Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[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.

Your claim is false. Jesus is known and called Emanuel in numerous churches today. There's even any number of churches called Emanuel. There's even songs dedicated to Jesus / Emanuel.

And the prophecy did not give a time limit on when it had to be fulfilled.

So, your premise is false.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I would like to point out that Jewish sources have stories of miracle workers roughly contemporary with Jesus. Honi the circle drawer is supposed to have performed miracles, some at a distance.

 

[Spartan]

So if we all admitted Jesus is a Myth like he is, then we will still have Christianity just like we still have Heathenism and Asatru religions.

Once again, the dedicated Christ-deniers haven't done their homework. They refuse to do their homework.

A great many of these Christ-deniers are liberals, and we know how history-challenged liberals are.

Here's some recommended reading for those folks:

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;
“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener
"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;
"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;
"The Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel," and
"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

 

[Spartan]

- in the oldest Gospel - Mark - Jesus only does a few miracles, and when he does them, he tells people to keep them secret.

FALSE. There are numerous miracles by Jesus in Mark, and many that he did not say to keep secret. Here's the list:

Miracles in Mark | Revision World

The book (Mark) - in its original ending - doesn't even include the Ressurection.

FALSE.

The resurrection is included in chapter 16 of the Gospel of Mark, and is in the oldest manuscripts:

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here." - Mark 16:6

It's Mark 16 verses 9-20 that aren't in the earliest manuscripts. But still that doesn't mean 9-20 are false, as there were strong oral traditions in ancient Israel that could have eventually found their way into the scriptures.

 

[Audie]

I would like to point out that Jewish sources have stories of miracle workers roughly contemporary with Jesus. Honi the circle drawer is supposed to have performed miracles, some at a distance.

Cabeza de Vaca was taken by the Indians of Texas to be
a miracle healer, when he was shipwrecked there, and
some of them followed him around in hopes of cures.

This stuff is not exactly rare, special, and a sign
of divinity!

 

[Wandering Monk]

Cabeza de Vaca was taken by the Indians of Texas to be
a miracle healer, when he was shipwrecked there, and
some of them followed him around in hopes of cures.

This stuff is not exactly rare, special, and a sign
of divinity!

Not saying it's rare, but that this sort of story-making is part of Jewish culture from the period. Stories created about historical people.

 

[susanblange]

Your claim is false. Jesus is known and called Emanuel in numerous churches today. There's even any number of churches called Emanuel. There's even songs dedicated to Jesus / Emanuel.

And the prophecy did not give a time limit on when it had to be fulfilled.

So, your premise is false.

There are also synagogues called Emanuel. It's a biblical prophecy and it is not about the Messiah. Isaiah 7:10-16 may be broken scripture. There's a verse in the flying roll, the Messiah's childhood diary, that said, "I broke my heel. They wanted to put it in a cast but I wouldn't let them". I've actually never broken a bone (Psalm 34:20) but this means something. I bruised my heel when I was 18. (Genesis 3:15). But just because something is broken doesn't mean that everything in the future is all broken together. So the breaking of scripture is the fulfillment of scripture. Jarrett Lawrence Emanuel died in January.

 

[Spartan]

There are also synagogues called Emanuel. It's a biblical prophecy and it is not about the Messiah. Isaiah 7:10-16 may be broken scripture. There's a verse in the flying roll, the Messiah's childhood diary, that said, "I broke my heel. They wanted to put it in a cast but I wouldn't let them". I've actually never broken a bone (Psalm 34:20) but this means something. I bruised my heel when I was 18. (Genesis 3:15). But just because something is broken doesn't mean that everything in the future is all broken together. So the breaking of scripture is the fulfillment of scripture. Jarrett Lawrence Emanuel died in January.

Sorry, it's a Messianic prophecy, fulfilled in Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim is false. Jesus is known and called Emanuel in numerous churches today. There's even any number of churches called Emanuel. There's even songs dedicated to Jesus / Emanuel.

And the prophecy did not give a time limit on when it had to be fulfilled.

So, your premise is false.

Nope, that is a failed prophecy because he was not called that at that time and the only reason that churches have that name is due to the failed prophecy. If you want to claim that prophecies are evidence for your God you really cannot use such poor examp!es.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, it's a Messianic prophecy, fulfilled in Jesus.

Nope, not even that.

 

[Spartan]

Nope, not even that.

You need a lot of help with your theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need a lot of help with your theology.

Nope, you need to learn what the Messainic Prophecies are. Jesus did not fulfil them.

 

[Augustus]

I don't need to believe in a god to believe that murdering, stealing, ****ing your wife, etc. is bad. You don't either.

"****ing your wife" is bad?? You must be doing it wrong

Saying 'murder' is wrong is tautological, killing has widely been accepted for many reasons though (other than self-defence). It wasn't self-evident that a master couldn't kill his slave for example, and it wasn't self-evident that you shouldn't invade countries and kill, rape and pillage.

 

[Audie]

Not saying it's rare, but that this sort of story-making is part of Jewish culture from the period. Stories created about historical people.

Of course

 

[Augustus]

; ought to have had a central message but doesn't.

He was preaching the eschaton. That he got crucified put a spanner in the works somewhat

The Qur'an was assembled as 'the sayings of Muhammad' two hundred years after his death, and western Muslim scholarship, where it's permissible to talk about such things, has no doubt that if there's any wheat in there, it's buried under a mountain of chaff. Unlike Jesus, there does appear to be at least one contemporary and independent reference fitting Mohammad, though.

I guess you mean hadith?

There are a couple of vague, incidental near-contemporary references to someone who is presumably (but not definitively) the Muhammad (1. "a prophet among the Arabs" 2. "The Arabs of Muhammad")

His biography seems to grow with the retelling and gets increasingly miraculous, but this isn't given as reason to doubt his existence. It is hagiography after all.

Let's just agree, then, that both views are possible.

Why do you believe an invented messiah would not even remotely meet the overall criteria for being the expected messiah and the few points he does meet are only through ridiculously contrived circumstances?

Why do you think Paul or whoever would invent such an implausible messiah?

Your argument ought to be stronger for a character invented between, say, 1 and 49 CE, and if there was a story, Paul, if his claims to have persecuted Christians and to have met disciples are true, ought to have had a reasonable look at it; but writing in the 50s CE he knows almost nothing of an earthly Jesus and cares even less. And the author of Mark knows little more, but sets about creating a bio, the only one we have, regardless of whether an historical Jesus had died 45 years earlier or not.

Paul was writing to communities of believers already in existence that had been formed by direct personal relationships with a small cadre of early followers, it would be a bit odd if he started by telling them who Jesus was.

You start needing a written bio more when the movement grows and you get further from events (as you see in Islam).

If you've ever looked at Graves' The Greek Myths, you'll know that nearly all of them have multiple versions, different names for the same and new characters, and so on. It's not even clear that somewhere way back there ought to have been a single first tale, instead of an evolving and fusing and dividing of tale

And all of these are tales that were around for centuries in various forms. They were not referring to near-contemporary events and figures.

Stories about Abraham, Moses, etc.and their followers didn't appear within a decade or so of their purported lives either.

 

[Audie]

His biography seems to grow with the retelling and gets increasingly miraculous, but this isn't given as reason to doubt his existence. It is hagiography after all.

It isnt?

To me it seems like the joke re George Washington's
hatchet.

"Look, I have the Hatchet! It has had four new handles,
and the head was replaced once!"

SOMEONE (lots of them) existed, but if there is
nothing of the original left, then I sure doubt t he
existence of the person in the story.

E WArren is more of a Indian than "Jesus" (not
anyone's name then) is someone who walked on water.

 

[Spartan]

Nope, you need to learn what the Messainic Prophecies are. Jesus did not fulfil them.

Bull. Cite your BEST ONE (1 - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST 1) Gospel Messianic prophecy that's fictitious. Cite the GOSPEL scripture # and then make your case why it's wrong?

Just one, your best ONE.

 

[blü 2]

I guess you mean hadith?

No, I mean the original compilation of the Qur'an.

There are a couple of vague, incidental near-contemporary references to someone who is presumably (but not definitively) the Muhammad (1. "a prophet among the Arabs" 2. "The Arabs of Muhammad")

They're vastly more persuasive than the nothing Jesus has of that kind. Yes, there's room for doubt, but the fit doesn't seem all that bad.

His biography seems to grow with the retelling and gets increasingly miraculous, but this isn't given as reason to doubt his existence. It is hagiography after all.

As Zeus, Dionysos, Jesus et al all show.

Why do you believe an invented messiah would not even remotely meet the overall criteria for being the expected messiah

One possibility might be that Mark was closer to the mark than Paul; that would mean the proto-Jesus was imagined as a human whom God resurrected and elevated to divine status.

Why do you think Paul or whoever would invent such an implausible messiah?

Have you paused to look into Paul's statement in Galatians 1:12? In plain English it means that everything Paul says about Jesus comes out of his own head.

You start needing a written bio more when the movement grows and you get further from events (as you see in Islam).

That, and/or the sack of the Temple in 70 CE may be the motive to write Mark.

And all of these are tales that were around for centuries in various forms. They were not referring to near-contemporary events and figures.

Mark can be very largely onto the Tanakh. I don't understand you to be disputing that none of the gospel writers has a serious clue about an historical Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bull. Cite your BEST ONE (1 - JUST ONE - YOUR BEST 1) Gospel Messianic prophecy that's fictitious. Cite the GOSPEL scripture # and then make your case why it's wrong?

Just one, your best ONE.

You misunderstand. I did not say "fictitious". There are messainic prophecies. Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies. What happened as a result is that Christians claim that non-prophecies are messianic ones. For example the mistranslation that led to the virgin birth myth. Please try reading those verses in context. That was about a person that was supposedly born a long long time before Jesus. He was the one that was going to be called Manny, not Jesus. Jesus never was called Manny until people did so because of that failed prophecy. It was too late by then.

 

[Spartan]

You misunderstand. I did not say "fictitious". There are messainic prophecies. Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies. What happened as a result is that Christians claim that non-prophecies are messianic ones. For example the mistranslation that led to the virgin birth myth. Please try reading those verses in context. That was about a person that was supposedly born a long long time before Jesus. He was the one that was going to be called Manny, not Jesus. Jesus never was called Manny until people did so because of that failed prophecy. It was too late by then.

So you say. But your poor understanding of Messianic prophecy is what's evident.

Example: You claim the (fulfilled) Christian virgin birth prophecy is inaccurate. Which Hebrew word for virgin do you claim is the correct one?