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?


.

[stubbornone]

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.

DI, I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for ... a demonstration of merit that meet Ph.D level scrutiny.

I cannot post the entire volumes into this debate forum, all I can say is that the academic record is fully justified and accepted ... if you refuse to read what has been practically delivered into your hands ... I cannot help you.

I cannot force you to educate yourself about the very thing you demand accredited education about.

If you refuse to read exactly what you ask for ... well, that says a lot about the evidenced views of atheism.

[stubbornone]

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.

Exactly. I will be an atheist until the entire world revolves around me and evidence, inquiry, research, and conclusion are all handily tied in a bow and placed in my lap.

What saran logic?

Its a debate forum, try debunking something rather than just rejecting it ... its harder ... but problem solving rather than problem avoidance usually is. Go figure.

[Divine Insight]

DI, I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for ... a demonstration of merit that meet Ph.D level scrutiny.

I cannot post the entire volumes into this debate forum, all I can say is that the academic record is fully justified and accepted ... if you refuse to read what has been practically delivered into your hands ... I cannot help you.

I cannot force you to educate yourself about the very thing you demand accredited education about.

If you refuse to read exactly what you ask for ... well, that says a lot about the evidenced views of atheism.

I'm sorry stubbornone, but your claims here are simply false.

You have not provided for me with anything of the sort.

Moreover pointing someone to entire volumes of books in a debate and accusing them of refusing to concede defeat if they don't rush out and read these massive volumes of books is truly nothing but a very cheap shot.

Give me your BEST SHOT stubbornone.

Present me with a few of what you consider to be the BEST POINTS made in these volumes of books that you are pointing to. Convince me that these books are onto anything at all.

Here's a very simple assignment for you:

Make a short list, of what you consider to be the TEN BEST POINTS made in these volume of books you are pointing to.

I'll look them over and I'm willing to bet that I will most likely end up explaining to you precisely why none of them are even remotely impressive.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that they are nothing more than the same old apologetic arguments that I've already heard over and over again more times than I can count.

[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.

[stubbornone]

DI, I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for ... a demonstration of merit that meet Ph.D level scrutiny.

I cannot post the entire volumes into this debate forum, all I can say is that the academic record is fully justified and accepted ... if you refuse to read what has been practically delivered into your hands ... I cannot help you.

I cannot force you to educate yourself about the very thing you demand accredited education about.

If you refuse to read exactly what you ask for ... well, that says a lot about the evidenced views of atheism.

I'm sorry stubbornone, but your claims here are simply false.

You have not provided for me with anything of the sort.

Moreover pointing someone to entire volumes of books in a debate and accusing them of refusing to concede defeat if they don't rush out and read these massive volumes of books is truly nothing but a very cheap shot.

Give me your BEST SHOT stubbornone.

Present me with a few of what you consider to be the BEST POINTS made in these volumes of books that you are pointing to. Convince me that these books are onto anything at all.

Here's a very simple assignment for you:

Make a short list, of what you consider to be the TEN BEST POINTS made in these volume of books you are pointing to.

I'll look them over and I'm willing to bet that I will most likely end up explaining to you precisely why none of them are even remotely impressive.

In fact, I'm willing to bet that they are nothing more than the same old apologetic arguments that I've already heard over and over again more times than I can count.

I already did DI.

I gave three volumes of history, all peer reviewed detailing the evidence and widely accepted claims of Jesus to the PH.D level.

Please tell me why your opinion stands as a greater badge of merit than the Ph.D level peer review process?

The evidence for Jesus is as solid as that of just about any other period character, and stronger than almost ALL religious figures of the period. You can indeed prove that he was there and that he preached ... and what he preached lead to the creation of the largest religion in the world.

And you stand there and declare that entire process 'simple apologetics' withou merit?

Again, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. That is indeed the problem with certain atheists.

[stubbornone]

.



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.

For which there is not only zero evidence, there is that whole Jesus thing. The Messiah is a Jewish concept, Jesus grew up in a Jewish community, he was a real historical preacher, and ... someone this is all borrowed from the Pagans? Which would be the Romans at the time ... whose ideology was nothing at all like that of the Christians.

You claim to detest things without evidence? Yet you just offered one up with zero evidence whose sole goal seems to be to caste an aspiration possible on Christianity? Am I wrong?

You did after all create this thread, and yet you offer zero evidence in support of any claims other than to say that someone, somewhere said something that may be true ... but may not be?

[GADARENE]

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

if there is nothing to any of this, as you believe, then it is okay to dismiss it and not be concerned with it, whatsoever.


"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."

be that as it may, it doesn't make sense to give these things a second thought. they aren't real. he is not your creator. there is nothing, nothing to them.

if an ant said you were a goofball, would that be insulting or get under your skin? of course not. an ant can't and if it could, it is an ant! you know?

[TheTruth101]

Full edit.

[Divine Insight]

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

I have a theory that I personally believe makes a whole lot of sense. It explains everything without any need for any supernatural explanations.


Observation #1:

To begin with the Jews were obviously under Roman occupation and they were in dire need of a messiah, which they apparently believed might come along at any moment. There were obviously a lot of rumors about the coming of a messiah.

So that was a ripe superstition just waiting to hatch.

Observation #2:

The Jews themselves had dramatically different points of view concerning their own religious beliefs. There were pantheistic or mystical-minded Jews at that time. In fact, even the modern day Jews will argue that the Jews themselves did not view their God in a strict anthropomorphic way like a "Zeus-like male figurehead". Many of them thought of God in a far more mystical way, even though they may have referred to him as the "Father". It was still intended to be a mystical idea of a spiritual God.

There was even a Jewish sect known as the Essene Jews who held a very mystical view of God that was very pantheistic in nature. Jesus may well have adopted those philosophies to some degree, or have at least been influenced by them. And their philosophy was very passive like the teachings of Jesus. (i.e. turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc.)

Observation #3:

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was at its peak at this time in history when Jesus would have lived. The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism would have been very attractive to an Essene Jew. In fact, it may have even been the source of the Essene Jewish sect.

The philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism was a philosophy of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". It was not concerned with religion. It didn't care how you thought of "god". That was unimportant to Mahayana Buddhism.

Mahayana Buddhism also supported the ideal of becoming a Bodhisattva. This is a person who dedicates their life to teaching others the path to spiritual enlightenment which is the path of "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action".

It was a tradition in Mahayana Buddhism that to be taken in as a student under a monk you must promise to become a Bodhisattva and take on your own disciples and ask them to go out and teach the word too.

So this also fits in with the idea of Jesus taking on disciples and then asking them to carry on his teachings.

Observation #4:

The Gospels themselves portray Jesus as someone who taught against the immoral teachings of the Old Testament. Not directly, but through his own teachings which were the direct opposite.

The Old Testament had God commanding people to judge each other and stone sinners to death.

Jesus taught not to judge others and not to cast the first stone.

So the teachings attributed to Jesus are far more in line with the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism (or even the Essene Jews), than in harmony with the teachings of the Old Testament.

Jesus could hardly renounce the Old Testament outright. So he had to come up with clever ways of replacing the immoral teachings of the Old Testament with the higher moral values of the "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action" of the Mahayana Philosophy.

So he tried his best to do this without flatly refuting the original religion. Because remember Mahayana Buddhism isn't about religion, it's about "Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action". How you think of God is unimportant.

Observation #5:

Being of a pantheistic mindset Jesus would teach that he and the father are one. That is the pantheistic view. Tat T'vam Asi, which basically means "You are That", or "You Are That You Are". Or from a personal point of view, "I AM that I AM'. It's basically a statement that says that you are that which you seek. You are the source of your being. You are "God" if you like.

Even the gospels have Jesus confirming this when he is accused of blaspheme for saying that he and the Father are one. In his own defense he points to the Old Testament a says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods"?

Why would he do that if he was proclaiming to be some sort of special demigod?

He's basically confirming that he's coming from a pantheistic mindset.

Observation #6:

Jesus taught with authority and confidence. Well that comes with the enlightenment of Buddhism. Jesus was convinced that he does indeed speak for God because he has already realized that he and the Father are one.

So he took this view seriously. He also taught that whatever you do to the least of your brethren you do to him. Again the pantheistic view. We are all this same underlying consciousness that gives rise to our individual beings. That's pantheism. Whatever you do to anyone you do to yourself.

Observation #7:

Jesus was highly misunderstood. Even the gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that his very own disciples were not understanding his teachings.

Observation #8:

According to the Gospels Jesus was constantly having run-ins with the Jewish Pharisees who were the main religious authoritarians of his day. He also reportedly sat around and publicly proclaimed them to be hypocrites.

Clearly he had created a very adverse relationship with these religious authoritarians.

Observation #9:

Apparently this adverse relationship with the Jewish Pharisees came to a head and Jesus was brutally crucified and silenced.

Observation #10:

Historical records show that there were many disagreeing rumors about who this man was and what he might have stood for. One of those rumors was that he was somehow the promised "Messiah".

That particular rumor obviously began to gain momentum. Rumors that Jesus was born of a virgin, and was predicted by prophecy to have done various things began to emerge. Finally some men sat down with the Old Testament in one hand and a pen in the other and began to write rumors about Jesus that supported these ideas that he was this messiah.

Thus the New Testament was born.

Observation #11:

Even after these rumors continued to grow they still were never accepted by the Jews themselves, but eventually Constantine of Rome realized that he could use this religion to his advantage to control the superstitious masses so he declared it the official religion of Rome.

And Christian was born and eventually blossomed to become Roman Catholicism, and finally into the myriad of rebellious protesting Protestantisms that we see around us today.

And obviously the Arabs took there version of these original myths in a totally different direction in Islam.

And that's where we're at today.

[Divine Insight]

if there is nothing to any of this, as you believe, then it is okay to dismiss it and not be concerned with it, whatsoever.

be that as it may, it doesn't make sense to give these things a second thought. they aren't real. he is not your creator. there is nothing, nothing to them.

if an ant said you were a goofball, would that be insulting or get under your skin? of course not. an ant can't and if it could, it is an ant! you know?

I'm not concerned about the claims being made by the original religion Gadarene:

These religions are REAL in the sense that people today continue to believe in them.

I'm not worried about being personally insulted by these religions.

I'm speaking out on behalf of people who are being hurt by them, both emotionally hurt, and physically hurt.

The planes that flew into the World Trade Center were REAL PLANES.

The bombs that suicide bombers blow themselves up with kill REAL PEOPLE.

The young girl that the Taliban shot in the head because she stood up against male-chauvinism being held out in the name of God was a REAL YOUNG GIRL.

These religions are REAL, even thought they are based on absurdly false rumors and superstitions.

Now you may say, "But everything you have mentioned above has to do with Islam not Christianity".

This may be true, but our ("our" meaning the western world) support for a belief in Christianity is truly support for Islam.

How can we ask the Arabs to quite believing in Islam as long we are giving support to those very same foundational myths via our acceptance and belief that Jesus was the demigod son of the original God of Abraham?

It's all the same religion really.

And the Arab countries are going to wake up to the reality that these things are nothing more than silly myths as long as we continue to act like as if they have merit.

We need to toss these myths out for the sake of humanity.

Any support for the Jesus myth is no different from supporting the most radical fundamentalism of either Christianity or Islam.

Supporting a belief in a mythology supports that mythology in its entirety.

So it's really not even about religion at all, Gadarene. It's about getting people to quit supporting these dangerous superstitions of a jealous God.

We could even "Save Jesus" respectfully as a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

Imagine that.