Mythical Christ Gains Favour

[d.thomas]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

[d.thomas]

I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

So this your unevidenced opinion as well.

If this view "gains favour" with others, does that mean you'll 'win'?

Regardless of what I believe or you believe or how many believe, history is what it is, so it's best to view the evidence as objectively as possible. That requires that one puts their own beliefs aside which is difficult for some.

[Goat]

I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

So this your unevidenced opinion as well.

If this view "gains favour" with others, does that mean you'll 'win'?

Regardless of what I believe or you believe or how many believe, history is what it is, so it's best to view the evidence as objectively as possible. That requires that one puts their own beliefs aside which is difficult for some.

While I personally beleive that there was a mythical Jesus, and probably not a 'historical' Jesus, I don't see it 'gaining favor'. Then, there is always the possiblity that some archelogical evidence might pop up to convince me otherwise. The 'ossurary of James' would have, if it wasn't a forgery.

[Lotan]

Just because I have a little time on my hands...

This thread is entitled "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" and since there is no topic question, I'll assume that the question is whether or not that statement is true.

I personally think that it might, in fact, be correct. I confess that I have no evidence for this besides the fact that in my personal experience I have been noticing it a lot more lately. Of course, that could be because I've been looking a lot more lately. If it is true, I don't think that it's a very good thing at all.

One would expect that someone opening a thread with this premise might like to provide some evidence to back their claim, but so far only the author of the OP and Albert Schweitzer have been cited as favoring a "Mythical Christ". Hardly a revolution. Of this sample, 50% can be shown NOT to have favored a "Mythical Christ", as Schweitzer regarded Jesus as an historical figure, he just thought that the scholarship of the 18th and 19th centuries did a poor job of defining him...

""When we have once made up our minds that we have not the materials for a complete Life of Jesus, but only for a picture of His public ministry, it must be admitted that there are few characters of antiquity about whom we possess so much indubitably historical information, of whom we have so many authentic discourses." - Albert Schweitzer

But hey, what does he know? That was like, 100 years ago. Before Nag Hammadi, or the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Gospel of Thomas came to light. Not even any C14 dating or PCs. I find it interesting that the author of the OP cites Schweitzer, since Creationists also like to cite 19th century scientists, and I have noticed other parallels between creationism and Christ-mythism. Both are pseudoscientific, both cherrypick evidence, and IMO both twist facts to suit an ideological agenda. That's why "Mythical Christ Gains Favour" makes me about as happy as "YEC in the Classroom Gains Favor".

Since d.thomas hasn't provided any evidence that the "Mythical Christ" really is gaining favor, but he does provide what he imagines to be evidence for the Christ-myth 'theory' itself, we might, in the absence of a debate question, imagine that he's arguing for the validity of that premise based on the logical fallacy of Argument from Popularity (at least it's popular with him) as well as the logical fallacy of Argument from Predestination...

It's probably just a matter of time for this view to become mainstream.

...and...

I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

He's a living, breathing prophet!

Having "read a few books" he can confidently tell us that...

...it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed.

...and...

The conclusions are different than what most people's baseless assumtions are about an historical Jesus.

That's probably true, even if it is also unevidenced. Of course "most people" aren't conversant with all the relevant data and arguments, and if we're going to accept Argument from Popularity as evidence, then that would suggest that "most people's baseless assumtions...about an historical Jesus" must be valid because they have already 'gained favor'.
But what about the experts? Scholars who favor the Christ-myth are a tiny minority, so what about all the others who hold to the opinion that Jesus was an historical figure? Do they also make "baseless assumtions"? I doubt that d.thomas is suggesting that, and really that would be foolish when, these same scholars state that it is on the basis of evidence that they have reached their conclusions regarding Jesus' historicity.

In spite of d.thomas claim to be the "only one so far" he does have a few scholars in his corner...

There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved.
The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

To his credit, at least d.thomas didn't post the link to jesusneverexisted.com! Both Bob Price, and Earl Doherty are reputable scholars, even if I disagree with their conclusions. From the "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ" site...

"The secular historical view basically starts with the Gospels and then removes the fantastic or "supernatural" claims in the Gospels and accepts what is left as history."
"Secular historians who believe that Jesus existed rely on the Gospels as essentially historical, but inflated, accounts of his life."

Neither of these statements is really true and Dr. Price should know that. They are grossly oversimplified mischaracterizations (remember what I said about creationists?) designed to build up to the big strawman argument...

"But are the Gospels reliable historical accounts?"

What a load!
Earl Doherty plays the 'bias' card, too...

"But in the new search for the historical Jesus, the most important issue of all is being largely ignored. Has Western society been the victim of the greatest misconception in history?"

No one is ignoring anything Earl, and they have said as much. This statement is a lie. It is a propaganda technique from page 1 of the pseudoscientist's handbook...

Q. "But Doctor, how is it that the scientific establishment hasn't embraced your theory that the Great Pyramid is actually a solar battery for UFOs?"
A. Those academics in their ivory towers have too much invested in the current paradigm to admit that they are mistaken."

...creationists do the same thing, too.

Finally, to be fair let's examine the evidence for the Christ-myth theory that's been presented on this thread...

earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Paul tells us that Jesus was...a man, born of woman, a Jew, who lived, and who had a brother named James, and ministered to the jews, was crucified and died and was buried. What more do you need? All the heavenly stuff is post-'resurrection'.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion.

Some of Philo's ideas are similar to those in gJohn and possibly Hebrews. To say that they "laid down the theological groundwork" for Christianity is a bit much. Any educated diaspora Jew would have known the basics of Hellenic philosophy, but Paul's Jesus isn't exactly the logos.

He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels.

Josephus paints a clear enough picture of Pilate's cruelty; it's not exactly news to historians. The gospels were written for an Hellenic audience. It wouldn't have served to make Pilate the bad guy. This is part of a well understood pro-hellenic/anti-judahist theme that runs through the four gospels.

His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The gospel Jesus ate fish after his 'resurrection' and let people poke their fingers through his hands.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Or he may have taken traditions from Jerusalem and Galilee that did have a connection. Evidence please.

This isn't about the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus, it's about what early Christian writings do say about a spiritual Christ at the beginning of Christianity and how the Gospels were put together.

Paul says he was a man. Mark says he was a man.

The only story we have of a Jesus of Nazareth is the Gospels and they are dependent on Mark.

Actually we have quite a few non-canonical stories about Jesus as well. These might be late, but they might also contain at least the vestige of authentic traditions as. It's a circular argument to claim that they could not. Also the degree of dependence of gJohn on gMark is debatable, and gJohn may also include authentic traditions. And of course, we have Paul's limited but important testimony that Jesus was a man who lived and died and was buried.

The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.

But they are historical. They may not be factual history, but they are historical documents nonetheless. Where they do not tell us what Jesus did and said, they can still tell us what his philosophical descendents thought about him; what they thought that he would do or say.

It conficts the least with the historical record as well as the Jewish/ Hellenist culture of the time.

Not at all. Itinerant holymen calling the people to repent were all the rage in 1st century Palestine, and 'biographies' of one's favorite hero, filled with wondrous deeds and invented situations and dialogue were popular as well. Historians know the "historical record" and the "Jewish/Hellenist culture of the time" as well as anyone, and nothing about the historical Jesus is all that remarkable in that light. The invention of a new God in the shadow of the Jerusalem temple would have been a conflict, to say the least.

[d.thomas]

I don't have quite the time on my hands but I will eventually get to all the rebuttals. I didn't lay out all the evidence in my opening post because there is rather a long process of going over the writings, I thought we could cover them as they come up. It's not like there is any one thing to point to and say this is the evidence for a mythical Christ, rather it's an accumulation of the details that add up and how they fit in with what we do know of the historical and cultural backdrop.

You also note that you "don't think that it's a very good thing at all." Personally, I don't think of it in terms of good or bad or anything in between. History is what it is and whatever happened 2,000 years ago happened and nothing is going to change that. My interest is history for history sake, it doesn't effect me either way, though I realise some are very passionate about this topic and how the history is shaped to suit some firmly held beliefs

Having always assumed an historical Jesus myself, I read a few books on the subject, (Crossan, Mack, Friedman, Armstrong, to name some of the mainstream) in order to separate the historical Jesus from the legendary. I stumbled across an article in a magazine written by Doherty. I debated on another board opposing his mythicist view even after reading his book which in turn forced me to read more and eventually I came to understand his position for what it is. Wells and Price have also come to much the same conclusions. I just recently came across the website that I provided a link to by R G Price. I have no idea who he is, the Price I had previously noted was R M Price. Anyways, R G Price's view is pretty much in line with the others and his website is rather extensive and so is Doherty's.

No one is ignoring anything Earl, and they have said as much. This statement is a lie. It is a propaganda technique from page 1 of the pseudoscientist's handbook...

Q. "But Doctor, how is it that the scientific establishment hasn't embraced your theory that the Great Pyramid is actually a solar battery for UFOs?"
A. Those academics in their ivory towers have too much invested in the current paradigm to admit that they are mistaken."

...creationists do the same thing, too.

Now, let's do away with building a straw man, such as making reference to silly nonsense that's easy to tear down. It doesn't do anything to address what you are trying to oppose.

d.thomas (Post 9) wrote:
It's probably just a matter of time for this view to become mainstream.

...and...
d.thomas (Post 13) wrote:
I'm the only one so far, but just wait, there'll be others.

He's a living, breathing prophet!

Having "read a few books" he can confidently tell us that...
d.thomas (OP) wrote:
...it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed.

...and...
d.thomas (OP) wrote:
The conclusions are different than what most people's baseless assumtions are about an historical Jesus.

OK, I made a joke about being the only one. I'm not funny, my jokes are bad. And yeah, I read a few books, how else does one learn? Admittedly I don't have formal training on the subject but I do read everything I can get my hands on and I do make attempts to asses the information I receive in a critical manner.

Unfortunately, before even getting started I have a few things to do but will try to get back to the main points, later.

[Lotan]

Hey d.thomas, if it's not too much trouble could you at least define the debate topic? Do you really wish to debate whether or not the "Mythical Christ" is gaining favor, or is this thread about the relative merits of the myth/history arguments?

[d.thomas]

Hey d.thomas, if it's not too much trouble could you at least define the debate topic? Do you really wish to debate whether or not the "Mythical Christ" is gaining favor, or is this thread about the relative merits of the myth/history arguments?

Myth/history arguments.

[d.thomas]

d.thomas wrote:
His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

Lotan wrote:
The gospel Jesus ate fish after his 'resurrection' and let people poke their fingers through his hands.

Philo first wrote of a spiritual son of God before the supposed ministry of a Jesus took place. The first Gospel was not written until about the year 70. We will get to them soon enough.

d.thomas wrote:
The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.

Lotan wrote:
Or he may have taken traditions from Jerusalem and Galilee that did have a connection. Evidence please.

There are no known connections, or no evidence of such other than the first bringing together of different traditions by the author of Mark. The sayings and teachings of Jesus that are common to Matthew and Luke are considered to have come from a common source referred to by scholars as Q. These teachings and sayings make no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection nor to a Christ. The Gospel of Thomas, also a sayings and teachings Gospel with no narrative or storyline, is thought to be an offshoot of an early Q tradition and it too says nothing of a crucifixion, resurrection, nor mentions a Christ.

The best evidence of a tradition coming from a preacher type community or communities in Galilee or Syria is the Q Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Mark can be viewed as two halves of a story joined together. The first begins with Jesus' baptism and tells of an itinerant preacher type ministry central to Galilee. The second half begins with a Jesus entry into Jerusalem and tells of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, referred to as the Passion Narrative. Some Gospels contain only the Passion Narrative such as Peter, or parts thereof. It is the author of Mark that first makes the connection of these two different traditions, the preacher type Galilean tradition sometimes referred to as a Jesus movement, and the Jerusalem tradition that is known through Paul, a Christ cult. The unknown author of Mark brought them together by composing his story now known as a Gospel.

One note about reading the Epistles that is very important. The Epistles were written before the Gospels even though they are placed after the Gospels in the NT. If read first, nowhere can one get any details of an earthly Jesus. Paul never refers to Jesus as a teacher nor as a miracle worker, he is only concerned with a crucified and risen Christ revealed through revelations, visions. He writes of his religious experience, his visions:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

3 For I delivered to you, as of prime importance, what also I received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
4 and that he was buried,
and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures,
5 and that he was seen (ôphthê) by Cephas, then by the twelve;
6 afterward he was seen by over 500 brothers at one time,
most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep;
7 afterward he was seen by James, then by all the apostles;
8 last of all, as to one abnormally born, he was seen by me as well.

Pauls Epistles are thought to have been written in the 50's, this is most likely where the author of Mark borrowed from when writing his Gospel in the 70's.

Gotta run, back soon.

[Easyrider]

The first Gospel was not written until about the year 70.

That presumes an anti-supernatural bias, by in effect negating Christ's prophesy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The liberal / rationalist argument goes that since prophesy presumably cannot occur, THEN the Gospels have to have been written about 70 AD. There's tons of scholars who disagree with that dating. Some are in the link below:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

The sayings and teachings of Jesus that are common to Matthew and Luke are considered to have come from a common source referred to by scholars as Q.

Q is a hypothetical document. There's simply no archaeological or historical evidence for it.

Ten Reasons to Question Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm

Fallacies at the Heart of Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fallacy.htm

There's much simpler explanations for shared material instead of inventing a hypothetical document. First, authors such as Matthew, Mark (a disciple of Peter) and John all knew each other and probably shared their accounts with one another. Then, there's the witness of the Holy Spirit: John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." These two things render Q totally unnecessary.

The Gospel of Mark can be viewed as two halves of a story joined together. The first begins with Jesus' baptism and tells of an itinerant preacher type ministry central to Galilee. The second half begins with a Jesus entry into Jerusalem and tells of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, referred to as the Passion Narrative. Some Gospels contain only the Passion Narrative such as Peter, or parts thereof. It is the author of Mark that first makes the connection of these two different traditions, the preacher type Galilean tradition sometimes referred to as a Jesus movement, and the Jerusalem tradition that is known through Paul, a Christ cult. The unknown author of Mark brought them together by composing his story now known as a Gospel.

See above. Also, it hasn't escaped my notice that this is yet still another hypothetical construct void of foundation / linkage. It falls in the same category as Q.

Pauls Epistles are thought to have been written in the 50's, this is most likely where the author of Mark borrowed from when writing his Gospel in the 70's.

Still another hypothesis - that Mark borrowed from Paul? Can you please start dealing with some facts to support all these contentions? Thank you.

[d.thomas]

d.thomas wrote:
The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.

Lotan wrote"
But they are historical. They may not be factual history, but they are historical documents nonetheless. Where they do not tell us what Jesus did and said, they can still tell us what his philosophical descendents thought about him; what they thought that he would do or say.

The Gospels tell stories, they are narratives and read nothing like an historical document, rather everything like a story with a plot builder and climax. They consist of bits of oral tradition, ethical teachings and sayings, antidotes, stories, and all dependent on Mark, making "corrections" to Mark here and there to suit their own agendas. Matthew and Luke copied Mark word for word except where these corrections were deemed necessary and added their own birth stories to Mark as well as their own post resurrections. John starts where Mark begins, at Jesus' baptism, and carries through the Passion Narrative following much the same order but has Jesus orchestrating the future events like a sorcerer/god man that he is. The Gospels are also composed by way of a midrashic process, a method of taking lines from scripture and re-arranging them to retell a new truth set in contemporary times. Every single line from the Passion Narrative can be shown to come from scripture, or what Christians refer to as the Old Testament.

Read Tacitus, Josephus or Pliny the Elder to get an idea of how historians documented back in the day and notice the sharp contrast to how their history reads compared to how the Gospels read.

No, the Gospels are not only not historical, but to take a rather common for its day, fanciful story about a god man miracle worker and claim that there is an historical figure and real story at its base is to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading. Why should this story be different than all the others, especially the number of stories of other miracle workers from generally the same time and area that read very much the same, following the same plot and general outline.

[d.thomas]

The first Gospel was not written until about the year 70.

That presumes an anti-supernatural bias, by in effect negating Christ's prophesy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The liberal / rationalist argument goes that since prophesy presumably cannot occur, THEN the Gospels have to have been written about 70 AD. There's tons of scholars who disagree with that dating. Some are in the link below:

http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm

It could have been written as early as 67, the thinking behind that is that it wouldn't take too much for one to prophecy the destruction of the temple they were admiring, predicting that not one stone will be left standing upon another (Mark:13 1-2), once noticing the city was completely surrounded by Roman soldiers preparing to attack as they did that year.

The sayings and teachings of Jesus that are common to Matthew and Luke are considered to have come from a common source referred to by scholars as Q.

Q is a hypothetical document. There's simply no archaeological or historical evidence for it.

Ten Reasons to Question Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/ten.htm

Fallacies at the Heart of Q:

http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fallacy.htm

Yes, Q is a hypothetical document in that there is no surviving independent copy of it, however it's easy to infer that it existed, the workings of the Holy Spirit notwithstanding. The Gospel of Thomas which has been discovered since it was hypothesized gives credence to its existence since we now have proof that sayings and teaching gospels from that time did indeed exist.

There's much simpler explanations for shared material instead of inventing a hypothetical document. First, authors such as Matthew, Mark (a disciple of Peter) and John all knew each other and probably shared their accounts with one another. Then, there's the witness of the Holy Spirit: John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." These two things render Q totally unnecessary.

The Gospel of Mark can be viewed as two halves of a story joined together. The first begins with Jesus' baptism and tells of an itinerant preacher type ministry central to Galilee. The second half begins with a Jesus entry into Jerusalem and tells of his arrest, trial and crucifixion, referred to as the Passion Narrative. Some Gospels contain only the Passion Narrative such as Peter, or parts thereof. It is the author of Mark that first makes the connection of these two different traditions, the preacher type Galilean tradition sometimes referred to as a Jesus movement, and the Jerusalem tradition that is known through Paul, a Christ cult. The unknown author of Mark brought them together by composing his story now known as a Gospel.

See above. Also, it hasn't escaped my notice that this is yet still another hypothetical construct void of foundation / linkage. It falls in the same category as Q.

Pauls Epistles are thought to have been written in the 50's, this is most likely where the author of Mark borrowed from when writing his Gospel in the 70's.

Still another hypothesis - that Mark borrowed from Paul? Can you please start dealing with some facts to support all these contentions? Thank you.

It's not a stretch to consider that the author of Mark drew from Paul's writings as well as from other sources. If there's any contention it's that Paul learned from those that Mark wrote of, but to put things in their proper order, Paul wrote first, and that Mark used Paul as a source does not conflict with the time line at hand. It's also clear that later Gospel writers relied heavily on Mark and on Q and not much else.