Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[Terry Sampson]

Again, I challenge anyone in here. What did Jesus do that was unprecedented by humanity? Morality is self evident. It existed in his time.

"Unprecedented"? Based on my brief observation of opinions stated here in RF and elsewhere, I'd say the answer is debatable
However, IMO (which of course, is also an unjustified belief and equally debatable), I say Jesus was, at the very least, a righteous man. And according to Proverbs 10:25, "When the storm passes the wicked man is gone, But the righteous is an everlasting foundation."

Factually unprecedented by humanity? Well, if Jesus had never existed, I wouldn't be Terry Sampson; I'd be John Sterling Mayfield. Take my word for it: I'm very happy to be Terry Sampson and not John Mayfield.

 

[firedragon]

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?

I understand your point and agree that if historically they never existed then their religions would not exist.

But im speaking about now. The religions exist. And according to those religions in their fundamental teachings, even if these people are proven to have not existed today, their theologies will exist. Thats how it is. Because these religions unlike Christianity does not make any of these people divine. Only God.

So take them out, the theologies would not change.

Cheers.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

Actually it isn't. It might be explaining why you left a fake version of christianity, though.

 

[David J]

Actually it isn't. It might be explaining why you left a fake version of christianity, though.

Please elaborate

 

[sojourner]

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.



Agreed.

Wait... why is the view between a mythical and truthful Jesus either "arbitrary" or "cherry picking?" (For the record, I never said Jesus was "mythical." I said he was presented as mythic. I was referring to the OP when I mentioned mythical.) In what way do you view the texts as "weak?" I'm starting to get some red flags here that you either don't have a good grasp of biblical literature and the study of it, and/or you're unduly biased against the texts.

 

[Augustus]

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 is far more consistent with a significantly embellished biography of a real person than a completely mythical person. A completely mythical person wouldn't require such convoluted attempts to make him meet the messianic expectations of prophecy such as getting the lower-class Jesus of Nazareth to be born in Bethlehem of the lineage of King David.

 

[sojourner]

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

There's a "message?" What is that "message?" Why do you think God used the bible to propagate that "message?" The bible never touts itself as a "message-bearer."

 

[Augustus]

Morality is self evident. It existed in his time.

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

 

[Desert Snake]

Please elaborate

One way that we might infer that the Gospels, and of course thusly the Epistles, were written authentically, is because churches might goof something, an interpretation, in the text.

If they don't know something, they obviously didn't write it.

The thing is, John writes differently from Matthew and Mark.
So, if you read all the Gospels, you have to figure what the religion context is, outside of, say, one writer being more mystical, like Yohanan. That doesn't mean it's made up, or such, though.

I don't have a problem with 'variables', though,

Im not a lost sheep,

Concerning the basis of religion perspective.

 

[sojourner]

Again, I challenge anyone in here.

What did Jesus do that was unprecedented by humanity?

Morality is self evident. It existed in his time.

Resurrection is a glaring example.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The Sacrifice is real, conditional, only for believers, and Spiritual. Has nothing to do with a priestly sacrifice.

John 10
John 10:17

 

[Terry Sampson]

I understand your point and agree that if historically they never existed then their religions would not exist.

Well, I'm relieved that we can agree on that.
My post, to which you replied, was in response to the OP's question:

What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?

But im speaking about now. The religions exist. And according to those religions in their fundamental teachings, even if these people are proven to have not existed today, their theologies will exist. Thats how it is. Because these religions unlike Christianity does not make any of these people divine. Only God.

So take them out, the theologies would not change.

Hmmm, ... I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that the theologies (or philosophy in the case of Buddhism) as they exist today, would remain the same even if the persons in question were proven to have not existed. I'd like to see a "Would the theologies change or not If X were proven never to have existed" Seminar, covering Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism . That could be fun to follow. I say they would, substantially; and you say they wouldn't substantially, if at all.

For kicks, ... it might be interesting to test-run the idea here in RF and see what kind of response we get.

A final comment regarding the apparent importance that you place on the doctrine of Christ's divinity. But I think I'll save that for a subsequent message.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I'm relieved that we can agree on that.
My post, to which you replied, was in response to the OP's question:






Hmmm, ... I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that the theologies (or philosophy in the case of Buddhism) as they exist today, would remain the same even if the persons in question were proven to have not existed. I'd like to see a "Would the theologies change or not If X were proven never to have existed" Seminar, covering Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism . That could be fun to follow. I say they would, substantially; and you say they wouldn't substantially, if at all.

For kicks, ... it might be interesting to test-run the idea here in RF and see what kind of response we get.

A final comment regarding the apparent importance that you place on the doctrine of Christ's divinity. But I think I'll save that for a subsequent message.

I think I have not explained properly. Let me try.

Akkosam wadhabandhamcha adhuttoyo thithikkathi
Kanthi balam balanikam thamahan boomi brahmanan - Dammapada.

He who without anger endures scrutiny, beating and punishment, whose power and powerful force is "patience" - him I call a braahmaṇa.

This is Buddhist teaching. Thats their salvation. No Sidhdhartha needed anymore. (Fundamentally)

 

[Terry Sampson]

I think I have not explained properly. Let me try.

Actually, ... I think you may have, ... at least I think, based on my slight familiarity with a couple of Buddhist adherents in RF, that your proposal (i.e. the person of Siddhartha is proven to have never existed) might well leave some, possibly even a majority, of Buddhists unfazed. I still think it would be interesting to run that flag up the pole to see what kind of reaction it gets.

But regarding Abraham and Mohammed, I'm still inclined to believe that it would be harder to sell among all but the Humanist, and maybe the Reformed Jews. Strict Noachides may handle a mythical Abraham, but the majority of Moslems a missing Mohammed? really? I find that hard to believe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

[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"?

Jodo Shinshu Buddhism. A wonderful and unspeakably glorious belief.

Without a doubt Jesus existed and is as real a historical person to me as yours and my belief in AmitAbha Buddha. I recite that glorious name each and everyday. It is so amazing your religion. I love it and it is a part of me too.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, ... I think you may have, ... at least I think, based on my slight familiarity with a couple of Buddhist adherents in RF, that your proposal (i.e. the person of Siddhartha is proven to have never existed) might well leave some, possibly even a majority, of Buddhists unfazed. I still think it would be interesting to run that flag up the pole to see what kind of reaction it gets.

But regarding Abraham and Mohammed, I'm still inclined to believe that it would be harder to sell among all but the Humanist, and maybe the Reformed Jews. Strict Noachides may handle a mythical Abraham, but the majority of Moslems a missing Mohammed? really? I find that hard to believe.

The thing is, you have mixed up feelings and beliefs of "people" but missed the fundamental or central scriptural teaching of the theology. What people think and do is very different. Buddhists will be devastated and faith broken if you are to prove that Siddhartha is a myth. They will kill and be killed. They worship Sidhartha. They pray to him.

A little of that goes to muslim as well.

I am talking about the central teachings of the scripture/religion. Not what people believe.

cheers.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The thing is, you have mixed up feelings and beliefs of "people" but missed the fundamental or central scriptural teaching of the theology.

Maybe. Like I said, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the missing persons and the potential consequences for the "central scriptural teaching of the theology." I think I'll put it to test here in RF.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Resurrection is a glaring example.

If the Bible is to be believed, then there were plenty of resurrections before and at the same time as Jesus.

If the Bible isn't to be believed, its claims of resurrection don't matter.

 

[firedragon]

Maybe. Like I said, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the missing persons and the potential consequences for the "central scriptural teaching of the theology." I think I'll put it to test here in RF.

Regards

Alles gut.

 

[sojourner]

If the Bible is to be believed, then there were plenty of resurrections before and at the same time as Jesus.

If the Bible isn't to be believed, its claims of resurrection don't matter.

Care to enumerate them?