Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[Muffled]

The myths in the Bible are called parables. Two of them are The Vineyard Isaiah 5, and the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden. It will be the parable at the Messiah's trial and it pretty much sums up the Bible. Psalm 49:4, Psalm 78:2.

I believe you are incorrect. The parables are not myths. They are instructional fictional stories to teach a moral lesson.

Adam and Eve is not a mythical story but an account of what happened by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Which myth of the Bible are you taking about now? I need some context.

 

[Muffled]

If you mean Mark's Jesus' not being descended from David, 12:35-37.

Otherwise, what part of my argument?

I do not believe that is what that says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are incorrect. The parables are not myths. They are instructional fictional stories to teach a moral lesson.

Adam and Eve is not a mythical story but an account of what happened by God.

No, there is no reason to think that parables are stories based upon reality. And you appear not to be a Christian according to your own standards:

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’


Also we know that there never were only two people. How does that fit in with the Adam and Eve myth?

EDIT: My apologies. You seemed to take unjust loathing of the term "myth". Myths are often fictional instructional stories. Just what you claimed the parables to be

 

[Muffled]

Which myth of the Bible are you taking about now? I need some context.

I believe I was referring to this passage: John 9:1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I was referring to this passage: John 9:1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Why didn't you read the rest of it? You appear not to have understood it.In that verse and others Jesus denies the concept of original sin. He claimed that God made him blind so that he could cure him. That seems to be a rather poor use of a human being, but that is the Bible for you. Immoral acts justified in almost every book.

 

[Muffled]

No, there is no reason to think that parables are stories based upon reality. And you appear not to be a Christian according to your own standards:

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’


Also we know that there never were only two people. How does that fit in with the Adam and Eve myth?

So the parable of building on shifting sand has no basis in reality because sand doesn't shift?

I believe what you think you know is mythical.

Evidently I have to repeat myself because you managed to miss it the first time. It is not a myth but is an account by God. I believe your views don't fit in with reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the parable of building on shifting sand has no basis in reality because sand doesn't shift?

I believe what you think you know is mythical.

Evidently I have to repeat myself because you managed to miss it the first time. It is not a myth but is an account by God. I believe your views don't fit in with reality.

As I said in my edit the flaw appears to be yours. You do not seem to know what myths are. They are quite often "fictional instructional stories". The parables were myths. They had a lesson to teach. The Adam and Eve story is a myth. It too may have a lesson to teach.

 

[Audie]

Adam and Eve is not a mythical story but an account of what happened by God.

We know that. It's just that the god and the
story are not real.

Are you ESL?

 

[Muffled]

Why didn't you read the rest of it? You appear not to have understood it.In that verse and others Jesus denies the concept of original sin. He claimed that God made him blind so that he could cure him. That seems to be a rather poor use of a human being, but that is the Bible for you. Immoral acts justified in almost every book.

I believe I have read the rest of it many times but I don't jump to conclusions. I believe the passage refers to a specific instance not a general principle. When you reason from detail to general you are guilty of faulty logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have read the rest of it many times but I don't jump to conclusions. I believe the passage refers to a specific instance not a general principle. When you reason from detail to general you are guilty of faulty logic.

Why would it do that? Of course that story is not a parable, it is another fiction of the New Testament a supposed miracle of Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

As I said in my edit the flaw appears to be yours. You do not seem to know what myths are. They are quite often "fictional instructional stories". The parables were myths. They had a lesson to teach. The Adam and Eve story is a myth. It too may have a lesson to teach.

I believe you are correct I do have a different definition of Myth. For me a myth is unproven history. Since the parables are fiction they can never be that. I will tell you a third time. Adam and Eve is an account by God.

 

[Muffled]

Why would it do that? Of course that story is not a parable, it is another fiction of the New Testament a supposed miracle of Jesus.

I believe your concept of what it is is actually the fiction. I believe it is a true account of what Jesus said and did.

 

[Muffled]

We know that. It's just that the god and the
story are not real.

Are you ESL?

I don't believe yo know half of what you think you know. You think your own thoughts are truth but that is as funny as it gets.

 

[firedragon]

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.

The other account of Josephus and Jesus is an interpolation.

The James-Jesus relationship is authentic. And yes brother. There is not much historical evidence or much information about Jesus otherwise. Its similar to Muhammed as well (Just saying though not relevant and not the same). But I think mythicists are shooting too far.

 

[Audie]

I don't believe yo know half of what you think you know. You think your own thoughts are truth but that is as funny as it gets.

A) Of course; that is what "believers" do. They just
believe things. Who cares if it is made up.

B) As a good nominal Christian, the injunction
against bearing false witness should be no prob.

C) Your comments are 100% unresponsive to
what I said, but hey, it provided you a platform
for some of that good Christian calumny and
baloney.

 

[Audie]

The other account of Josephus and Jesus is an interpolation.

The James-Jesus relationship is authentic. And yes brother. There is not much historical evidence or much information about Jesus otherwise. Its similar to Muhammed as well (Just saying though not relevant and not the same). But I think mythicists are shooting too far.

if them mythitarians are swingin' too wide a loop,
whatabout "believers"?

 

[Audie]

I believe your concept of what it is is actually the fiction. I believe it is a true account of what Jesus said and did.

it is what "believers" do. It is why they are called
that. They just believe things. And are proud of themselves
for the achievement.


There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

-Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll

 

[firedragon]

if them mythitarians are swingin' too wide a loop,
whatabout "believers"?

They are too.

 

[blü 2]

I do not believe that is what that says.

What do you think it says instead? If it didn't say that, why in your view is it there at all?