Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

Augustus said:

Nowadays, especially in Europe, many people weren't even raised Christian to begin with. Irreligion is more common than religion.

Given a wildly disproportionate number of anti-theists subscribe to the Myth theory, it also doesn't seem to be that hard at all to 'drop all beliefs' when it matches with ones desires and preconceived notions.

I fond it hard to put much stock in the belief that 'they're all biased and/or overly credulous except those with a strong dislike of Christianity who are fair and balanced in their approach.'



Enough evidence to make it significantly more probable that he did exist. The evidence is far more credibly explained by a historical person around who a larger mythical tradition developed than a completely fictitious person who was (very badly) invented by persons unknown.

Click to expand...

If one looks at the evidence it becomes rather problematical. No contemporary witnesses. Non-Christian sources that wrote about what Christians believed but not really anything about Jesus himself.

Subduction Zone said:

If one looks at the evidence it becomes rather problematical. No contemporary witnesses. Non-Christian sources that wrote about what Christians believed but not really anything about Jesus himself.

Click to expand...

It's sort of a false standard though, why would we expect contemporary sources for a poor, moderately popular preacher from a backwater like Nazareth? We don't have any eyewitness accounts for countless much higher profile historical figures and events that we don't consider to be purely mythical. Near-contemporary is actually considered a pretty decent historical standard.

The history is exactly as we would expect for Jesus the man: the movement only become visible when it gains a certain level of popularity. It's evidence against the accuracy of the Biblical narrative sure, but it's hardly surprising for Jesus the man.

That there were non-Christian sources writing about a rapidly growing community of believers across a large geographic area within a few decades of his purported lifetime is very strong evidence that the movement was built around a real person. Rapidly growing cults tend to be built around central figures, and I'm not aware of a single other examples of a movement built around a purely mythical figure who basically lived a normal human life (later turned into a hagiography) that emerged near-contemporaneously with his purported life. We don't start from an assumption that any person mentioned close to their life, but not during their life is equally likely to be a myth as real.

The Gospel narratives also make far more sense as being based around a historical figure than as pure fiction as he's a terrible fit for the messiah, and have to create convoluted backstories to explain the inconvenient detail that he was known to be from Nazareth, yet needed to be from Bethlehem.

Added to the fact that none of those hostile to Christians ever believed he was a pure fiction, and Romans would have had records of the people they crucified, a clear balance of probabilities emerges.

That no individual piece of evidence offers objective proof, doesn't mean that the overall evidence is equally likely to reflect a mythical figure as a real one.

Why do you think that these things are better explained by a mythical Jesus?

Spartan said:

There was no time limit on that prophecy. Jesus is celebrated as Emanuel in countless churches around the world. In fact, many churches are called by that name.

Prophecy fulfilled.

Click to expand...

It was about Ahaz' son, Hezekiah, not Jesus. It's so arrogant to take a Jewish text, worship a Jewish god/man, then rewrite it and tell the Jews they were wrong and going to hell.

Augustus said:

Jesus almost certainly existed. Other than there being multiple, independent near-contemporary references in historical sources, which is more than we have for a whole raft of historical events we don't question, the myth theory still has major problems.

For example, no ancient sources question his existence, even though there would be a strong motivation to do so (and records to check on executions).

Also, if you were going to invent a messiah out of thin air, why on earth would you invent one who fit the archetype as badly as Jesus?

He was supposed to be from Bethlehem so they had to make some convoluted story to get him to be from there when he was called Jesus of Nazareth.

They had to make him of royal lineage via Joseph who wan't even his father

The messiah was supposed to be a powerful warrior

He was crucified making him cursed in the eyes of many Jews

etc.

It is exponentially more probable that this reflects a real person shoehorned into a preexisting narrative than people inventing a mythical construct out of thin air. If he's a myth you can just give him whatever features you like that perfectly fit the expectations rather than botch it so badly you have to do some ham-fisted, contradictory retrofitting.

Also, cults that sprung up around purely mythical figures, did not do so concurrently with that person's life. The central figure was always much older, giving an air of tradition to the cult. That proto-Christianity had a reasonable following so close to Jesus' purported life is solid evidence it was based around a real person.

Click to expand...

Did you hear this from Rabbi Tuvia Singer? He makes many similar arguments.

steveb1 said:

What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?

Click to expand...

I think it would look exactly as it does now because in spite of the claims made either way, we have no way of knowing whether or not there was an historical Jesus at the core of the myth available to us. Agnosticism is the rational position in my opinion; I don't know and neither do you.

Spartan said:

There was no time limit on that prophecy. Jesus is celebrated as Emanuel in countless churches around the world. In fact, many churches are called by that name.

Prophecy fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Trump is being impeached and he will be thrown out of office. The prophecy about Emanuel continues in Isaiah 7:16. "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings". The second king in this verse is going to be either Pence or Netanyahu. The only kink in this is that Jarrett Lawrence Emanuel died in January, 2019. His family is not releasing the cause/manner of his death but I suspect it had to do with religion and suicide.

susanblange said:

Trump is being impeached and he will be thrown out of office.

Click to expand...

In your dreams.

susanblange said:

The prophecy about Emanuel continues in Isaiah 7:16. "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings". The second king in this verse is going to be either Pence or Netanyahu. The only kink in this is that Jarrett Lawrence Emanuel died in January, 2019. His family is not releasing the cause/manner of his death but I suspect it had to do with religion and suicide.

Click to expand...

Nope. Matthew only quoted 7:14.

Thirza Fallen said:

It was about Ahaz' son, Hezekiah, not Jesus. It's so arrogant to take a Jewish text, worship a Jewish god/man, then rewrite it and tell the Jews they were wrong and going to hell.

Click to expand...

Nuts. Ahaz declined the sign. It was then directed to the "House of David".

Also, you can try to argue that Immanuel was Ahaz’s son Hezekiah, but that’s impossible since Hezekiah was already nine years old when Ahaz began to reign (2 Kings 17:1; 18:1-2). To then prophesy about a future birth for a son of Ahaz who was already living at the time the prophecy was given, is thus one of your more absurd contentions.

The Jewish Rabbi “RASHI also came to the conclusion that the Immanuel prophecy could not refer to Hezekiah, because (quote) ‘if you count up the years of Hezekiah you will find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father [Ahaz] ascended the throne.’ Hence, Hezekiah was born nine years before the prophecy was given, and yet the prophet says: ‘Behold the virgin shall (future tense) conceive...’ ”

Augustus said:

The Gospel narratives also make far more sense as being based around a historical figure than as pure fiction as he's a terrible fit for the messiah, and have to create convoluted backstories to explain the inconvenient detail that he was known to be from Nazareth, yet needed to be from Bethlehem.

Click to expand...

Jesus is a superb fit for the Messiah, as Isaiah 53 and other scriptures confirm.. And according to the Gospels Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later lived in Nazareth.

Some say, based on John 7:52 - (" Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee”), that Jesus could not have come from Galilee. However,

• Micah was from Moresheth-gath, in Galilee (Micah 1:1).
• Elijah, of Gilead, was a native of Galilee (I Kings 17:1).
• Jonah was from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (II Kings 14:25; see Joshua 19:13).

Spartan said:

Jesus is a superb fit for the Messiah, as Isaiah 53 and other scriptures confirm.. And according to the Gospels Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later lived in Nazareth.

Some say, based on John 7:52 - (" Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee”), that Jesus could not have come from Galilee. However,

• Micah was from Moresheth-gath, in Galilee (Micah 1:1).
• Elijah, of Gilead, was a native of Galilee (I Kings 17:1).
• Jonah was from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (II Kings 14:25; see Joshua 19:13).

Click to expand...

Yes, but the Nativity has been widely debunked. And to say that the prophecies support one another takes endless jamming a square peg into a round hole.

Spartan said:

Nuts. Ahaz declined the sign. It was then directed to the "House of David".

Also, you can try to argue that Immanuel was Ahaz’s son Hezekiah, but that’s impossible since Hezekiah was already nine years old when Ahaz began to reign (2 Kings 17:1; 18:1-2). To then prophesy about a future birth for a son of Ahaz who was already living at the time the prophecy was given, is thus one of your more absurd contentions.

The Jewish Rabbi “RASHI also came to the conclusion that the Immanuel prophecy could not refer to Hezekiah, because (quote) ‘if you count up the years of Hezekiah you will find that Hezekiah was born nine years before his father [Ahaz] ascended the throne.’ Hence, Hezekiah was born nine years before the prophecy was given, and yet the prophet says: ‘Behold the virgin shall (future tense) conceive...’ ”

Click to expand...

Ah, perhaps not Hezekiah then. I was going from memory. A future son is always a popular subject in the Bible.

Spartan said:

Jesus is a superb fit for the Messiah, as Isaiah 53 and other scriptures confirm.. And according to the Gospels Jesus was born in Bethlehem and later lived in Nazareth.

Some say, based on John 7:52 - (" Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee”), that Jesus could not have come from Galilee. However,

• Micah was from Moresheth-gath, in Galilee (Micah 1:1).
• Elijah, of Gilead, was a native of Galilee (I Kings 17:1).
• Jonah was from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (II Kings 14:25; see Joshua 19:13).

Click to expand...

Those silly Jews. How could they not think Jesus was a stellar candidate?

Thirza Fallen said:

Ah, perhaps not Hezekiah then. I was going from memory. A future son is always a popular subject in the Bible.

Click to expand...

In many myths it is popular.

Tumah said:

Did you hear this from Rabbi Tuvia Singer? He makes many similar arguments.

Click to expand...

Not sure I know who he is (although the name rings a bell), he must be very wise though

They aren't based on any one person, but I've heard them all from someone or other. Not sure it's really possible to have an original thought on this issue.

Thirza Fallen said:

Those silly Jews. How could they not think Jesus was a stellar candidate?

Click to expand...

Not just Jesus, but they also rebelled against God and killed their own prophets. So how's that for recognizing God's anointed ones?

steveb1 said:

What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?

Click to expand...

I recommend YouTube videos by Richard Carrier.

Spartan said:

In your dreams.



Nope. Matthew only quoted 7:14.

Click to expand...

You are taking verses out of context. The complete prophecy about Emanuel is Isaiah 7:10-16. It is a complete paragraph and it was not fulfilled by Jesus.

susanblange said:

You are taking verses out of context. The complete prophecy about Emanuel is Isaiah 7:10-16. It is a complete paragraph and it was not fulfilled by Jesus.

Click to expand...

Nope. Like I said, Matthew only quotes 7:14. And it was fulfilled, by the way, in Jesus.

dmap said:

I recommend YouTube videos by Richard Carrier.

Click to expand...

Richard Carrier's theology has all kinds of warts. Here's a sampling:

"Why I Dont Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier refuted

Spartan said:

Not just Jesus, but they also rebelled against God and killed their own prophets. So how's that for recognizing God's anointed ones?

Click to expand...

And the Religious Right doesn't tend to follow Jesus' teachings. People are people. They want to do their own thing.