Jesus Myth Theory

[d.thomas]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

[GADARENE]

"You seem to totally be oblivious to the fact that Christianity is a highly evangelical and proselytizing religion that accuses people of refusing to obey God."

take a look at your rage over this some time.

[Divine Insight]

"You seem to totally be oblivious to the fact that Christianity is a highly evangelical and proselytizing religion that accuses people of refusing to obey God."

take a look at your rage over this some time.

If you would like a confession that I personally find the accusatory evangelical and proselyting nature of Christianity and Islam too, to be quite obnoxious, offensive, and degrading to humanity as a whole, you got it.

I confess.

These religions go around accusing people of being immoral on nothing more than the grounds that the accused refuse to jump on board with these religions to support their bigotries in the name of God.

Absolutely. I confess, that I view this to be their greatest evil.

If they were merely private faith-based beliefs that their believers accepted as a mater of pure personal faith as their own private religions, I wouldn't have a problem with any of them at all.

Hope this helps to clarify my position on things.

[GADARENE]

no. I didn't want to hear a confession. It is obvious, your hatred, that is. hope it doesn't harm you more than what you seem to want to accomplish by immersing yourself in the topic.

[Divine Insight]

So when you ask for a demonstration of merit, its already there.

Again, now the burden shift to the atheist who advocates doubt in the face of proven merit.

No such thing has ever been demonstrated.

And I don't even need to click on your biased links to know this.

If there were any merit in those claims, both the historical community as well as the scientific communities would have no choice but to acknowledge this merit.

They have not acknowledge any such thing, therefore no such merit exist. All that exists are the totally empty claims of religious zealots who are well known to misrepresent the facts, and even tell outright lies to support their religious beliefs.

So, no, the burden of proof is not on the atheists at all. That itself is a gross falsehood. The Muslims make these same sort of claims about their Qur'an.

These kind of ungrounded claims are constantly being made by religious zealots, and the claims themselves are totally without merit.

All you're doing here is pointing to the opinions of various authors who are voicing their personal opinions. That's not evidence for anything other than more personal opinions.

Again, doubting gospel Jesus is one thing, Jesus himself states 2,000 years ago that it will require faith. Yet we have active denial rather than just doubt, and that is, IMO, less logical than affirmation given the compelling cases that have been made about Jesus.

It is wrong of you to even say that "Jesus himself sates" anything.

There is no record of anything in all of history that even claims to have been written by Jesus himself.

Everything we have about this man is hearsay rumors and claims made by someone else.

All you can really say is that "John claims that Jesus said". Or "Luke claims that Jesus said", or "Matthew claims that Jesus said", etc.

So it's actually a misrepresentation to even say that "Jesus said this or that".

In fact, the gospel rumors themselves give many conflicting accounts concerning Jesus.

Consider the following:

John.5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Here we have John proclaiming that the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, which he claims is Jesus.

But then we have Luke proclaiming that Jesus cries out the following as he is dying on the cross at his crucifixion:

Luke.23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do

If the Father judgeth no man and all judgment has been committed to Jesus, then why would Jesus being asking the Father to forgive anyone?

Did Jesus himself not understand that all judgement had been committed to him and that the Father judgeth no man?

There isn't even any consistency in these rumors.

And you're trying to convince me that they have merit and the burden to disprove that merit is on me?

I don't think so.

I can even give further arguments as to why these rumors make no sense.

Why would Jesus need to ask the Father to forgive people and explain to the father that the reason to forgive them is because they know not what they do?

This implies that Jesus doesn't think the Father is bright enough to figure this out on his own.

If the Father is righteous and just in his judgements he shouldn't need his son to explain to him how to judge people.

So it doesn't even make any sense in any capacity where Jesus is supposedly the demigod Son of the God.

These are horribly flawed myths that weren't even well-thought-out.

[Star]

There is no evidence that Jesus was the son of god. None. Zilch. Nada.

All we have are unreliable scriptures and the personal testimony of people who claim they have evidence but suspiciously never get around to articulating exactly what that evidence is.

Until somebody provides me evidence for Jesus I can't justify it.

[Divine Insight]

no. I didn't want to hear a confession. It is obvious, your hatred, that is. hope it doesn't harm you more than what you seem to want to accomplish by immersing yourself in the topic.

But it's not hatred. This is your perception being placed onto someone else.

Hatred is an emotion. In fact, it's an emotion that often brings about violence and acts of wrath. Ironically the God of the Bible is actually associated with being hateful as his wrath is often being held out as something he will bestow upon you if you don't please him.

I don't "hate" the Abrahamic religions anymore than a doctor "hates" cancer.

A doctor does what he or she can to fight cancer and other horrible diseases not because they hate the disease, but because they care about people and humanity in general.

It's the same way with me GADARENE, I don't hate the Abrahamic religion, but I do see them as being extremely harmful to humanity.

They are currently the cause of much physical violence throughout the world. Planes were flown into the World Trade Centers killing more people than had died in the attack on Pearl Harbor at the beginning of WWII.

These religions are a very dangerous cancer on humanity.

Not only do we see suicide bombers in Arab countries blowing themselves up along with other people in the belief that they will earn their way into some promised paradise, but we also see these religions being used to belittle anyone who doesn't even believe in them.

The religious people are constantly accusing the atheist of being immoral simply because the atheist refuse to believe in their hateful Gods.

The religious people harass and belittle same gender LOVE in the name of their bigoted Gods.

The religious people renounce the intellectual achievements of the brightest minds of humanity by proclaiming that science is wrong, and we need to be teaching "Creationism" in our schools instead of scientific truth of evolution.

They want to support superstition and myth over intellectual progress.

This is a cancer on humanity.

I am a perfectly moral upstanding person. Yet these religious zealots would condemn me for not believing in their particular religion. And I even believe in a God!

And where is all this religious bigotry and divisiveness leading?

Where can it possibly end?

The Muslims won't be happy until the whole world is converted to Islam

The Christians won't be happy until the whole world is converted to Christianity.

~~~~~

Also, imagine for just a moment that Christianity achieved their dream to convert the entire world to Christianity. What then?

That would only be the beginning of a whole new set of Holy Wars.

If that ever came to pass, which would never happen to begin with, all that would happen is that the Christians would then start arguing with each other over who's version of Christianity is the "Correct Version" (they already do this as it is)

And they would have wars with each other, like the Catholics and Protestants have done in the past.

This would necessarily continue to be the case until there was one small group of people left (or potentially only a single individual) who could finally proclaim:

My version won!

That's the only place it can lead GADARENE.

It's never going to lead to "World Peace and Harmony"

The sooner they are exposed to be the false rumors and myths that they are the better off for all of humanity.

Or at the very Least:

Let's get people to at least realize that if they want to believe in these things as a matter personal faith, they need to start doing precisely that and quit using these religions to accuse non-believers of being immoral people.

I'd be totally pleased with this secondary result which is actually far more practical.

But even that message seems to be impossible to get through to people.

[GADARENE]

unfortunately, in terms of making a sound argument, if there really is nothing to Christ and to his claims and to his person, why do you try to condemn him and ridicule him with such bitter, consuming resolve? if there is nothing there, maybe you could learn to let it go, or let it be less important.

although you are sincere and do the best you can to refute his claims and that he existed, etc., your arguments are not knew and they may not be as accurate or overwhelming as you think. in other words, if others haven't discredited him or dismissed his influence by now, maybe it will not occur, at least based on the same debating points.

[GADARENE]

the evidence is overwhelming. hatred and bitterness, justified or not, can cloud reality.

There is no evidence that Jesus was the son of god. None. Zilch. Nada.

All we have are unreliable scriptures and the personal testimony of people who claim they have evidence but suspiciously never get around to articulating exactly what that evidence is.

Until somebody provides me evidence for Jesus I can't justify it.

[Goat]

.



Jesus myth theory, variously called Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis, among other names, is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one relatively common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful historical verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. However, as Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." more here:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory



Has anyone here read about this? In your opinion can Christianity be traced to a personal founder?


.

Well, . I have a problem with the definition of 'Myth verses 'historical Jesus'. I don't know how a 'historical Jesus' or 'founder' is defined by people. What characteristics must the 'founder' have to be considered a historical Jesus verses a mythical Jesus.

Can that be defined?

[Divine Insight]

unfortunately, in terms of making a sound argument, if there really is nothing to Christ and to his claims and to his person, why do you try to condemn him and ridicule him with such bitter, consuming resolve? if there is nothing there, maybe you could learn to let it go, or let it be less important.

I don't condemn Jesus at all. On the contrary my position is that, if he existed at all, he was most likely totally misunderstood and misrepresented by the New Testament rumors about him.

I have very sound reasons to believe that the Jesus described in the New Testament rumors was actually most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva (at least in terms of his basic philosophy). I'm not necessarily suggesting that he was officially ordained by Buddhist monks.

So if you think that I'm in any way "Putting Jesus Down" you are mistaken.

On the contrary, my view of Jesus is a highly respectable view.

It's based on the following:

1. The New Testament rumors are not the words of Jesus, they are rumors about him.
2. Even these rumors have Jesus renouncing the immoral teachings of the Old Testament.
3. Even these rumors have Jesus teaching morals that are far more in line with those of Buddhism.
4. For Jesus to proclaim that he and the Father are one would actually be a pantheistic view.
5. When accused of blaspheme, Jesus himself is said to point to the Old Testament where it says, "ye are Gods"
6. Most of the claims made about Jesus weren't even claims attributed to Jesus.

Did Jesus himself proclaim that his mother was a virgin? I doubt it.

Did Jesus himself proclaim that he rose from the dead? No of course not. These are rumors about Jesus.

Did Jesus proclaim that saints rose from their graves? No, again, just rumors.

Did Jesus proclaim that God was speaking from a cloud? No again, just rumors.

In fact, everything that is even being attributed to Jesus is a rumor. We can't even be sure if Jesus said any of the words that have been attributed to him.

So to refuse to believe the New Testament isn't even a refusal to believe in Jesus.

It's simply a refusal to believe in rumors that are being claimed about him.

It's impossible to reject Jesus directly because that option hasn't even been given to us.

Jesus would have had to have at least written things down himself before you would even have the option of "rejecting him personally".

So the whole thing is absurd from square one, IMHO.

And that's all I'm offering is my opinion. Persistent as it may be.

although you are sincere and do the best you can to refute his claims and that he existed, etc., your arguments are not knew and they may not be as accurate or overwhelming as you think. in other words, if others haven't discredited him or dismissed his influence by now, maybe it will not occur, at least based on the same debating points.

Well, all I can do is debate it.

And why shouldn't I? After all look at what this religion accuses me of:

Romans 1:
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

After being accused of all that I think I'm due a rebuttal.

And so is everyone else. We have a right to contest a religion that makes such profound accusations.

Here we have this too:


Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What? If I don't believe in these rumors of Jesus I'll be condemned?

And justifiably condemned by our creator?

These are horrible accusations. They deserve rebuttal.

Especially when Jesus is being held up by "Christianity" as an excuse to belittle and insult same gender lovers, atheists, scientific knowledge, any non-Christian belief.

I can't can't even believe in something like Wicca without being accused by Christiandom of "Worshiping the Devil" or some such nonsense.

We have every right to point out the flaws in these fables.

And like I said before, forget about my personal objections. Look at how these religions are affecting the whole world. With suicide bombers, etc.

We (i.e. anyone who doesn't buy into the Abrahamic religions), have to live in this world too! We have to live in the same world with religious fanatics who are trying to blow each other up.

We have a right to point out the absurdity of it all.

I have nothing against Jesus. If the man did exist and actually taught the moral values that have been attributed to him in the New Testament rumors, I'm confident that he would not appreciate the resulting Christianity that lays claim to speaking on his behalf.

If he were alive today I'm willing to bet my life on it that he would accuse the Christian zealots of being just as hypocritical as the Pharisees were in his day.

In my sig file banner I state that I am the "Savior of Jesus".

I save Jesus twice over.

First, I save him from the degradation that Christianity pushes onto him through their religious hypocrisy and bigotries held out in his name.

And secondly, I even save him from the very myths that he has been associated with by refusing to accept him as my "sacrificial lamb". If everyone would refuse to accept Jesus as their sacrificial lamb then this God would have had no reason to have Jesus crucified in the first place since no human would be willing to stoop so low as to allow it.

We could all then be cast into hell and the whole theasco would be over.

We might be in hell, but at least we'd have the consolation of having done the right thing by refusing to allow Jesus to be crucified on our behalf to save our worthless butts.