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]

listen here my friend. I will do my best but you know I might accidentally let something slip about this god thing and I don't want to be sued or nothin

[GADARENE]

dad was unique, to say the least. best dad with little kids. he was a clown and a comedian and we'd jump off his shoulders and dive in the lake and he'd play us like we were musical instruments. we adored him.

after childhood, well, he made saul of tarsus look apathetic. no one could be perfect enough or accomplish enough. hated catholics, christianity, religion and enjoyed nothing more than humiliating me because I saw Christ as a cool guy.

tried hard to love him while he criticized me.

several weeks before he died, he was by himself, his wife gone, health failing, unable to get around much, he said he needed god's help. I wept. he prayed.

several months later, driving home, I reached the crest of a hill and a soft, salmon colored cloud grabbed my attention. why? I don't know. it floated above the horizon about a half an hour before sunset. it became quiet out and still and I stopped. and noticed it wasn't moving. it sat alone in the sky. it got increasingly still around me. the world hushed until there wasn't any sound at all and not the slightest movement. I thought of dad and just stared at the sunset. it became radiantly rose colored with streaks of gold colored light stretching out for miles around it. it surged like it was alive changing to deep dark crimson and purple-all in total silence, motionless without changing position or shape. and dad was there. in heaven with god. and I did not hear a voice. but he said thanks for hanging in there with me. i'm sorry. and i'm here with grandmother. glory beyond words. thank you son. I love you. it gradually faded and I was grateful, jesus was there and my dad was in heaven and he apologized and was grateful I tried to show him what jesus was like

[d.thomas]

dad was unique, to say the least. best dad with little kids. he was a clown and a comedian and we'd jump off his shoulders and dive in the lake and he'd play us like we were musical instruments. we adored him.

after childhood, well, he made saul of tarsus look apathetic. no one could be perfect enough or accomplish enough. hated catholics, christianity, religion and enjoyed nothing more than humiliating me because I saw Christ as a cool guy.

tried hard to love him while he criticized me.

several weeks before he died, he was by himself, his wife gone, health failing, unable to get around much, he said he needed god's help. I wept. he prayed.

several months later, driving home, I reached the crest of a hill and a soft, salmon colored cloud grabbed my attention. why? I don't know. it floated above the horizon about a half an hour before sunset. it became quiet out and still and I stopped. and noticed it wasn't moving. it sat alone in the sky. it got increasingly still around me. the world hushed until there wasn't any sound at all and not the slightest movement. I thought of dad and just stared at the sunset. it became radiantly rose colored with streaks of gold colored light stretching out for miles around it. it surged like it was alive changing to deep dark crimson and purple-all in total silence, motionless without changing position or shape. and dad was there. in heaven with god. and I did not hear a voice. but he said thanks for hanging in there with me. i'm sorry. and i'm here with grandmother. glory beyond words. thank you son. I love you. it gradually faded and I was grateful, jesus was there and my dad was in heaven and he apologized and was grateful I tried to show him what jesus was like

OK, so Jesus is mythical, I don't have a problem with that. Paul worshiped a mythical Christ and nothing has changed in two thousand years, so where did this historical Jesus come from that never gets a mention?

[stubbornone]

That is not evidence, its a hypothesis.

That is exactly right stubbornone.

I congratulate you on finally comprehending something I've posted.


he can forgive people. That has to be the most outrageous superstition of them all right there.

You can claim all the plausible hypothesis you want. The problem comes with evidence.

I mean you can claim that Jesus is actually the reincarnation of the first Buddha in the form of a horse ... its technically a valid hypothesis ... even if it is patently looney.

What the problem set is bounded by is what the most likely explanation is BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

So, random hypothesis are ... interesting to some maybe? But they really have no bearing on the evidence or what the evidence represents. The historical evidence, as graded by Ph.D level consensus, is that there was almost certainly a gut named Jesus who happened to be a preacher. He was Jewish. He operated throughout the Levant and was successful enough, even in his time, that he makes into both the Roman and Jewish political record.

From that we have Christianity.

So we have a real historical Jesus that CAN be, and HAS BEEN, verified. We have a bunch of claims for gospel Jesus that CANNOT be verified of proven false. On the opposite side we have a Religion based on Jesus.

Its that middle part you take issue with. All the claims of Buddhist connections don't rally address those claims. It comes down solely to our ability to discern truth or untruth from men who clearly seem not to be lying about the things we can verify.

It could either be truth, or, as fuzzy points out, merely a composition fallacy. But if these men are lying ... how do we get Christianity out of the other side of those claims? How do we get men and women who would endure centuries of persecution to maintain the picture of Jesus?

Budhhism? Paganism? They do not address that problem set, and they do not explain why Christianity sparked the reaction that it did.

Are honest men lying or are they telling the truth.

Interestingly enough, if we assume that they are telling the truth, it leads to faith.

If we deny it, it is ONLY because of faith.

BTW - your claim that Jesus migrated to the Far East and stole Buddhism right out from under itself within the time frame we know? Yeah, that does require supernatural abilities.

[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?

Some have suggested that Christianity relied on syncretism from the very beginning and combined various myths to build the gospel accounts.

Yes, that is what some people say. That might have merit.. but that does not do what I would be looking for... defining what characteristics would be needed for having the 'historical Jesus' be an actuality verses a composite Jesus. How close must the 'historical Jesus' match the 'Gospel Jesus' to be considered the historical Jesus?

[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?


.

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?

Some have suggested that Christianity relied on syncretism from the very beginning and combined various myths to build the gospel accounts.

Yes, that is what some people say. That might have merit.. but that does not do what I would be looking for... defining what characteristics would be needed for having the 'historical Jesus' be an actuality verses a composite Jesus. How close must the 'historical Jesus' match the 'Gospel Jesus' to be considered the historical Jesus?

The gospels authors could very well be drawing from a Jesus from Galilee, though Paul doesn't, but was that Jesus the founder of Christianity? It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

[A Troubled Man]

after childhood, well, he made saul of tarsus look apathetic. no one could be perfect enough or accomplish enough. hated catholics, christianity, religion and enjoyed nothing more than humiliating me because I saw Christ as a cool guy.

tried hard to love him while he criticized me.

Ah, it does appear you've found the crux of your problems. Religion can't help fix them, but perhaps some professional counseling, instead.

[d.thomas]

This topic is far too emotionally charged for us to have a reasonable discussion. If we wanted to know if Pontius Pilate existed we could find out in a heartbeat without any dispute, but ask if Jesus existed and all hell breaks loose. What's with that?

[theopoesis]

It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

This is incorrect. We have manuscripts from John older than that, and John is generally considered the (canonical) gospel that was written last. Internal dating places the books much earlier. And the gospels are cited by authors in the late first century.

[Goat]

It is my understanding that the gospels were almost unheard of until the second half of the second century. So perhaps it was the mythology that eventually caught on much later rather than the traditional view that traces papal succession all the way back to Peter.

This is incorrect. We have manuscripts from John older than that, and John is generally considered the (canonical) gospel that was written last. Internal dating places the books much earlier. And the gospels are cited by authors in the late first century.

Uh.. well, we have a tiny fragment of John (p52) Twhose suggested date is about 135, but because of the difficulties dating vis style, could be as early as 100, or as late as 200 C.E. There is a good possibility that 'late part of the second century' would be a proper analysis.

And, just because something was written, doesn't mean it was widely distributed.