set of writing.

[iplaw]

That's a bit of a stretch.  There are some far out scholars who are on the fringes of scholastic debate who propose these ideas but most involved in the Jesus-myth are not the typical biblical scholar or theologist by any stretch of the imagination.  Which other scholarly writings composed by theologians or biblical scholars would you have us to read to back up your assertion?  There is such a raging debate between scholars after all.

[Huxley]

I wouldnt recommend anything by a biblical scholar.

[iplaw]

Cute.





Probably haven't read anything by one either.  I just want you to give me some texts where biblical scholars or theologians extol the Jesus-myth.  

Maybe if you actually read books by people who don't share your opinions you would broaden your horizons instead of smoke your own dope.  It's refreshing to hear an atheist come out and admit they read only books that support their ideas and never challenge their beliefs.  Sounds a little fundie to me... At least I have the guts to read Hume and Russell.