Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Bunyip]

I believe I do know what theory means. It does not mean proven though some people like to think so. It means someone looked at the evidence and speculated on possible reasons for its existence.

In science a theory is the highest possible status for a body of knowledge. It is not speculation, it is a tested explanation of the facts.

I have looked at the birth rates and have come up with a theory that the US will be a Spanish speaking nation in 200 years.

Myths are not speculation they are historical accounts that can't be verified.

No, myths are not historical accounts. Myths are legends - stories.

For instance one does not have to theorize that Odin existed because the mythical account says that he did. If one theorizes that Odin never existed the theory is less dependable because the record is that he did exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You say that there is contwmporary evidence of Jesus, please present it - it will be a historic moment.

 

[outhouse]

they are historical accounts that can't be verified.

Not correct.

many have hiostorical cores

 

[Sapiens]

While you may or may not find the evidence admissible, the fact is that are no, zero, nada, none, contemporary mentions of Jesus, all are at least a generation or more later. I gather this may not matter to you, but that is the fact.

 

[outhouse]

While you may or may not find the evidence admissible, the fact is that are no, zero, nada, none, contemporary mentions of Jesus, all are at least a generation or more later. I gather this may not matter to you, but that is the fact.

What about Paul writing some 15 ish years after death?

 

[outhouse]

the fact is that are no, zero, nada, none, contemporary mentions of Jesus, all are at least a generation or more later. I gather this may not matter to you, but that is the fact.

Lack of evidence is not always an attack on ones historicity.


We only have a fraction of scriptures that once existed. And even with our narrow view, we can build on quite a few different historical aspects.

 

[Bunyip]

What about Paul writing some 15 ish years after death?

Paul never met Jesus. Paul had a hallucination, or dream of meeting Jesus. Dream encounters with ghosts are hardly evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

What about Paul writing some 15 ish years after death?

I was under the impression that most scholars think that what Paul wrote was done 30-50 years after Jesus' death. Josephus was 30 to 60 years late.

Even 15 years fails the test of contemporaneous.

 

[outhouse]

May I ask, what do you think illiterate Aramaic villagers from rural Galilee would write about said person if they could write?

And do you think any of these traditions found there way in the gospels? After all, they are all compilations.

Not straight up fictional writings from one person we would excpect to see from 100% mythology.


Not only that why would Romans make a deity out of an oppressed jewish low life peasant?

 

[outhouse]

Even 15 years fails the test of contemporaneous.

Who would write about him and why earlier then that?


Were talking about a guy who was not famous until he was killed. His death was martyred, and this martyrdom generated mythology and picked up legends.

Again we only have a fraction of what once was. The gospels were collections of earlier material.

Paul even tells us there was scripture floating around when he was out teaching, and that there were other teachers.

Just because they did not get included in the Canon, does not mean they never existed

 

[Bunyip]

May I ask, what do you think illiterate Aramaic villagers from rural Galilee would write about said person if they could write?

Who knows? That is idle speculation.

And do you think any of these traditions found there way in the gospels? After all, they are all compilations.

Not straight up fictional writings from one person we would excpect to see from 100% mythology.


Not only that why would Romans make a deity out of an oppressed jewish low life peasant?

Because it suited their purposes.

 

[Bunyip]

Who would write about him and why earlier then that?


Were talking about a guy who was not famous until he was killed. His death was martyred, and this martyrdom generated mythology and picked up legends.

Again we only have a fraction of what once was. The gospels were collections of earlier material.

Paul even tells us there was scripture floating around when he was out teaching, and that there were other teachers.

Just because they did not get included in the Canon, does not mean they never existed

Sure, but if they were not included then they are not available as evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

Not only that why would Romans make a deity out of an oppressed jewish low life peasant?

Because he preached peace, non-violence, render unto Ceasar, etc. He was far less a threat than the JDL of the day.

 

[outhouse]

And on another side note.

His mythology grew in the Diaspora, by people far removed from his life in Galilee.


It would take a while for the mythology to develop into something worth writing about.

 

[Bunyip]

And on another side note.

His mythology grew in the Diaspora, by people far removed from his life in Galilee.


It would take a while for the mythology to develop into something worth writing about.

Outhouse, all of these reasons you give to explain why there is no contemporary evidence do not actually substantiate the historicity of Jesus as you appear to imagine.

 

[outhouse]

Because he preached peace, non-violence, render unto Ceasar, etc. He was far less a threat than the JDL of the day.

Still a trouble making oppressed Jew.

How much peace was he really preaching? swords at his arrest, and trouble at the temple mirrors the punishment he recieved and insurrection.

So much trouble temple authoritioes had to hire Paul to hunt this sect down in the Diaspora. Funny for a Galilean based movement, if one did not realize the movement failed in Judaism and took off like fire in Helleistic circles


So yes it makes sense the Helleistic Prosekltes would play the peace card. They did not want to be mowed over like the Jews. They were factually divorcing Judaism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

WOW! After all - why use 10 words, when you can use 400000?

Because I prefer accuracy to inane, uninformed hypocritical idiocy. You engage in ad hominem to avoid any actual debate while you accuse others of the same. You make assertions you can't back up. You mock the use of real scholarship while mocking me for not checking out some wiki pages you can't understand.

You have no sources.

Your arguments depend upon obvious misunderstanding of basic logic and reasoning.

You can't even so much as back up the claims you've made about historians' beliefs in the historical Jesus.

You cry victim of ad hominem while engaging in it.

You do everything but actually engage in debate.

What, exactly, is the point of anybody's engagement in anything you have to say when you offer less than nothing?

 

[Bunyip]

Because I prefer accuracy to inane, uninformed hypocritical idiocy. You engage in ad hominem to avoid any actual debate while you accuse others of the same. You make assertions you can't back up. You mock the use of real scholarship while mocking me for not checking out some wiki pages you can't understand.

You have no sources.

Your arguments depend upon obvious misunderstanding of basic logic and reasoning.

You can't even so much as back up the claims you've made about historians' beliefs in the historical Jesus.

You cry victim of ad hominem while engaging in it.

You do everything but actually engage in debate.

What, exactly, is the point of anybody's engagement in anything you have to say when you offer less than nothing?

Umm.. buddy, that entire post is an ad hominem attack. I can back any claim I have made, and argue for any position that I hold.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Who knows? That is idle speculation.

No. "Idle speculation" is someone who claims to be an historian, turns out to (maybe) have some undergrad degree related to history, no knowledge of the relevant languages (either of primary or secondary sources), and know familiarity with the field who then claims based upon an obvious and demonstrated ignorance of fairly basic logic and formal reasoning that whatever they speculate is indeed idle.

You've done that. Congratulations. Would you like to respond with more ad hominem arguments so that you can play the victim and avoid anything remotely related to rational argumentation?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Umm.. buddy, that entire post is an ad hominem attack. I can back any claim I have made, and argue for any position that I hold.

Then do so.

Your explication of inference is belied by anybody familiar with formal reasoning and logic. Unlike you, I don't rely on references to wiki pages but scholarly citations and quotations as well as my own explanations. You make basic errors you cover by repetition.

You claim things about what historians think but can't back these assertions up by quoting historians.

You make claims about historical methods but can't refer to any historians who use these.

You make basic errors of logic when trying to explain logic by referring to the methods historians use and failing to recognize that this applies to all historical methods.

You continually fail to address sources that, unlike me or you, are genuine scholars who can't be accused of faking any and all knowledge.

You demonstrate no knowledge of anything regarding history apart from claims you make backed by your claims and two wiki pages.

Please.