Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah? Part 2A

Part 2A of a who-knows-how-many-parts-part series where I simply share my knowledge about the Jesus Myth theory (primarily the version espoused by the likes of Earl Doherty). Part 2A sets the stage for an in-depth look at something peculiar in the earliest Christian writings.

Doherty's writings can be found here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

Jesus never existed historical jesus myth atheism christianity earl doherty

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• never
• existed
• historical
• jesus
• myth
• atheism
• christianity
• earl
• doherty

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan "You seem very defensive," You might be too if you got haters who just watched half of the first vid then spewed pages of "what about THIS verse??? your theory is wrong!".

For those who care, they will watch the vids and then ask about the problems along the way (as you did). those who have already decided it's false, will just come by to attack w/o watching the vids. Sad. Their loss. So, search for "truthsurge jesus myth exception" should bring up some.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan I believe i did a vid or two on Paul calling Jesus a man. Why, those 2 verses destroy my whole theory! If Paul, who I claim believed in a heaven Jesus calls Jesus a man.... well, how do I get around that??? I did a vid on that one. It's pretty simple. but i won't spoil it for ya. If you can't find the vid, msg me and I'll look it up and msg a link.

But Paul refers to Jesus as a LIKENESS of man. in the FORM of a man. that is not very orthodox.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan nope. I have not yet tried to deeply examine the 1 John "flesh" references. I know Earl Doherty likes to translate that as "in the sphere of the flesh" which would then allow Jesus to be IN our domain (lowest level of heaven as in Ascension of Isaiah) but still be a KIND of flesh, not born as a human with an entire life lived on earth,etc. There is WAY too much for a "look alike" Jesus to worry about this one author BUT I will someday look at it more.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan In general, later copyists didn't always deliberately alter texts but did so DUE to their orthodox and gospel beliefs. But the end result is the same. An earlier text muddied by later orthodox insertions.

So, I've written my ways of explaining these in another reply. hope all of it makes sense. Yes, you have to always look at the underlying Greek words because EVERY now and then, it actually does explain a problem verse. "betrayed" is a good example.

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge You seem very defensive, but as I've already said, I've got no axe to grind, I'm only trying to uncover the truth myself. And i have been watching the videos, I'm on part 5C right now..

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge Out of the ones that you've explained were thoses verses among them?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan So, i've spent countless hours studying this issue and countless hours making this series. I would say the least someone might do is to view them BEFORE dismissing them due to a couple of apparent problems. There are some real gems in this series and the funny thing is that it isn't even 1/3 of what could be said in favor of the theory. I haven't even covered the silences. So, if you watch the series, you will see there is much there.

[PoFFizdaMan]

@TruthSurge No, I'm not trying to do away with it in any way, I'm just asking how do you explain these verses... so, i guess it's all about the meaning of the words in the original Greek? Or are they later additions to the text by early christians who tried to influence the writings in order to give them an orthodox meaning?

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan But when I come across a "problem" passage or verse, I look at the underlying Greek in the earliest mss I can find. I try to rule out interpolation. If I can't, then it was a later insertion by someone of the "orthodox" belief or the gospel strand. If not an interpolation, it is possible, by examining the actual Greek, that it was translated wrong or at least poorly which might lend the verse to a slightly different meaning in favor of the JM theory.

[TruthSurge]

@PoFFizdaMan The consensus seems to be that it was written from 90 to 130 (meaning anytime in that range).

Again, I think one would have better luck by temporarily shelving these FEW apparent anomalies and looking at the positive evidences that point toward the conclusion that there never was an actual Jesus on the landscape during the 1st century. I've explained SOME of those anomalies in later vids but not all of them. I'd love to knock out a few more soon.