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?


.

[Haven]

The Christ Myth theory has been debunked a thousand times over. Claims about the divine nature of Christ being deliberately phoney have not been, and indeed continue to proliferate throughout the atheist community.

Of course atheists disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus by definition. If atheists accepted that Christ was divine, they wouldn't be atheists.

I don't subscribe to the Christ myth theory; I think there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus that preached and was crucified.

As a skeptic, I see no more reason to accept the miracle claims of Jesus than I do those of Buddha, Apollonius of Tyana, Satya Sai Baba, or any of the other thousands of supposed "miracle workers" that have been claimed to exist. Dismissal of such claims is the default position due to the prior improbability of miracles, the lack of miracles occurring today and the logical impossibility of something with no physical properties (such as a god) exerting a causal effect on the physical world.

I would require a tremendous, tremendous amount of evidence to accept that a miraculous event occurred, as such an event would literally go against all the evidence we have from science, logic, and history.

[d.thomas]

Somebody here needs to calm down. It's a simple enough theory, we have the literature and we have no shortage of opinions, but what are the facts?

[GADARENE]

I can tell you as a matter of fact that he never existed, the whole thing was a hoax. he never lived.

the universe popped by one day, on its own, too. just happened. god is strictly a mythical concept from back in the day created by a couple of guys hoping to make it big by talking up miracles performed by some Hercules type hack, a superdudeish miracle man they thought these dupes would fall for- and they did! they got a bunch of not-too-bright losers to buy in to it, literally, and they retired down on the beach at galilee.

nobody was supposed to get hurt. they had no idea all these wars would break out. they had no idea any one would take them seriously. talk about idiots!

some clubs formed and they started pretending to be like real religious fanatics, the pope and bishops and them guys and some got carried away. started selling tickets to the plays and they hit the big time and put on a few productions at some coliseums and stuff. other clubs got jealous and fights broke out. stabbings. then, a couple wise guys released some lions in there, you know, and all hell broke loose.

so, to answer you question, you shouldn't have to ask a question like that these modern days. I mean, we know from science that universes often start from nothing. people, too. saw a whole tribe appear two weeks ago out of thin air. it was awesome. (had three husbands who vanished unexpectedly) happens all the time. in fact, my cousin marty started a small nebulae galaxy in his backyard from absolutely nothing. blew up in his face, but hey, the guy is amazing.

science is god. man searching for meaning is way overdone. man has a soul? yea. i'm captain kangaroo!

[stubbornone]

The Christ Myth theory has been debunked a thousand times over. Claims about the divine nature of Christ being deliberately phoney have not been, and indeed continue to proliferate throughout the atheist community.

Of course atheists disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus by definition. If atheists accepted that Christ was divine, they wouldn't be atheists.

I don't subscribe to the Christ myth theory; I think there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus that preached and was crucified.

As a skeptic, I see no more reason to accept the miracle claims of Jesus than I do those of Buddha, Apollonius of Tyana, Satya Sai Baba, or any of the other thousands of supposed "miracle workers" that have been claimed to exist. Dismissal of such claims is the default position due to the prior improbability of miracles, the lack of miracles occurring today and the logical impossibility of something with no physical properties (such as a god) exerting a causal effect on the physical world.

I would require a tremendous, tremendous amount of evidence to accept that a miraculous event occurred, as such an event would literally go against all the evidence we have from science, logic, and history.

The problem is that there is no logical reason to reject them either. The correct evidential position would be, "they may have happened, they may not ... I either affirm them or do not based on ... whatever"

The correct statement is not that they are OBVIOUSLY false.

That is simply not true and an attempt to disprove them quickly points that out.

[stubbornone]

Somebody here needs to calm down. It's a simple enough theory, we have the literature and we have no shortage of opinions, but what are the facts?

Its a simply theory that you adopted in less than 24 hours with no critical examination whatsoever and are already lecturing others about.

Clearly, its yet another logical conclusion you reached after deep and agonizing study?

Or did you just follow it with faith?

By all means, please explain to us Christianity without Jesus, which is what you so condescendingly told me was not the Christ Myth. Please.

[Divine Insight]

The Christ Myth theory has been debunked a thousand times over. Claims about the divine nature of Christ being deliberately phoney have not been, and indeed continue to proliferate throughout the atheist community.

Of course atheists disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus by definition. If atheists accepted that Christ was divine, they wouldn't be atheists.

I don't subscribe to the Christ myth theory; I think there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus that preached and was crucified.

As a skeptic, I see no more reason to accept the miracle claims of Jesus than I do those of Buddha, Apollonius of Tyana, Satya Sai Baba, or any of the other thousands of supposed "miracle workers" that have been claimed to exist. Dismissal of such claims is the default position due to the prior improbability of miracles, the lack of miracles occurring today and the logical impossibility of something with no physical properties (such as a god) exerting a causal effect on the physical world.

I would require a tremendous, tremendous amount of evidence to accept that a miraculous event occurred, as such an event would literally go against all the evidence we have from science, logic, and history.

I would like to step in here and say that I too feel much the same way as Haven.

Although, I'm not sure I would go as far as suggesting that there actually exists evidence to support the existence of Jesus. None the less, I believe it's more reasonable to believe that some actual person and event sparked the New Testament rumors than to believe that they totally sprang up from entirely fabricated fiction as some people believe.

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.

Things I don't accept:

1. That the New Testament could in any way be the precise verbatim words of Jesus.
2. That the New Testament authors weren't biased in their superstitious beliefs about Jesus.
3. That this Jesus did all, or even most of the supernatural things they claim he did.
4. I don't believe their claim that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.
5. I don't believe that Jesus walked on water. But I do believe that his disciples may have believed that he did.
6. I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
7. I don't believe that a bunch of saints climbed out of their graves as well.

And the fact of the matter is that even if a historical Jesus could be shown to have actually existed, that still wouldn't provide me with any reason at all to believe any of the things I already don't accept about the New Testament gossips.

So even if we had historical proof that Jesus existed that wouldn't loan one iota of support to Christianity, IMHO.

[stubbornone]

The Christ Myth theory has been debunked a thousand times over. Claims about the divine nature of Christ being deliberately phoney have not been, and indeed continue to proliferate throughout the atheist community.

Of course atheists disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus by definition. If atheists accepted that Christ was divine, they wouldn't be atheists.

I don't subscribe to the Christ myth theory; I think there is enough evidence to support the existence of a Jesus that preached and was crucified.

As a skeptic, I see no more reason to accept the miracle claims of Jesus than I do those of Buddha, Apollonius of Tyana, Satya Sai Baba, or any of the other thousands of supposed "miracle workers" that have been claimed to exist. Dismissal of such claims is the default position due to the prior improbability of miracles, the lack of miracles occurring today and the logical impossibility of something with no physical properties (such as a god) exerting a causal effect on the physical world.

I would require a tremendous, tremendous amount of evidence to accept that a miraculous event occurred, as such an event would literally go against all the evidence we have from science, logic, and history.

I would like to step in here and say that I too feel much the same way as Haven.

Although, I'm not sure I would go as far as suggesting that there actually exists evidence to support the existence of Jesus. None the less, I believe it's more reasonable to believe that some actual person and event sparked the New Testament rumors than to believe that they totally sprang up from entirely fabricated fiction as some people believe.

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.

Things I don't accept:

1. That the New Testament could in any way be the precise verbatim words of Jesus.
2. That the New Testament authors weren't biased in their superstitious beliefs about Jesus.
3. That this Jesus did all, or even most of the supernatural things they claim he did.
4. I don't believe their claim that God spoke from a cloud proclaiming Jesus to be his son.
5. I don't believe that Jesus walked on water. But I do believe that his disciples may have believed that he did.
6. I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
7. I don't believe that a bunch of saints climbed out of their graves as well.

And the fact of the matter is that even if a historical Jesus could be shown to have actually existed, that still wouldn't provide me with any reason at all to believe any of the things I already don't accept about the New Testament gossips.

So even if we had historical proof that Jesus existed that wouldn't loan one iota of support to Christianity, IMHO.

And that is the point. You have no more reasons for your denial as listed above than we do in our affirmation DI. You site Christian biases, but have you examined your own?

And yes, if there are group of men whose testimony of Jesus and what he is saying is accurate ... it does mean something.

Why do you think so many atheists have spent so much time on the Jesus Myth is it means nothing?

[d.thomas]

I can tell you as a matter of fact that he never existed, the whole thing was a hoax. he never lived.

the universe popped by one day, on its own, too. just happened. god is strictly a mythical concept from back in the day created by a couple of guys hoping to make it big by talking up miracles performed by some Hercules type hack, a superdudeish miracle man they thought these dupes would fall for- and they did! they got a bunch of not-too-bright losers to buy in to it, literally, and they retired down on the beach at galilee.

nobody was supposed to get hurt. they had no idea all these wars would break out. they had no idea any one would take them seriously. talk about idiots!

some clubs formed and they started pretending to be like real religious fanatics, the pope and bishops and them guys and some got carried away. started selling tickets to the plays and they hit the big time and put on a few productions at some coliseums and stuff. other clubs got jealous and fights broke out. stabbings. then, a couple wise guys released some lions in there, you know, and all hell broke loose.

so, to answer you question, you shouldn't have to ask a question like that these modern days. I mean, we know from science that universes often start from nothing. people, too. saw a whole tribe appear two weeks ago out of thin air. it was awesome. (had three husbands who vanished unexpectedly) happens all the time. in fact, my cousin marty started a small nebulae galaxy in his backyard from absolutely nothing. blew up in his face, but hey, the guy is amazing.

science is god. man searching for meaning is way overdone. man has a soul? yea. i'm captain kangaroo!

How's the third quest for the historical Jesus going? Any breakthroughs?

[Divine Insight]

And that is the point. You have no more reasons for your denial as listed above than we do in our affirmation DI. You site Christian biases, but have you examined your own?

I'm allowed to have personal bias.

I don't claim to be holding up "The Word of God".

I don't insinuate, or accuse anyone of "Rejecting God", or "Refusing to Obey their Fatherly Creator", if the don't agree with my personal views.

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. This accusation comes directly from the Biblical scriptures themselves. It's an innate part of Christianity that no Christian can deny without simultaneously denying the very doctrine that they claim to support.

So my personal opinions need no support beyond the simple fact that they are indeed my own personal views and conclusions.

But if you want to claim to have a handle on "The Word of God" in some way, (and especially hold it out as an accusation against other people that they are somehow rejecting that God), then you are the one who needs to move far beyond personal bias and personal conclusions and back up your claim that these ancient fables are anything more than that.

Thus far, in your quote above, all you've done is state that you're on precisely the same ground I'm on. You have nothing more than personal opinions, just like me.

And yes, if there are group of men whose testimony of Jesus and what he is saying is accurate ... it does mean something.

Why do you think so many atheists have spent so much time on the Jesus Myth is it means nothing?

I agree. If you could show that those men who wrote the New Testament actually had merit behind their words it would be meaningful. But no one can do that. Not even the most devout Christian Clergy.

The whole thing is entirely based on pure faith that these rumors might somehow have some truth.

And to be perfectly honest with you Stubbornone, I have absolutely no reason to even want to place my faith in stories that proclaim that my creator had to have his son butchered on a pole to pay for my unworthiness.

On the contrary, I wouldn't be interested in believing that unless I had absolutely no other choice but to believe it.

And even then it would be the worst news I ever heard in my life. Certainly not good news as the Christens claim.

On the contrary, Stubbornone, if God had to offer his son to be my sacrificial lamb to pay for my sins, I'd have to decline the offer anyway. I couldn't condone that.

So even if the religion were true I would have no choice but to chose to go to hell.

No way, would I condone having an innocent man nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.

So even if the religion were true, I would necessarily be doomed with no respectable way to be saved.

This religions doesn't offer me a respectable or honorable option.

So even if it were true, it would only describe a totally hopeless situation for me.

A pure secular atheistic existence would be far more attractive.

[stubbornone]

And that is the point. You have no more reasons for your denial as listed above than we do in our affirmation DI. You site Christian biases, but have you examined your own?

I'm allowed to have personal bias.

I don't claim to be holding up "The Word of God".

I don't insinuate, or accuse anyone of "Rejecting God", or "Refusing to Obey their Fatherly Creator", if the don't agree with my personal views.

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. This accusation comes directly from the Biblical scriptures themselves. It's an innate part of Christianity that no Christian can deny without simultaneously denying the very doctrine that they claim to support.

So my personal opinions need no support beyond the simple fact that they are indeed my own personal views and conclusions.

But if you want to claim to have a handle on "The Word of God" in some way, (and especially hold it out as an accusation against other people that they are somehow rejecting that God), then you are the one who needs to move far beyond personal bias and personal conclusions and back up your claim that these ancient fables are anything more than that.

Thus far, in your quote above, all you've done is state that you're on precisely the same ground I'm on. You have nothing more than personal opinions, just like me.

And yes, if there are group of men whose testimony of Jesus and what he is saying is accurate ... it does mean something.

Why do you think so many atheists have spent so much time on the Jesus Myth is it means nothing?

I agree. If you could show that those men who wrote the New Testament actually had merit behind their words it would be meaningful. But no one can do that. Not even the most devout Christian Clergy.

The whole thing is entirely based on pure faith that these rumors might somehow have some truth.

And to be perfectly honest with you Stubbornone, I have absolutely no reason to even want to place my faith in stories that proclaim that my creator had to have his son butchered on a pole to pay for my unworthiness.

On the contrary, I wouldn't be interested in believing that unless I had absolutely no other choice but to believe it.

And even then it would be the worst news I ever heard in my life. Certainly not good news as the Christens claim.

On the contrary, Stubbornone, if God had to offer his son to be my sacrificial lamb to pay for my sins, I'd have to decline the offer anyway. I couldn't condone that.

So even if the religion were true I would have no choice but to chose to go to hell.

No way, would I condone having an innocent man nailed to a pole to pay for my sins.

So even if the religion were true, I would necessarily be doomed with no respectable way to be saved.

This religions doesn't offer me a respectable or honorable option.

So even if it were true, it would only describe a totally hopeless situation for me.

A pure secular atheistic existence would be far more attractive.

And therein lies the problem. It HAS been done. The full details of it literally require volumes, here are a few:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qJDkkQ ... us&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=FmhpAA ... CE0Q6AEwAw

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliM ... CFIQ6AEwBA

Again, each of those volumes, and many more, have extensive bibliographies and have passed Ph.D level peer review processes meaning that the details of what they claim are sound - as sound as any human can make them.

Meanwhile the detractors, notably Wells:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-vYAA ... CEMQ6AEwAg

His work has been absolutely eviscerated by peer review.

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.

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.