• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
The position that Jesus of Nazareth has no historicity.

What rubbish! Christ myth theory would be involved with 'Christ' being a myth. Jesus of Nazareth is much more likely to have been a living person, and most interested historians support a historical Jesus.

You have learned nothing!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This ^ is a false dichotomy, because Christ IS Jesus

ie Jesus Christ, either mythical or historical

If you're going to make absolutist statements like this, I can only assume that you have very good evidence that Jesus really is the Messiah and the Son of God (i.e. the Christ). Do you?
 

maxfreakout

Active Member
If you're going to make absolutist statements like this, I can only assume that you have very good evidence that Jesus really is the Messiah and the Son of God (i.e. the Christ). Do you?

that isnt relevant to what i said

the point is that the person who is referred to by the name "Jesus" is the very same person who is referred to by the name "Christ", regardless of whether he was the son of God or not, he is only one person, not two people
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
that isnt relevant to what i said

the point is that the person who is referred to by the name "Jesus" is the very same person who is referred to by the name "Christ", regardless of whether he was the son of God or not, he is only one person, not two people

"Christ" isn't a name; it's a title. It's derived from the Greek word for "messiah"; both words mean "anointed one". Many people have been referred to by this title.

If your test is just whether someone who was referred to by the title "Christ"/"messiah"/"anointed one" exists, then we can answer "yes" without ever considering the historicity of Jesus. In fact, I think there are even a few messiah claimants alive today who we could talk to in person.
 

maxfreakout

Active Member
"Christ" isn't a name; it's a title. It's derived from the Greek word for "messiah"; both words mean "anointed one". Many people have been referred to by this title.


"Jesus" is also a title, not a name, it derives from the word for "saviour" or "he who saves"

So when it is put together, the full title "Jesus Christ" means something like: "divinely anointed saviour of souls"
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"Jesus" is also a title, not a name, it derives from the word for "saviour" or "he who saves"

So when it is put together, the full title "Jesus Christ" means something like: "divinely anointed saviour of souls"

No, "Jesus" is an actual name. Names can have meanings.

"Christ", OTOH, was not a name. Nobody claims that Jesus' associates referred to him as "Mr. Christ" or the like. Christians claim that he was the Messiah... the Christ.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
This ^ is a false dichotomy, because Christ IS Jesus

ie Jesus Christ, either mythical or historical

Hi....
No....... Jesus was a healer who undertook John's mission after his arrest.
Christ was (mostly) produced by Paul after Jesus's death.

Jesus lived. Christ is the myth, and many Christians don't seem to mind that Christ is a myth.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
"Christ" isn't a name; it's a title. It's derived from the Greek word for "messiah"; both words mean "anointed one". Many people have been referred to by this title.

If your test is just whether someone who was referred to by the title "Christ"/"messiah"/"anointed one" exists, then we can answer "yes" without ever considering the historicity of Jesus. In fact, I think there are even a few messiah claimants alive today who we could talk to in person.

This.... ^^^^^^ Keep going..... I'm going to sit in the stalls. :)
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
You got that wrong.
Christ myth theory is the tenet that Christ is a myth, not Jesus.

Wikipedia defines it thus:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[1] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

So I guess there's two ways of looking at it: Jesus didn't exist or Jesus, or a person at least, serves as a root for the stories but is basically buried under mythology that his later followers attached to him. Either way, the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist, is what it is saying.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Wikipedia defines it thus:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[1] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[2]
Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I guess there's two ways of looking at it: Jesus didn't exist or Jesus, or a person at least, serves as a root for the stories but is basically buried under mythology that his later followers attached to him. Either way, the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist, is what it is saying.

I agree with the second way of looking at it: that there's probably a real person at the centre of a set of myths that have been glommed onto him. IMO: the historical Jesus is like the grain of sand at the centre of the pearl: yes, the pearl wouldn't have existed without the sand, but the sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone values.

As for the three-fold argument:

- I think that the gospels have limited historical value, not zero.
- there's actually one non-Christian reference that I believe is generally accepted: Josephus' reference to James as "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." Definitely not support for a mythical God-man, but still support for a real person who was being made inti something more.
- I think that Christianity definitely had pagan (specifically Greek) influences that shaped how Jesus was interpreted, but I don't think that Jesus was manufactured from whole cloth using bits and pieces of prior religions.

Edit: however, while I don't accept the "Jesus was completely myth" position, I recognize that it's much more rational than a position like ID.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
As I see it, both sides of this debate have trouble accepting the fact that the truth is both unknown and unknowable.

That's not an issue for Taoists. :D
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Christ" isn't a name; it's a title. It's derived from the Greek word for "messiah"; both words mean "anointed one". Many people have been referred to by this title.
Actually, both words don't mean that. The Greek χριστός can mean "anointed", but there was no "anointed one" in Greek. That's why in the Greek lexicon, the LSJ, the entry for anointed isn't just tiny, it is heavily influenced by Christianity. The word in Greek goes back to Homer, but it is verbal (χρίω). There is no "Greek word for 'messiah'". There is no equivalent to "messiah" in Greek.

This is a mostly technicality, and doesn't undermine your point. It supports it.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I believe Christ myth theorists are to scientists what intelligent design advocates are to Christians. And by this I mean they are fundamentalist, irrational, hopelessly agenda-driven, bunch of other bad things, etc. And I imagine there's not a single argument Christ myth theorists make that don't have a ID parallel. Let's discuss!

I want to return here to the OP because I don't remember its core attribute being discussed.

This parallel is interesting because it comes out of nowhere. Christ Myth Theory is a stance about whether and how a specific person may have existed or failed to two thousand years ago. Intelligent Design is a wholy different beast, an attempt at redressing known findings so that they become more pallatable for certain groups.

The first is a statement of doubt and skepticism, the second is an attempt at co-option to save face.

In which sense do you even see a basis for comparison?
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I want to return here to the OP because I don't remember its core attribute being discussed.

This parallel is interesting because it comes out of nowhere. Christ Myth Theory is a stance about whether and how a specific person may have existed or failed to two thousand years ago. Intelligent Design is a wholy different beast, an attempt at redressing known findings so that they become more pallatable for certain groups.

The first is a statement of doubt and skepticism, the second is an attempt at co-option to save face.

In which sense do you even see a basis for comparison?

I don't know that it's fair to say the comparison comes from nowhere, though I may have made this thread with a few particular people in mind. The comparison I have made is that the adherents of both views tend to be the fringe extremist crackpots within their respective populations, and like all fringe extremist crackpots, their views lean on ignorance.

Beings who doubt evolution and the historical Jesus in the 21st century must necessarily do so out of willful ignorance. Just as beings who doubt evolution must back this belief with an unwillingness to view the science, Christ mythers must back their belief must do so with an unwillingness to view the scholarly arguments that have occurred on this topic in the last 300 years along with a demonstrably rank ignorance of the sources they are psychologically unable to consider.

I'd bet there aren't too many mythers out there who read ancient Greek, just as we shouldn't expect that there are too many ID advocates out there curing cancer.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I don't know that it's fair to say the comparison comes from nowhere, though I may have made this thread with a few particular people in mind. The comparison I have made is that the adherents of both views tend to be the fringe extremist crackpots within their respective populations, and like all fringe extremist crackpots, their views lean on ignorance.

That is what I find weird. Such a statement is unwarranted.


Beings who doubt evolution and the historical Jesus in the 21st century must necessarily do so out of willful ignorance.

The first I see. The second, not so much. I guess I am suspect, for I do find the existence of a historical (as opposed to mythical or even fully fictional) Jesus unlikely.

Just as beings who doubt evolution must back this belief with an unwillingness to view the science, Christ mythers must back their belief must do so with an unwillingness to view the scholarly arguments that have occurred on this topic in the last 300 years along with a demonstrably rank ignorance of the sources they are psychologically unable to consider.

That is quite the false equivalence, you know. The first is tested and found true literally every day for decades now, the second is still very speculative.

I'd bet there aren't too many mythers out there who read ancient Greek, just as we shouldn't expect that there are too many ID advocates out there curing cancer.

So?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Wikipedia defines it thus:

The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism or simply mythicism) is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity and the accounts in the gospels.[1] Many proponents use a three-fold argument first developed in the 19th century that the New Testament has no historical value, there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ from the first century, and that Christianity had pagan and/or mythical roots.[2]
Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I guess there's two ways of looking at it: Jesus didn't exist or Jesus, or a person at least, serves as a root for the stories but is basically buried under mythology that his later followers attached to him. Either way, the Jesus of the Bible didn't exist, is what it is saying.

No........ see the bold and underlined sentence.
Wiki needs to sort the above out, because many scholars accept the existence of a Historical Jesus whilst classing the 'Christ' story as myth. If some folks want to wrap it all up together and throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's up to them.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
That is what I find weird. Such a statement is unwarranted.

I have borne witness to argumentative atrocity after another in the other Jesus myth theory thread on this forum. I will admit that this thread is the result of more annoyance with the perpetrators than a problem I have with Jesus myth theories themselves, but they did make me notice that the mythers tend to be quacks.

The first I see. The second, not so much. I guess I am suspect, for I do find the existence of a historical (as opposed to mythical or even fully fictional) Jesus unlikely.

That is quite the false equivalence, you know. The first is tested and found true literally every day for decades now, the second is still very speculative.

So?

It is a rare enough thing to find a Jesus myther who has enough faith in his ideas to seek out the full extent of the evidence and try his best to prove his own ideas wrong. This is why I feel I can usually safely assume a myther cannot read ancient Greek. He has invested himself in a shaky theory which rests on his ignorance. So the myther calls the historical Jesus into question without even reading the secondary sources (you know, that whole argument that's been going on amongst the most knowledgable people in the world on the topic for the last 300 years) AND refuses to gain any sort of ability to consult primary sources. Historical Jesus is, thus, denied on the basis of ignorance.

The ID advocate is similarly in a position of ignorant denialism. This is why it is also a rare enough thing to find an ID advocate who has enough faith in his ideas to study science intensely. This is why I feel an ID advocate is unlikely to be curing cancer.

I feel the parallels I draw between Jesus mythers and intelligent design advocates are clear.
 
Last edited:
Top