Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[David J]

Problem with that is, Jesus taught things that weren't explained, in scripture.

That is the nature of a actual teaching, written down by scribes.

The church goofed on some things, also. Why would they goof on something they wrote?

So, if it is "mythical", it was not invented by the church, although they tried to shape christianity using the textual material of course

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it's only further undermining the biblical source.

 

[David J]

Perhaps because you're looking for science. These aren't science texts. In fact, Jesus comes to us with a broad disclosure: "You who have seen me have seen the Father." (John 14:9)

My point is that it's easy to fabricate this story.

 

[sojourner]

My point is that it's easy to fabricate this story.

It's easy to fabricate ANY story. That's why storytelling was the main form of passing along communication in the ancient world. Fabricated or not (and, for the record, I think that the Gospels are full of mythic accounts of Jesus [that is, not "fake," but "larger-than-life]), the Gospels speak a lot of truth about the human spiritual condition. My point is not to dismiss the mythic surrounding Jesus, but to put it into its proper perspective. There's credible evidence that a man named Jesus existed. There's also ample evidence that his existence was made legendary. The OP suggests that the myths were created out of whole cloth by Paul. I suggest that they grew up around a teacher who showed a great act of love.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was trying to show that it was most unlikely to have happened. As such it'd be consistent with at the least a fictitious biography added onto a virtually unknown historical Jesus, and with no more effort, consistent with a wholly imaginary Jesus.

It's also consistent with being a made-up story about a real person, so it's useless for deciding that a "wholly imaginary Jesus" is more likely than a Jesus who was real but had fake stuff written about him.

Yes, the use of a name meaning Son-of-Father is odd from any angle; it could almost be a joke played by an Aramaic speaker on a Greek speaker, but the context doesn't fit that view.

In any case, I don't believe that this episode happened as described. I still don't see this as a reason to conclude that there aren't any nuggets of historicity in the Jesus myth at all.

In my view, we don't need an historical Jesus at all to explain Paul or the gospels. It's simply one of the two possibilities.

We don't? I think that there are elements of the Gospels that are better explained by a historical Jesus... particularly the parts where Jesus behaves erratically or contrary to the principles he espouses. If Jesus was a real person who behaved erratically sometimes, this would explain how these passages got into the Bible. This is much harder to explain if we assume that Jesus is entirely mythic: why would the person crafting this mythic story include material that goes against his overall message?

As for Paul, Acts and the Epistles describe him having disagreements with the Apostles:

Incident at Antioch - Wikipedia

If we take these at face value, they suggest a group of people who thought that they knew the "truth" of Jesus and how his followers to behave, and that the way they knew this was independent of Paul.

Again: if Paul - or someone on his behalf - was creating this myth from whole cloth, why create this disagreement and criticism of Paul? If anything, it makes him look worse than he would have if he had invented Apostles who agreed with him.

On the one hand, we'll never know. On the other, since he did get it from somewhere, which seems more likely ─ from a hard source like an official record, or from reports whose origin was Christian, if not the informer himself?

It seems like he got it from official records. He's describing the proceedings of a trial.

The context of the quote is that Josephus is describing Ananus, who was high judge at the time, and who Josephus tries to portray as especially strict and harsh in his interpretation of the law.

Or someone's version of them. Paul's earthly bio of Jesus will fit in two lines. Mark's can be mapped onto the Tanakh, a fictitious fulfillment-of-purported-prophecy Jesus, and the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke, and the later Jesus of John, are all reliant on Mark.
As to how Josephus would know about him, as above; as a story, give some thought to Bart Ehrman's view ─ that what accounted for its popularity out of all the other stories in an age of stories was the idea of a real resurrection that made resurrection available to all.

But the original version of the oldest Gospel had no resurrection. In the original version of Mark, the book ends with an empty tomb and everyone being confused and afraid.

But your question also touches on the heart of the problem ─ if there was an historical Jesus, how come all the followers we know about have not a clue about who he really was.

Most, not all.

Paul certainly mostly preached to Gentiles, amd mostly not in Judea, so his audience wouldn't have been in a position to know Jesus personally.

... but the Bible does describe conflicts between Paul and the Jewish Christians in Judea who did seem to appeal to a tradition that was independent of Paul.

 

[David J]

It's easy to fabricate ANY story. That's why storytelling was the main form of passing along communication in the ancient world. Fabricated or not (and, for the record, I think that the Gospels are full of mythic accounts of Jesus [that is, not "fake," but "larger-than-life]), the Gospels speak a lot of truth about the human spiritual condition. My point is not to dismiss the mythic surrounding Jesus, but to put it into its proper perspective. There's credible evidence that a man named Jesus existed. There's also ample evidence that his existence was made legendary. The OP suggests that the myths were created out of whole cloth by Paul. I suggest that they grew up around a teacher who showed a great act of love.

Ok. I know my arguments are regarding a real, historically divine Jesus. But all we really have are the synoptic gospels.

The people who dismiss the divinity of Jesus but insist he's a real, historical person, are just cherry picking.

 

[sojourner]

Ok. I know my arguments are regarding a real, historically divine Jesus. But all we really have are the synoptic gospels.

The people who dismiss the divinity of Jesus but insist he's a real, historical person, are just cherry picking.

First of all, what do you mean by "cherry picking?" The search for the historic Jesus is a legitimate scholastic exercise. It has revealed much about the man and the texts that bring him to us. It helps in the exegetical process. We have to separate the man from the myth. I don't see that as cherry picking. I see it as responsible scholasticism. Only when we separate the history from the myth can we arrive at a truer picture of the Jesus figure.

Second, I think we need to parse out just what's going on in the texts, and who is pushing what perspective. What is a "real, historically Divine Jesus?" What definitions and parameters are we using? What does it mean for Jesus to be "Divine?"

Third, I think we need to set some theological parameters. What model are we using? Classic, Trinitarian theology? Celtic theology? Gnostic theology? What? What theological construct will define the Divinity of a historic figure?

We have the synoptics, but let's not discount John, Q, Thomas, and Paul. What do these sources tell us about the theology surrounding Jesus? What do they tell us about the man? What do they tell us about the nature of his Divinity?

So far, all we have is a half-baked theory. If you're going to opine about Jesus' Divinity, what's the theology behind that opinion? I think we need to begin there.

 

[firedragon]

Christianity without a historical Jesus would look kind of like

• Judaism without an Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
• Islam without a Mohammed; and
  
• Buddism without a Siddartha Gautama.

From a central theological point of view, none of these theologies as described in its most fundamental basics of their own respective theologies, they would all exist without any of these figures. Very much unlike Christianity where Jesus is God himself. That is if you consider these religions or theologies without all the frills and hero worshiping extras not so much described in the central scriptures.

Judaism is about God. Islam is about God. Buddhism is about personal salvation (very narrowly put). These figures you mentioned are just figures while the theology or central philosophy should fundamentally exist.

Again, very different to Christianity where without Jesus, there is nothing.

 

[David J]

First of all, what do you mean by "cherry picking?" The search for the historic Jesus is a legitimate scholastic exercise. It has revealed much about the man and the texts that bring him to us. It helps in the exegetical process. We have to separate the man from the myth. I don't see that as cherry picking. I see it as responsible scholasticism.

I agree. The search for "the historic Jesus is a legitimate scholastic exercise" is what I want too.
Everyone in here wants that too.

Cherry picking, in our discussion, is about your arbitrary view between a mythical and truthful Jesus. It's based on your weak biblical books.

So far, all we have is a half-baked theory.

Agreed.

 

[wizanda]

He never shed any physics

The 10 commandments are quantum physics, and are the first 10 dimensions to ascend to Heaven; Yeshua told us to follow these to gain eternal life (Matthew 19:16-17), which seen in my own NDE.

I don't find anything profound in the writings.

The level of intricacy of the Tanakh interlinking with Yeshua's parables is equatable to computer code; where I've recoded a whole object orientation Content Management System, and found his words have more complexities.

Isaiah 5 + Isaiah 28:9-19 (Ezekiel 7:26) = Isaiah 53 + Zechariah 11 = Jeremiah 25 + Daniel 9 = Parable of the Wicked-Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19)

Like when we understand all of that context properly, we'd be in amazement at the Mighty Work across time.

astronomy

Matthew 24:29 But immediately after the oppression of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of the sky and its constellations (Orion) will not give their light. The sun will be darkened in its going out, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

Betelgeuse is the right arm of Orion, it is about to explode, and become either a blackhole or a supernova; which will then cause the rest of the affects referenced, where the sky will be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14).

biology, chemistry

The Holy Anointing oil (Exodus 30:23-25) should contain Kaneh Bosem (Cannabis), in Mark 6:13 the Disciples healed many illnesses with it, and in James 5:14 the early church healed the sick with it...

Until some clever organization removed it from religious texts globally (Zoroastrians had Haoma, Hindus had Soma, and Hebraic had Kaneh Bosem).

The chemistry taking place, that was originally given to Moses, and then Christ taught it can heal everyone; mixes multiple refined oils, which when THC is added becomes a molecular compound with advanced healing properties.

Tho some of the oils will absorb through the skin, THC being fat soluble makes it an advanced biological medicine that absorbs the nutrition, and healing elements as needed, without needing to pierce the skin.

Jesus never offered any teaching that was scientifically unprecedented, he just relied on supernatural magic.

The whole world doesn't follow him, and have been led to be Antichrist, so why bother teaching people who don't want to listen; instead Yeshua came to lay a Snare (Isaiah 8) to catch out all of the ungodly, and then remove them in a single day - which is soon, after Israel and Iran start Armageddon.

Like Yeshua came to challenge the Sanhedrin for murdering prophets as atoning sacrifices; so the idea of teaching he came to die for sins, is the whole point - people don't listen, they look for reward.

In my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. The search for "the historic Jesus is a legitimate scholastic exercise" is what I want too.
Everyone in here wants that too.

I'm a bit ambivalent about it, honestly. I think the question is a bit interesting, but really only as a historical curiosity.

I find, say, the question of whether Homer was a real historical figure to be more interesting.

 

[blü 2]

It's also consistent with being a made-up story about a real person, so it's useless for deciding that a "wholly imaginary Jesus" is more likely than a Jesus who was real but had fake stuff written about him.

As I said, I think the odds of an historical Jesus are 50-50.

In any case, I don't believe that this episode happened as described. I still don't see this as a reason to conclude that there aren't any nuggets of historicity in the Jesus myth at all.

I mentioned the many instances where he denigrates his mother as a possible indication of a real person.

We don't? I think that there are elements of the Gospels that are better explained by a historical Jesus... particularly the parts where Jesus behaves erratically or contrary to the principles he espouses.

But we have five Jesuses, each one reported in accordance his writer's taste, and all of them subject to later insertions and alterations by copyists. So you may be right, or they're just stories.

If Jesus was a real person who behaved erratically sometimes

That only works if he behaves erratically relative to the picture given of him by the same particular author or synoptically copied by another author who either doesn't notice or doesn't mind the inconsistency. From memory there's an example or two of the latter kind in Luke.

, this would explain how these passages got into the Bible. This is much harder to explain if we assume that Jesus is entirely mythic: why would the person crafting this mythic story include material that goes against his overall message?

Because only in the very broadest sense is there 'an overall message'. Each of the writers has a difference view of Jesus and a different view of his message. Was it you who noted earlier that Jesus is steadily 'improved' from Mark, the earliest, to John, the last?

If we take these at face value, they suggest a group of people who thought that they knew the "truth" of Jesus and how his followers to behave, and that the way they knew this was independent of Paul.

I'm aware of the argument that since the letters of Paul aren't known until the second century and are associated with the church's quarrels with Marcion, Paul is a fiction from that period. My own view is that it's very unlikely that some forger could invent such a 3D idiosyncratic personality; but of course Paul never met an historical Jesus, and his earthly bio of Jesus in total would fit in two lines. Paul's Jesus was far less of this earth than any of the synoptic Jesuses.

But the original version of the oldest Gospel had no resurrection. In the original version of Mark, the book ends with an empty tomb and everyone being confused and afraid.

Yes, just the empty tomb, but the messenger at the tomb adds, 'The boss says to tell you he'll see you in Galilee'.

 

[David J]

I'm a bit ambivalent about it, honestly. I think the question is a bit interesting, but really only as a historical curiosity.

I find, say, the question of whether Homer was a real historical figure to be more interesting.

Yeah, but Homer doesn't have over a billion followers and has a calendar with national holidays.


Edit: don't take this the wrong way, I'm agnostic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?"

No. There's a reason it's a fringe theory.

 

[firedragon]

[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"?

Im impressed with your post brother. Its pretty comprehensive and if one person is to answer to every point they would have to write a complete thesis. So kudos.

This reply is not responding to your points point by point.

1. None of the books in the Bible was written by anyone who has ever met Jesus. So as you maybe assessing they are all based on hearsay. But that hearsay lingered as early as Paul which is earliest writings. Paul did make things up as I believe but based on a historical figure. He just made up the theology. Not the person. Also, the gospels were written by some people who inherited information about Jesus. Thus, there is more chance of a Historical Jesus to have existed, though the hearsay may not represent exactly what he said or did. Also you should note that the book titled gospel of Luke does cite that he has knowledge of sources that has Jesus which he has learned of himself and he is only writing a new Theophilus.

2. Testimonium Flavianum as a whole has never been "debunked" as you say. What was debunked by scholars is the miracle working Jesus episode but not the "brother of James" episode in the chapter 9. It is a fleeting mention but is a mention.

3. Paul did not agree with James. They had opposing views of the theology. So Paul was not quoting the Christology of James.

4. Paul does not quote the life of Jesus because he has his own theology to promote. And he never knew Jesus. Plus, his agenda was to oppose James and his version. Nevertheless, the Kenosis theory is based on ekenosen of Phillipians 2:7 which I'm sure you know. But that is not prevalent throughout all of his letters. One of the predominant christian arguments is that it simply means that Jesus emptied himself of his divine nature just to be born as a man but he was still God.

5. Just because Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius were writing 8 decades or so later does not mean they made the character up or they inherited made up stories. They are third party, non-religious writers so it may very well be historical information they used. This you cannot negate as fictitious simply because of the time distance.

Cheers.

 

[David J]

This reply is not responding to your points point by point.

1. None of the books in the Bible was written by anyone who has ever met Jesus. So as you maybe assessing they are all based on hearsay. But that hearsay lingered as early as Paul which is earliest writings. Paul did make things up as I believe but based on a historical figure. He just made up the theology. Not the person.

What did Paul make up?

 

[Audie]

One reason I dont believe it is that
'god" did such a crappy job
of getting the message out.

 

[Audie]

What did Paul make up?

The snake story is fake.

 

[firedragon]

What did Paul make up?

Brother. If its a faith matter to you I apologise.

 

[Terry Sampson]

From a central theological point of view, none of these theologies as described in its most fundamental basics of their own respective theologies, they would all exist without any of these figures. Very much unlike Christianity where Jesus is God himself. That is if you consider these religions or theologies without all the frills and hero worshiping extras not so much described in the central scriptures.

Judaism is about God. Islam is about God. Buddhism is about personal salvation (very narrowly put). These figures you mentioned are just figures while the theology or central philosophy should fundamentally exist.

Again, very different to Christianity where without Jesus, there is nothing.

You have a bolder imagination than I do.

From where I sit, without an Abraham, there would have been no Isaac or Jacob, and no Jews in Egypt, no Israel, no Jesus, and the Qur'an's references to Isa and his mother, to the people of the Torah and the gospel of Jesus would been remarkably odd. Could God have called and made promises to another person. Sure. But removing Abraham from the picture doesn't seem to me as easy as lifting a house off it's foundation and setting it on a new foundation. It seems more like building a whole new house. Reminds me of a story I once heard: Jones goes to the doctor and says, “Doc, I’m suffering from cancer.” Doc says, “No problem. Got the cure right here.” Doc pulls out a gun and shoots Jones in the cranium. Doc buzzes the intercom and says, “Nurse, send in Smith.” Smith comes in and Doc says, “You’re now Jones, and you’re cured.”

Your initial point, that none of the the other theologies as described in its most fundamental basics, would all exist without Abraham, Mohammed, and Siddhartha. IMO, that's an intriguing notion tantamount to assuming that nothing changes when the Doctor shoots the first Mr. Jones: the world just moves right along on schedule, nothing else changes, and no one notices that the second Mr. Jones isn't the first Mr. Jones. I find that hard to believe, so much so that I say it's incredible.

Granted, I'm sure traditional Jews wouldn't miss Jesus at all. But it would be interesting to see how many would miss Abraham. Moslems, on the other hand, would be scratching their heads wondering: who's this Isa and his mother Miryam that the Angel Gabriel told Mohammed about. And if we assume that that there was no Jesus, can Islam's Allah make an error?

As for Siddhartha Gautama going missing, .... trusty Wikipedia tells me: "Accounts of his life, discourses and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later." So, if we take Siddhartha out of the picture, how many collections of teachings attributed to him get passed down by oral tradition, and who are they attributed to now?

Seems to me that rewriting history in the absence of the persons mentioned would require a fair amount of creative thought.

That said, there remains a point, albeit an implicit one, in my post to which you responded, which is: once we start down the road of eliminating people from history who don't have solid evidence to back up their existence, much less apocryphal biographies, how far shall we go? I am told about "The Jesus Seminar", which apparently was "to die for". Is anyone planning a "The Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Seminar"? maybe in Jerusalem? or a "The Mohammed Seminar" in the Middle East? or a "Siddhartha Gautama Seminar" some place in Southeast Asia?

 

[David J]

Again, I challenge anyone in here.

What did Jesus do that was unprecedented by humanity?

Morality is self evident. It existed in his time.