Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[FooYang]

Yes, there is completely no evidence that a man lived in the 1st century.

 

[Aurelius]

I have questions about Christ-myth theory still, but one very good point Robert M. Price made is summed up in my question:

How much can we really say we know about a first century figure outside of holy myth?

One finds that we don't know much at all. Unless we're willing to accept the miraculous accounts, which could be as true or false as any other Jesus-like figure.

Really though that means if we doubt the theological portrait- we have so little left it is virtually nothing.

 

[Audie]

I have questions about Christ-myth theory still, but one very good point Robert M. Price made is summed up in my question:

How much can we really say we know about a first century figure outside of holy myth?

One finds that we don't know much at all. Unless we're willing to accept the miraculous accounts, which could be as true or false as any other Jesus-like figure.

Really though that means if we doubt the theological portrait- we have so little left it is virtually nothing.

That is the core of why christianity is fundamentally
uninteresting.

 

[Riders]

I have questions about Christ-myth theory still, but one very good point Robert M. Price made is summed up in my question:

How much can we really say we know about a first century figure outside of holy myth?

One finds that we don't know much at all. Unless we're willing to accept the miraculous accounts, which could be as true or false as any other Jesus-like figure.

Really though that means if we doubt the theological portrait- we have so little left it is virtually nothing.

I do not believe that.We have many other religions who believe their God's and Godesses are myth of maybe myth such as Hindus but still they worship and go to Temple.

It really doesn"t matter if it's myth or not. My question would do the serrnmons and or teachings and practices translate into today's lifestyle in our community in a way
That serves the community and meets the needs of today.

I believe many Christian churches are doing good. I would go to them because
They insist on literal belief in the God man Jesus.

However I have considered taking the United Methodist Church back up on their offer of letting me go visit without becoming a member.

But anyways I do think all in all many churches though I disagree with them are doing good charitable work for the community and is good for the community all in all.

But there are also Buddhist temple a and Hindu temple a Hare Krishna temples that do good too for the community too. So to say Christian's are the only ones is wrong.But our religious communities are vitally important.

 

[Aurelius]

@Riders I certainly didn't mean to imply that beliefs can't translate into action for people. That wouldn't make the belief subject matter historical, even so.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Was meant in the sense: should we isolate each individual bit of evidence and abstract them from their historical context or should we treat them collectively and as part of a world we know something about?

e.g.
Most people referred to in the near-contemporary historical record actually existed.
It's not uncommon for revered humans to develop fictional powers after they die.
It is very uncommon for gods to be invented in (close to) real time and living mostly human lives.
Historical details that it's hard to imagine people inventing are generally treated as credible
etc.

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.

Their purported lifetime is what is relevant here.

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

Are you aware of a precedent?

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this, but AFAIK there isn't one. If someone presents one then I'll revise this opinion.

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

Although Paul Bunyon belonged to a very different 'genre' of tale

What archaeological evidence?

Anthropological. What we know about cults, etc.

 

[David J]

5. Pauline christology held that "Jesus" never had a historical existence, but did have a completely real spiritual existence in heaven as an angelic figure.
This is why Paul does not know of, and never cites, the life or example of a historical Jesus.
He had no historical Jesus to cite.

Reread Romans chapter 1 like I just did (NIV):

1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really though that means if we doubt the theological portrait- we have so little left it is virtually nothing.

... virtually nothing in the sense that Micah and Jeremiah are virtually nothing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The further back we go in history the large bulk of evidence that These Fugures existed relies heavily on their own sacred scriptures. The same goes for Buddha and Krishna. Even in the times of Muhammad there were no records of birth certificates and records were often written down hundreds of years later.

Just like we have only third party proof Christ existed so too with Buddha. Does anyone know of any document in the Buddha’s own handwriting? Nothing can be verified that far back except third party evidence not first hand,

So we could argue did Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or Muhammad also really exist? Could They too not have been all myths? But there is overwhelming spiritual evidence They did indeed exist. The record of Their Lives and teachings by Their followers are more than sufficient proof unless we are calling every Buddhist, Christian and Muslim a liar.

I believe it is factually impossible that all the followers of all These Great Beings all got it wrong or all lied.

Then for those who believe in God there’s another twist. God sent another Messenger Baha’u’llah just recently Who has physical proof of His Own existence and if He is from God then what He says is true and all These Luminaries of the past are acknowledged to have existed by Baha’u’llah and confirmed by His Son.

Another thing. There is no sign from a non existent thing. Where there is a sign there is an existence. So the light we see is proof there is a sun. For a non existent thing has no signs. The signs of Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad and Krishna are evident all over the world for all to see.

These signs are not myths or imaginary but really exist. Hundreds of millions of Christians model their lives upon the teachings of Jesus. And similarly with Krishna, Buddha and Muhammad. If He was non existent neither would His teachings exist nor would there be a community of billions bearing His Name.

 

[Sand Dancer]

No, the only reason I revere or believe in Jesus Christ, besides encountering Him personally, is because He literally came from heaven to live in the flesh on the earth, in a real historical setting, and in fulfillment of prophecy. Immanuel...which means “God with us”.

It was about Hezekiah, Ahaz' son, not Jesus.

 

[Sand Dancer]

[My own bias is that it's credible, even to the point of it becoming the wave of the future.
However, I still keep the question of the historical Jesus on the back burner because at any time a discovery could be made of eyewitness testimony from Jesus, his original disciples, or better yet, from hostile sources. In which case Christ Myth theory would be stood on its head.]

Christ Myth - central tenets:

1. There is no unambiguous reference to a historical, or a Gospel Jesus in the earliest known Christian texts, namely, the seven authentic letters of Paul.

2. There are no relevant historical sources for Jesus in non-Christian sources, because these have either been debunked (e.g., the Testimonium Flavianum in its several versions);
or
are simply too late (Pliny-Tacitus, Celsus, etc.). These latter merely explain what their contemporary Christian peers were saying about Jesus, and do not use early sources from Jesus's own lifetime.

3. Thus the historian is thrown back, and narrowly, on Paul.

4. Paul was citing the earliest christology, which was shared by James, John and Cephas, "the Jerusalem Pillars".

5. Pauline christology held that "Jesus" never had a historical existence, but did have a completely real spiritual existence in heaven as an angelic figure.
This is why Paul does not know of, and never cites, the life or example of a historical Jesus.
He had no historical Jesus to cite.

6. Paul says that this celestial figure "emptied himself" (Paul calls it "kenosis") and entered the sphere of the lower heavens, where he was "found" (probably by Satan) to be "in the likeness or form" of a man and of a servant. This is the Pauline "Incarnation", but it happened in the sublunar celestial sphere, not on geophysical earth.

7. The original Gospel or "Good News" was announced via a series of mystical experiences in which Jesus himself made it known that he had "incarnated", suffered, died, had been buried (again, this transpired in the lower heaven, not earth), and then been raised back to his previous position at God's "right hand".

8. The risen Jesus originally did not involve a resuscitation of the corpse of a dead Galilean carpenter-sage, but rather the raising up of a preexistent spiritual Jesus as "heavenly Adam".
If there was ever an empty tomb, it was located in the lower heaven, not in the suburbs of ancient Jerusalem.

9. Heaven was considered to be the grand model of creation, the earth only being a kind of shadowy duplicate of heaven. Heaven had residents, gardens, temples, rivers, and soil (wherein Adam was said to be buried, and where Jesus was temporarily buried prior to his resurrection).
This is supported by the Letter to the Hebrews which depicts the risen Jesus entering the heavenly city of Jerusalem, entering the heavenly Temple with its heavenly sanctuary.

10. Because there was no historical Jesus who died and rose again, there was originally no tradition of a risen Jesus who walked with disciples, broke bread with them, or permitted them to prove his crucifixion wounds.

11. Such material resurrection narratives only arose with the first Gospel, Mark.

12. Mark's Gospel is the first known expression of a process of historicizing an originally heavenly, non-material Christ into a biographical person with a personal history and career. This process of concretization, reification and solidification created the Jesus of the Christ Myth theory out of the spiritual Jesus of the earlier celestial Christ revelations. This process is called "euhemerization".

13. To the commonplace objection by mainstream/historicist exegetes, namely, that "No mainstream scholars accept Christ Myth theory!", mythicists retort that - as has been said of the sciences generally - knowledge proceeds one funeral at a time. That is, the issue is not the popularity of the mythical Jesus model, or about the number of scholars who support it. The issue is only about serious, relentless searching for evidence. So far, no such evidence for a historical or a Gospel Jesus has been disclosed.

What do you think?

How plausible is Jesus's existence in view of Christ Myth claims?
[Recall that Paul never mentions Jesus's supposed miracles, cures, exorcisms, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the raising of the dead, his Torah teaching, his conflicts with Pharisees, priests, and his own family and disciples, his trial and arrest, etc.]

What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?

If you're a Christian, could you, like the ancient Gnostic and Docetic Christians, revere a wholly non-material Christ who never lived on earth "in the flesh"?

So much of the Bible was taken from previous myth that it's hard to tell if any of the NT is historical.

 

[InChrist]

It was about Hezekiah, Ahaz' son, not Jesus.

That is your view, but often the prophetic passages had double meanings/fulfillment’s...present and future. It appears Matthew, a Jew who knew Jesus believed it was in reference to Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is your view, but often the prophetic passages had double meanings/fulfillment’s...present and future. It appears Matthew, a Jew who knew Jesus believed it was in reference to Jesus.

That is an unjustified excuse that Christian use when It is found that their "prophecies" are misapplied. There is nothing in the Bible that I know of that justifies that practice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So much of the Bible was taken from previous myth that it's hard to tell if any of the NT is historical.

The more one studies the historicity of Jesus the more credible the Christ Myth Theory seems.

 

[InChrist]

That is an unjustified excuse that Christian use when It is found that their "prophecies" are misapplied. There is nothing in the Bible that I know of that justifies that practice.

Except the reality of fulfilled prophecy justifies it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except the reality of fulfilled prophecy justifies it.

But they aren't. It is merely matching of stories that are slightly close. All of the Bible prophecies that I am aware of are failed prophecies.

 

[Augustus]

The more one studies the historicity of Jesus the more credible the Christ Myth Theory seems.

If increased study makes it more credible, why do almost no secular academic historians put any stock in it whatsoever?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If increased study makes it more credible, why do almost no secular academic historians put any stock in it whatsoever?

Too many grew up with the stories. Even if one is no longer a Christian it is hard to drop all beliefs.

Try dropping the appeal to authority and look at what evidence there is for his existence.

 

[Augustus]

Too many grew up with the stories. Even if one is no longer a Christian it is hard to drop all beliefs.

Nowadays, especially in Europe, many people weren't even raised Christian to begin with. Irreligion is more common than religion.

Given a wildly disproportionate number of anti-theists subscribe to the Myth theory, it also doesn't seem to be that hard at all to 'drop all beliefs' when it matches with ones desires and preconceived notions.

I find it hard to put much stock in the belief that 'they're all biased and/or overly credulous except those with a strong dislike of Christianity who are fair and balanced in their approach.'

Try dropping the appeal to authority and look at what evidence there is for his existence.

Enough evidence to make it significantly more probable that he did exist. The evidence is far more credibly explained by a historical person around who a larger mythical tradition developed than a completely fictitious person who was (very badly) invented by persons unknown.

 

[Spartan]

The prophecy says that the child's name will be called Emanuel. Jesus' name is not Emanuel and he did not fulfill this prophecy.

There was no time limit on that prophecy. Jesus is celebrated as Emanuel in countless churches around the world. In fact, many churches are called by that name.

Prophecy fulfilled.