Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only ones we know are traceable back to Paul are (some of) his Epistles.

With others we just don't know.

Right. So the accounts you're describing aren't particularly strong evidence of a historical Jesus.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's more likely that the mythic elements of the Jesus character were glommed onto a historical person - or maybe an analgam of more than one historical person - than it is that there's no historical "grain of sand" at the centre of the pearl at all.

Still, I don't think that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong, and I don't think the matter is definitively decided; I just think that the evidence we have so far is somewhat more consistent with there being a historical figure or figures at the centre of the Jesus myth.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then you know they flatly contradict your claim that Jesus is God. But as I said, that doesn't prevent you from believing what you like, just from claiming the NT agrees.
Fear not: although my Latin is better, I can read koine Greek. Choose any of those verses I quoted that you relevantly say is a mistranslation and we can go through it.
And which of those passages I quoted above is 'false scripture', do you say?
This isn't about supporting any religion, simply about what the NT says. If in the NT Jesus had said, "The one God exists as three persons and one substance" then I'd be happy to agree that that's what the NT says. But it doesn't. And one reason it doesn't, as doubtless you know from the history of the early church, is that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist until the 4th century CE.

Actually, in the greek, the distinction between Jesus and the 'pater' isn't even clear, in many verses.

Read John 10
With greek parallel. Then read it again. It could just as well be Jesus saying, He is the 'pater', the shepherd, and if He means over self, then John 10:17-18 makes complete sense with Romans 10:9.
And, you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that 2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

The Bible is constantly saying that there is only One Lord.[Jesus

I read '1' as '1',
And your conceptual math theories aren't going to change that.

 

[blü 2]

Actually, in the greek, the distinction between Jesus and the 'pater' isn't even clear, in many verses.

Read John 10
With greek parallel. Then read it again. It could just as well be Jesus saying, He is the 'pater', the shepherd, and if He means over self, then John 10:17-18 makes complete sense with Romans 10:9.
And, you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that 2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

The Bible is constantly saying that there is only One Lord.[Jesus

I read '1' as '1',
And your conceptual math theories aren't going to change that.

Dear oh dear. The NT simply doesn't say what you keep wanting it to say. I've given you a range of verses from Paul and all four gospels in which Jesus expressly denies he's God. I've invited you to nominate any which is a mistranslation so we can examine whether that's right, but you haven't done so. I've invited you to point to any of the verses you say are false doctrine but you haven't done so.

So I respectfully suggest that you want the NT to agree with what you've been taught, at the expense of what it actually says. It actually presents five different Jesuses, the interesting point being that all five are solid about not being God.

 

[Desert Snake]

Dear oh dear. The NT simply doesn't say what you keep wanting it to say. I've given you a range of verses from Paul and all four gospels in which Jesus expressly denies he's God. I've invited you to nominate any which is a mistranslation so we can examine whether that's right, but you haven't done so. I've invited you to point to any of the verses you say are false doctrine but you haven't done so.

So I respectfully suggest that you want the NT to agree with what you've been taught, at the expense of what it actually says. It actually presents five different Jesuses, the interesting point being that all five are solid about not being God.

I'm way ahead of you. Remember, I'm the guy who has formatted theism without faith.
But it's more than that. Your pathetic attempt at undermining what I believe is just an example of how you use confirmation bias to derive your non religion, or whatever it is.

• speaking of which, you haven't delineated your religious beliefs, mr blu. And I read comments, mr blu. Your "questioning" comments, mr blu.
Your...theories that you say were derived from research, mr blu.
That's some "interesting" research, mr blu.
You are talking like an atheist, however you aren't listing that next to your religion, and you didn't realize that your obfuscation would be noticed. Unless you actually say if you're an atheist, or whatever, then I'm going to presume that this is some sort of game/hobby, for you. Since by inference...
We wouldn't really call you an atheist, would we. In fact, you seem like an anti'theist, who is actually just against the religion directed by Jesus.

Very pathetic, mr blu.

 

[blü 2]

Your pathetic attempt at undermining what I believe is just an example of how you use confirmation bias to derive your non religion, or whatever it is.

I'm talking about what the NT actually says. I'm pointing out that all five versions of Jesus it offers say they're not God. Since that's true, I don't see the problem in saying it.

You are talking like an atheist, however you aren't listing that next to your religion

As my listing plainly says, my outlook is skeptical, and in our conversation it's simply the standard skepticism of reasoned enquiry, in this case historical enquiry.

Since you ask, in my view, based on what we presently know, the evidence is very strong that God exists only as a concept in individual brains. I haven't yet found a coherent definition of God appropriate to a real god, one with objective existence. If you have such a definition, so that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it were God or not, I'd be interested to hear it.

We wouldn't really call you an atheist, would we.

If you were being accurate, you'd say I was an igtheist. But 'skeptical' is fine.

In fact, you seem like an anti'theist, who is actually just against the religion directed by Jesus.

With the exception of fundamentalism, I don't mind what people believe; and as I've pointed out more than once, my view doesn't prevent you from believing what you please; it simply defends the actual words of the NT.

But so far you haven't wanted to discuss those, so feel free to continue or discontinue this conversation as you think best.

 

[Audie]

I don't find anything profound in the writings. For example, Jesus never offered any teaching that was scientifically unprecedented, he just relied on supernatural magic. He never bothered to disclose us with his vast universe, that if we are truly alone here on Earth. He never shed any physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc that would have been mind-blowing at the time.

Ya cant find it coz it aint there

 

[steveb1]

Dear oh dear. The NT simply doesn't say what you keep wanting it to say. I've given you a range of verses from Paul and all four gospels in which Jesus expressly denies he's God. I've invited you to nominate any which is a mistranslation so we can examine whether that's right, but you haven't done so. I've invited you to point to any of the verses you say are false doctrine but you haven't done so.

So I respectfully suggest that you want the NT to agree with what you've been taught, at the expense of what it actually says. It actually presents five different Jesuses, the interesting point being that all five are solid about not being God.

Indeed. The NT does not view Jesus as "God". In fact, John, the most "divinizing" Gospel, has Jesus explicitly exclude himself from the Godhead when he calls the Father "you, the only true God" (John 17:3). Elsewhere in John Jesus says that he has a God (God can't have a God), will ascend to God (God can't ascend to God), describes himself as a man who has heard and obeys God's will (God is not a man who hears and obeys God's will), etc. The NT Jesus is not ontological God, which shows that the Hellenized church invented its Trinity out of wish fulfillment, not scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm talking about what the NT actually says. I'm pointing out that all five versions of Jesus it offers say they're not God. Since that's true, I don't see the problem in saying it.
As my listing plainly says, my outlook is skeptical, and in our conversation it's simply the standard skepticism of reasoned enquiry, in this case historical enquiry.

Since you ask, in my view, based on what we presently know, the evidence is very strong that God exists only as a concept in individual brains. I haven't yet found a coherent definition of God appropriate to a real god, one with objective existence. If you have such a definition, so that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it were God or not, I'd be interested to hear it.
If you were being accurate, you'd say I was an igtheist. But 'skeptical' is fine.
With the exception of fundamentalism, I don't mind what people believe; and as I've pointed out more than once, my view doesn't prevent you from believing what you please; it simply defends the actual words of the NT.

But so far you haven't wanted to discuss those, so feel free to continue or discontinue this conversation as you think best.

This is apples and oranges debate or discussion, then. Because I am not a scripturalist, that isn't the argument format in which I'm presenting arguments.
I'm , presenting an argument, I believe Jesus to be real, then contextually, presenting verses.

That isn't what you're doing, you are using interpretations that actually don't match scripture, like the 'One Lord', Jesus Christ verses, 2 Corinthians 6:18, 'Lord Almighty'

Direct inference that Jesus is the Lord Almighty, and just not even regarding that, even though it's right there, in the Bible.

So, you aren't presenting things in a scriptural manner, even though you say you are.

You are presenting 'fake arguments', then arguing against them.

So, here we have, Lord God, for example Adon'ai Elohim , and if there is One Lord, then you are going to have to argue that the words are not talking about what you are presenting, as arguments.
You haven't done that, you haven't refuted anything, and the Bible directly refutes your arguments.

 

[blü 2]

This is apples and oranges debate or discussion, then. Because I am not a scripturalist, that isn't the argument format in which I'm presenting arguments.
I'm , presenting an argument, I believe Jesus to be real, then contextually, presenting verses.

That isn't what you're doing, you are using interpretations that actually don't match scripture, like the 'One Lord', Jesus Christ verses, 2 Corinthians 6:18, 'Lord Almighty'

Paul's take on Jesus, like John's, has gnostic elements. In gnosticism, a common view is that God is absolutely pure and accordingly absolutely immaterial. In gnosticism the demiurge, and in Paul and John, Jesus, creates the material world and then acts as mediator between the material world and God. So the demiurge, like Jesus, is thought to pre-exist in heaven with God. Paul says, eg

1 Corinthian 8: 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ , through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

Thus for Paul, the title Lord is distinct from the title God.

The author of John, referring to Jesus as the Logos, says

John 1:2 He was in the beginning, 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not made anything that was made.​

He mixes his uses of the title Lord; sometimes it refers to God eg John 4:1, and sometimes Jesus eg John 6:34, John 11:2.

Direct inference that Jesus is the Lord Almighty, and just not even regarding that, even though it's right there, in the Bible.

I've given you a number of quotes in which Jesus says he's not God; you haven't given me a single quote in which Jesus says "I am God". In the face of Jesus' repeated denial that he's God, in Paul and each of the gospels, how can such an inference possibly be available? As I said, the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist till the 4th century.

So, you aren't presenting things in a scriptural manner, even though you say you are.

First, what do you mean, 'in a scriptural manner'? I'm quoting you what they actually say? And considering that Judaism has no concept of a Triune God, and all of those writing about him are Jews who don't think Yahweh is Triune, any more than their Jesuses do, what else could you reasonably expect?

Second, where did I say I was presenting things 'in a scriptural manner'?

You are presenting 'fake arguments', then arguing against them.

Earlier you said I was using mistranslations, but stepped away from backing that up. You suggested I was citing 'false doctrine' but gave not a single example. Now you're talking about 'fake arguments'. This time be explicit: WHAT 'fake arguments' exactly?

So, here we have, Lord God, for example Adon'ai Elohim , and if there is One Lord, then you are going to have to argue that the words are not talking about what you are presenting, as arguments.
You haven't done that, you haven't refuted anything, and the Bible directly refutes your arguments.

Not until you present me with the part where Jesus says "I am God; I was only joking on the 17 or more times I said I wasn't God and the several times I told Paul I wasn't God."

And digest the significance of the fact that the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist when the NT is written or for more than 200 years afterwards.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul's take on Jesus, like John's, has gnostic elements. In gnosticism, a common view is that God is absolutely pure and accordingly absolutely immaterial. In gnosticism the demiurge, and in Paul and John, Jesus, creates the material world and then acts as mediator between the material world and God. So the demiurge, like Jesus, is thought to pre-exist in heaven with God. Paul says, eg

1 Corinthian 8: 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ , through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

Thus for Paul, the title Lord is distinct from the title God.

The author of John, referring to Jesus as the Logos, says

John 1:2 He was in the beginning, 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not made anything that was made.​

He mixes his uses of the title Lord; sometimes it refers to God eg John 4:1, and sometimes Jesus eg John 6:34, John 11:2.
I've given you a number of quotes in which Jesus says he's not God; you haven't given me a single quote in which Jesus says "I am God". In the face of Jesus' repeated denial that he's God, in Paul and each of the gospels, how can such an inference possibly be available? As I said, the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist till the 4th century.
First, what do you mean, 'in a scriptural manner'? I'm quoting you what they actually say? And considering that Judaism has no concept of a Triune God, and all of those writing about him are Jews who don't think Yahweh is Triune, any more than their Jesuses do, what else could you reasonably expect?

Second, where did I say I was presenting things 'in a scriptural manner'?
Earlier you said I was using mistranslations, but stepped away from backing that up. You suggested I was citing 'false doctrine' but gave not a single example. Now you're talking about 'fake arguments'. This time be explicit: WHAT 'fake arguments' exactly?

Not until you present me with the part where Jesus says "I am God; I was only joking on the 17 or more times I said I wasn't God and the several times I told Paul I wasn't God."

And digest the significance of the fact that the Trinity doctrine doesn't exist when the NT is written or for more than 200 years afterwards.

Hodge podge of ideas. I'm not arguing theories. If you believe it's gnostic, then argue that. If you believe it's just a Jewish Rabbi, then argue that. Or argue whatever you believe, in whatever context. I don't care how you're interpreting those verses because I don't do conceptual math.

There is one Lord , Jesus Christ, [Bible

2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.


You don't have your theory delineated, so you're just saying anything, in any context.

 

[blü 2]

Hodge podge of ideas. I'm not arguing theories.

So you don't want to know why Paul and the author of John think Jesus pre-existed with God in heaven, made the material world, and is the mediator between that world and God? Okay.

If you believe it's gnostic, then argue that.

In what sense did I NOT argue that?

I don't care how you're interpreting those verses because I don't do conceptual math.

Does that mean you can't follow arguments?

There is one Lord , Jesus Christ, [Bible
2 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

2 Corinthians 6:18:and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." [says God]​

Ahm, where does that call Jesus 'Lord Almighty'?

You don't have your theory delineated, so you're just saying anything, in any context.

I don't need a theory to tell you that Jesus never once claims to be God and on no fewer than 17 occasions expressly denies he's God, and is supported by Paul at least twice and by whoever wrote 1 Timothy once.

I don't need a theory to tell you that the Trinity doctrine didn't exist before the 4th century CE.

I don't need a theory to tell you that the churches say the Trinity doctrine is 'a mystery in the strict sense', that they say 'a mystery in the strict sense' means that 'it cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation and cannot be cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed' and that this description is a lengthy synonym for 'a nonsense'.

I don't need a theory to point out that Mark's and Matthew's Jesuses on the cross saying "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" is silly.

However I need the Trinity doctrine to point out that if Jesus is the son of God and God is Father Jesus and Ghost then Jesus is his own father and the Father has no more right to that title than Jesus or the Ghost have.

 

[Augustus]

Right. So the accounts you're describing aren't particularly strong evidence of a historical Jesus.

Depends if we isolate variables and treat them in a vacuum or treat them as part of a world we know things about. I favour the latter approach.

When historical texts mention a human close to their lifetime it is very strong evidence that that human existed. It's not definitive, but it is highly probable without good reason to believe otherwise. That would be the normal historical approach, and I see no reason to make a special exception for Jesus.

That people fabricate magical deeds for humans is well attested to. The mythicist position relies on a timeframe that, AFAIK, is completely without precedent.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's more likely that the mythic elements of the Jesus character were glommed onto a historical person - or maybe an analgam of more than one historical person - than it is that there's no historical "grain of sand" at the centre of the pearl at all.

Still, I don't think that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong, and I don't think the matter is definitively decided; I just think that the evidence we have so far is somewhat more consistent with there being a historical figure or figures at the centre of the Jesus myth.

When you have multiple pieces of historical and anthropological evidence that are far more consistent with a historical person I'd say that very heavily weighs the probabilities in that direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends if we isolate variables and treat them in a vacuum or treat them as part of a world we know things about. I favour the latter approach.

We're talking about one specific variable - historical accounts of Jesus as a real person - so yes, we're talking about this particular thing by itself.

When historical texts mention a human close to their lifetime it is very strong evidence that that human existed. It's not definitive, but it is highly probable without good reason to believe otherwise. That would be the normal historical approach, and I see no reason to make a special exception for Jesus.

It seems begging the question a bit to pin down "their lifetime" to a specific date before establishing that they existed as a historical figure.

That aside: sure. When fantastic stories emerge about someone who supposedly lived in a particular time and place, it's more common for them to have been glommed onto the story of a real person than for the person to have been invented in whole cloth.

Still, we can see cases where there's at least a good chance that the person was entirely fictional. Take Paul Bunyan, for instance.

That people fabricate magical deeds for humans is well attested to. The mythicist position relies on a timeframe that, AFAIK, is completely without precedent.

I'm not sure it's completely without precedent, but it does seem implausible.

When you have multiple pieces of historical and anthropological evidence that are far more consistent with a historical person I'd say that very heavily weighs the probabilities in that direction.

What archaeological evidence?

And any "evidence" that just shows that Christians existed in the 1st or 2nd century isn't reason to decide that a historical Jesus is more likely than a completely mythical Jesus, because the existence of Christians in this time period is consistent with both hypotheses.

 

[David J]

Morality in the Graeco-Roman world was very different to our morality today though. What moral values are self-evident?

Killing, stealing, some ****ing your wife, etc. Its self evident because I wouldn't want it done to myself.

 

[David J]

No, they're examples of Jesus bringing people back to life. There's a difference, both in who's effecting the resurrection and what the implications are. You're blurring lines. The point is, resurrection is something Jesus uniquely effects.


That's beside the point. The specific issue was to name something unique Jesus did.

And easily fabricated. A child could make that up. That was not the type of unprecedented action I was asking for.

 

[firedragon]

Right. So the accounts you're describing aren't particularly strong evidence of a historical Jesus.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's more likely that the mythic elements of the Jesus character were glommed onto a historical person - or maybe an analgam of more than one historical person - than it is that there's no historical "grain of sand" at the centre of the pearl at all.

Still, I don't think that the evidence for a historical Jesus is strong, and I don't think the matter is definitively decided; I just think that the evidence we have so far is somewhat more consistent with there being a historical figure or figures at the centre of the Jesus myth.

What do you think about Josephus's account of Jesus where he mentions James, the brother of Jesus who was supposedly called the Messiah? Dont you think that makes a historical claim for this Jesus person to have existed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think about Josephus's account of Jesus where he mentions James, the brother of Jesus who was supposedly called the Messiah? Dont you think that makes a historical claim for this Jesus person to have existed?

It seems genuine to me. I mentioned that earlier. It's the only positive evidence I've seen for a historical Jesus.

I think it's interesting, though, that it's also evidence against Jesus's divinity.

Josephus fought in a war to defend the claim of Emperor Vespasian as the messiah. Apparently, Josephus knew all about Jesus and his claimed deeds, but rejected Jesus's claim to be the messiah and supported someone else.

I find this interesting, especially considering how fond Christian apologists often are of arguing how Josephus is so close in time to Jesus that Josephus is practically a primary source.

 

[sojourner]

And easily fabricated. A child could make that up. That was not the type of unprecedented action I was asking for.

You asked for examples, not whether those examples could have been fabricated. ANYTHING can be fabricated.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Killing, stealing, some ****ing your wife, etc. Its self evident because I wouldn't want it done to myself.

You are hitting on an important point: someone without empathy is called a sociopath. People who believe that ONLY their religion provides a basis for empathetic behavior have a very low view humanity. In fact they must believe that all the rest of humanity are sociopaths.

 

[Muffled]

You really should study it some day.

I believe you should know me better than that. But let me take a shot. What caused the man to be blind, his sin or his parents sin? Are those concepts previously proven by a word from God? If not they are myths. That doesn't mean they were not correct in wondering that but only that there is no proof of it. So I stand corrected.