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?


.

[d.thomas]

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.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

[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.

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.

No, but the collective evidence would prohibit us from suggesting that the gospels were "almost unheard of" and "mythology" originating in the second century. Manuscript evidence originating in Egypt, where the dominant academic position is not that it was as late as 200. Clement of Rome quoting from a gospel in his first epistle, dated between 75 CE and 140 CE. Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Matthew, and was martyred in 110CE. Thus, prior to the "second half of the second century" we already have evidence of the gospels in the three main centers of early Christian thought.

There is further evidence of early dissemination, but the point is clear. The main theological centers of the church did not develop a mythology which they then adapted into gospels in the second half of the second 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.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

No known reference to what? The gospels by name? The content of the gospels? I mentioned above several places where they were cited.

How can you say there is no evidence of the gospels having an effect on Christianity until the end of the second century? They were being cited in most of the earliest books that we have. When Irenaeus and Justin and Tatian and others in the second half of the second century begin to defend the four gospels, they do so not to introduce them for the first time, but to explain why the church should not continue to add new books in church use. What evidence do you have of an earlier Christianity completely unaffected by the gospels?

[d.thomas]

What evidence do you have of an earlier Christianity completely unaffected by the gospels?

Paul wrote before the gospels were written and none of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth, nor is there any mention of disciples in any of the epistles.


Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself

[GADARENE]

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.

No, but the collective evidence would prohibit us from suggesting that the gospels were "almost unheard of" and "mythology" originating in the second century. Manuscript evidence originating in Egypt, where the dominant academic position is not that it was as late as 200. Clement of Rome quoting from a gospel in his first epistle, dated between 75 CE and 140 CE. Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Matthew, and was martyred in 110CE. Thus, prior to the "second half of the second century" we already have evidence of the gospels in the three main centers of early Christian thought.

There is further evidence of early dissemination, but the point is clear. The main theological centers of the church did not develop a mythology which they then adapted into gospels in the second half of the second 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.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

No known reference to what? The gospels by name? The content of the gospels? I mentioned above several places where they were cited.

How can you say there is no evidence of the gospels having an effect on Christianity until the end of the second century? They were being cited in most of the earliest books that we have. When Irenaeus and Justin and Tatian and others in the second half of the second century begin to defend the four gospels, they do so not to introduce them for the first time, but to explain why the church should not continue to add new books in church use. What evidence do you have of an earlier Christianity completely unaffected by the gospels?

the good news spread like mad through preaching, teaching, writing, the testimony of changed lives. it's power, it's message of a personal god interested and active in the minutiae of people's lives, the forgiveness of wrong doing, a new start, a new identity, a risen god-man, crucified and raised and ascended to heaven, what's not to like?

wiping out this gospel failed everywhere. still does. in the face of the greatest opposition brought to bear by the greatest powers on earth at that time, merely fueled it's efficacy and proclamation further and further. they were tortured, sawn in half, fed to lions, starved. instruments of torture included nails, spears, swords, arrows, they tore out their guts, cut throats, beheaded, branded, marked, axed, clubbed.

Eusebius wrote.

"The hands of the executioners failed, and although succeeding one another in relays, the men were wearied out, and the edge of their sword blunted. I myself saw the tormentors sit back exhausted, recover strength, regain breath, take fresh swords — and yet the day was not long enough for all the torments to be inflicted! Nevertheless, not one of all the band, not so much as one child of tender years, could be frightened back from confronting death; the one and only thing each dreaded was, that when the hurrying sun ended the short day, he should be left behind, separated from the society of his martyred comrades. Thus did they, one and all, steadfastly and boldly trusting to the Faith, welcome with joy and exultation a present death as the beginning of eternal life. In a word, while the first batches were being slaughtered, the rest would stand singing psalms and hymns to God, each waiting his own turn of martyrdom, that so they might breathe forth their last breath in praises to the Almighty."

there was never anything like this on the face of the earth. there was no way to stop it. it wasn't a religion and it wasn't something man would dream up. to start, it's safe to say no writer would place him in a manger with cows, born to a virgin, the king of kings and lord of lords. god-man came and lived right here on planet earth and his words and his presence turned the world right-side up. the entire world shook. one man.

[GADARENE]

as you will see, the jesus myth theorists or myth believers, (mb) try to clarify what they believe. this is as specific as they have gotten. they know that believers are clueless

I don't put much stock in the myth hypothesis. There seems to be enough external evidence (Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.) to establish that a man named Jesus most likely existed in 1st-century Palestine. Obviously, the miracle stories, etc., are not true, but given the historical accounts mentioning Jesus, the burden of proof seems to be on those who assert he never existed.

how do you distinguish fact from fiction?
"I don't need to. Once it is recognized that Jesus could not possibly have been the demigod that the religion claims, it no longer matters who he was or what he stood for." myth believer

"I'm not concerned about the claims being made by the original religion" mb
how can you differentiate between the original and fake?



"It's about getting people to quit supporting these dangerous superstitions of a jealous God." mb specifically which superstitions?


"I don't hate the Abrahamic religion, but I do see them as being extremely harmful to humanity. mb

"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." mb
Christ himself did what, specifically, to cause these problems?


"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." mb
what was misunderstood about him, specifically?

"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." mb
which things described in the nt rumors suggest this to you?

"So if you think that I'm in any way "Putting Jesus Down" you are mistaken." mb
what about his basic philosophy was like Mahayana's? what characteristics about him do you not put down?

"On the contrary, my view of Jesus is a highly respectable view." mb can you tell us what it is about jesus that you highly respect?

"It's based on the following:

1. The New Testament rumors are not the words of Jesus, they are rumors about him. (which of his words are like the Buddha's?)

2. Even these rumors have Jesus renouncing the immoral teachings of the Old Testament. (which rumors ascribed to jesus are those?)

3. Even these rumors have Jesus teaching morals that are far more in line with those of Buddhism. (for example)

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"
(about whom?)

6. Most of the claims made about Jesus weren't even claims attributed to Jesus." mb (for example?)


"So I personally believe that the existence of some guy who did at least some of the things that have been attributed to Jesus most likely existed.

I believe the following:

1. Jesus probably was a Jew.
2. He probably did argue with the pharisees and call them hypocrites.
3. He probably did renounce the immoral teachings of the Old Testament as the Gospels claim.
4. He probably did try to teach higher moral values.
5. He probably did claim to be one and the same as "God" in a pantheistic sense.
6. He probably did claim that all men are God as the Gospels claim.
7. He probably did die of some horrible execution incited by the Pharisees.

I believe that all of the above is very likely to reflect some truth." mb

where do you draw the line, even though you don't want to, between truth and non-truth?

[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.

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.

"On the contrary, my view of Jesus is a highly respectable view." mb is that right? "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

religions preach you are going to hell because you are immorally not believing in god? which of your mythical god/religions tells you that?

why do believers in nothing believe in nothing when they know believing in god will pave the way to paradise? in other words believers in nothing prefer hell even though they have no doubt heaven is just a matter of admitting what they already know but hate?

god forces them to believe in him even though they have free will. if they chose to go to hell it, is god's fault because giving them free will proved he denied them a choice.

the demons said to the most high one, why did you come to punish us before it is time? don't! kill us first, i'm begging you darling please!

they preferred drowning in pigs

[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.

No, but the collective evidence would prohibit us from suggesting that the gospels were "almost unheard of" and "mythology" originating in the second century. Manuscript evidence originating in Egypt, where the dominant academic position is not that it was as late as 200. Clement of Rome quoting from a gospel in his first epistle, dated between 75 CE and 140 CE. Ignatius of Antioch quotes from Matthew, and was martyred in 110CE. Thus, prior to the "second half of the second century" we already have evidence of the gospels in the three main centers of early Christian thought.

There is further evidence of early dissemination, but the point is clear. The main theological centers of the church did not develop a mythology which they then adapted into gospels in the second half of the second 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.

This is my point, the story could have been written as early as 70CE but there is no known reference to it before Justin Martyr, 150CE, and no real evidence of having any effect on Christianity until the end of the second century. So what are we left with, people believing the story to be true since the end of the second century to the present along with a pseudo history of Apostolic succession going back to Peter.

No known reference to what? The gospels by name? The content of the gospels? I mentioned above several places where they were cited.

How can you say there is no evidence of the gospels having an effect on Christianity until the end of the second century? They were being cited in most of the earliest books that we have. When Irenaeus and Justin and Tatian and others in the second half of the second century begin to defend the four gospels, they do so not to introduce them for the first time, but to explain why the church should not continue to add new books in church use. What evidence do you have of an earlier Christianity completely unaffected by the gospels?

When it comes to what Clement of Rome quotes,the only definite quotes he made were from the letters of Paul, and merely 'possible' quote from Act's, James and 1 Peter. That I would say is showing the age of the letters of Paul, but , well 'possible' doesn't quite cut it with me.

[theopoesis]

What evidence do you have of an earlier Christianity completely unaffected by the gospels?

Paul wrote before the gospels were written and none of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth, nor is there any mention of disciples in any of the epistles.

Yes, Paul likely wrote his last epistle before the first gospel was published (though there are those who disagree). However, to claim that he wasn't aware of a Jesus of Nazareth is quite a stretch. Paul knew that Jesus was descended from David (Rom. 1:3)

had brothers (1 Cor. 9:5) and twelve main disciples (1 Cor. 15:5) including Cephas/Peter (1 Cor. 15:5) and John (Gal. 2:9). He had a final meal the night before he was crucified, saying the bread was his body, and the cup his blood of the covenant (1 Cor. 11:23-25; Matt. 26:17-30).
crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). He knows Jesus forbid divorce (1 Cor. 7:10; Matt. 19:6).

Paul shares many theological ideas with those of Jesus as depicted in the gospels. For example, there is a new temple in the human body, suggesting that both Paul and Jesus are counter-temple in some way (1 Cor. 3:16; John 2:28). He discusses the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 4:20, 6:19), the central motiff of Jesus' view of the end times. He calls God Father, a novelty introduced by Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6) and refers to Jesus as the Son (1 Cor. 15:28). We are not made clean by food (1 Cor. 8:8; Matt. 15:11). Jesus will return with a great trumpet blast to gather the elect at the end (1 Cor. 15:52; Matt. 24:31).

Paul makes many statements that are similar to those that Jesus made. For example, Paul warns "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" (1 Cor. 5:6) and Jesus referred to a good leaven of the kingdom of God which enters a loaf until the whole was leavened (Mt. 13:33) and a bad one of the Pharisees (Mark 8:15). Paul talks of a "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2), just as Jesus said he gave a new law (John 13:34). Romans 12:14 is similar to turning the other cheek.

So Paul actually mentions disciples by name, and knows there was a core group of twelve. Definitely false to claim he didn't know anything about the disciples. And he gives some basic details of the life of Jesus, makes at least one direct quote, and has several other sayings that are similar to sayings of Jesus in the gospel. Beyond that, there is the matter of his theology. We can't ignore the fact that Paul's post-resurrection theology (by this, I mean Christian theology after the resurrection, the "resurrection experience" or "the resurrection myth" depending on your preference) does introduce new elements to the teaching of Jesus as described in the gospels. However, there is a clear degree of continuity with respect to the eschatological focus on the kingdom of God, the centrality of the resurrection (against the Sadducees), the new experience of God as Father, and the overturning of the temple cult.

Furthermore, the Epistles are occasional letters. You can't say that they don't know about Jesus of Nazareth because they don't mention Nazareth, especially since they clearly discuss Jesus as depicted in the earliest accounts we have that do mention Jesus of Nazareth.

Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity
Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Apollinarism – Jesus had a human body and human soul, but a divine mind
Arianism- Jesus was the son of God, not God himself

This is a fairly silly list.

Marcion was not a religion that was "completely unaffected by the gospels." In fact, he used the gospel of Luke and interpreted it differently than the proto-orthodox.

Nestorianism and Apollinarism were both after the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Therefore, they can hardly be proof that the church prior to the second half of the second century (i.e. 150 AD) were unaware of the gospels. Furthermore, both Nestorius and Appolinarius cited the gospels in their debates with the Nicene and Chalcedonian supporters.

Arianism began in between 315 and 325, again too late to prove what you suggest. Furthermore, it was condemned in Alexandria by the bishop as being contrary to the tradition passed down from history. AND Arius himself used the gospels.

Finally, Docetism. This might be your closest chance at proving your point. The earliest mention of "docetism" was by Serapion of Antioch in 200, but we also know about those who denied Jesus came in the flesh from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Polycarp. The problem is, each of our sources for this knowledge are sources that accept the gospels.

Thus, your list of late heresies does absolutely nothing to show that Christianity was unaffected by the gospels prior to 150 AD.

[theopoesis]

When it comes to what Clement of Rome quotes,the only definite quotes he made were from the letters of Paul, and merely 'possible' quote from Act's, James and 1 Peter. That I would say is showing the age of the letters of Paul, but , well 'possible' doesn't quite cut it with me.

Well, there's also 1 Clement 46:8, which seems to merge Matthew 26:24 and Matthew 18:6. It was common at this time to cite several scriptures from different places and merge them together. (See, for example, Romans 3). There's also 13:2 which is possibly a derivation of Luke 6.

[Goat]

When it comes to what Clement of Rome quotes,the only definite quotes he made were from the letters of Paul, and merely 'possible' quote from Act's, James and 1 Peter. That I would say is showing the age of the letters of Paul, but , well 'possible' doesn't quite cut it with me.

Well, there's also 1 Clement 46:8, which seems to merge Matthew 26:24 and Matthew 18:6. It was common at this time to cite several scriptures from different places and merge them together. (See, for example, Romans 3). There's also 13:2 which is possibly a derivation of Luke 6.

There are people who make that argument.. yet.. 'seems to, and 'does' is two entirely different things.