• 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 Credible?

Spartan

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

Nuts. Nobody in Judaism keeps the entire law all the time either. A lot of people keep a lot of Jesus' teachings, though no one is perfect and able to keep them all. You couldn't do it either, even if you tried to the best of your ability.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." - 1 John 1:8
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Nuts. Nobody in Judaism keeps the entire law all the time either. A lot of people keep a lot of Jesus' teachings, though no one is perfect and able to keep them all. You couldn't do it either, even if you tried to the best of your ability.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." - 1 John 1:8

It makes it really hard when the Bible makes human nature a sin.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
But they aren't. It is merely matching of stories that are slightly close. All of the Bible prophecies that I am aware of are failed prophecies.
Or it may be just your perspective because you don’t want to see how close the accounts are or that the prophecies are fulfilled. I don’t see how anyone can read Isaiah 53 and not see the prophetic details fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Or it may be just your perspective because you don’t want to see how close the accounts are or that the prophecies are fulfilled. I don’t see how anyone can read Isaiah 53 and not see the prophetic details fulfilled in the crucifixion of Jesus.

Because it is not a prophecy of that at all. It was chosen because it was the least square peg. And if you ignore the misses you cannot count the hits.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
[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"?

I'm a bit in the middle when it comes to a "mythical jesus" vs a "historical jesus".

I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that the jesus character is derived from a real person - perhaps multiple real persons, around which these myths and legends were build/

I also think that if we would learn the real biography of this / these character(s), we'ld barely recognise them as being those who Jesus in the NT was based on.


So, in a way you could say that I accept a historical Jesus.
In another way however, you could also say that I accept a mythical Jesus, on the basis that the character in the NT likely never existed as such.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
The difference is that we have pretty good contemporary evidence of Mohammed.

I agree, but ... IMO, I think you missed my point, which steveb1 did not.
  • In his OP, steveb1 asked: "What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?"
  • And my response, in post #2, compared a Christianity without a historical Jesus to:
    • Judaism without an Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
    • Islam without a Mohammed; and
    • Buddism without a Siddartha Gautama.
  • To which, steveb1 replied: "Thanks for your reply - yeah, it would kinda look like a spiritual ghost town..."
So, you believe that there is pretty good evidence for the historical Mohammed? I do too. So, does that mean that you believe in Allah, the divine revelation of the Qur'an, and that Mohammed was a Prophet called and sent by Allah? Correct me if I'm wrong, but something tells me that you wouldn't.

Are you not a Christian because you do not believe there was ever a historical Jesus or because, even if there was, you wouldn't believe any of Christianity's claims about him? If you wouldn't believe any of Christianity's claims about him whether he existed or not, arguing over whether he ever existed seems kind of silly. So would stressing out over the fact that I believe Jesus existed and that I believe several Christian claims about him, but don't let my opinion stop you.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I agree, but ... IMO, I think you missed my point, which steveb1 did not.
  • In his OP, steveb1 asked: "What would Christianity look like without a historical Jesus?"
  • And my response, in post #2, compared a Christianity without a historical Jesus to:
    • Judaism without an Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob;
    • Islam without a Mohammed; and
    • Buddism without a Siddartha Gautama.
  • To which, steveb1 replied: "Thanks for your reply - yeah, it would kinda look like a spiritual ghost town..."
So, you believe that there is pretty good evidence for the historical Mohammed? I do too. So, does that mean that you believe in Allah, the divine revelation of the Qur'an, and that Mohammed was a Prophet called and sent by Allah? Correct me if I'm wrong, but something tells me that you wouldn't.

Are you not a Christian because you do not believe there was ever a historical Jesus or because, even if there was, you wouldn't believe any of Christianity's claims about him? If you wouldn't believe any of Christianity's claims about him whether he existed or not, arguing over whether he ever existed seems kind of silly. So would stressing out over the fact that I believe Jesus existed and that I believe several Christian claims about him, but don't let my opinion stop you.

I did get your point.

If no Jesus actually ever existed... I'm saying that it wouldn't make a shred of difference. People would still believe it. It's not like the guy was that instrumental in the religion. In the end, objectively seeing, he was just some obscure messianic jew - one of many actually. And it's only after his supposed death, long after actually, that the religion really took shape.

So I'm just not agreeing with your point. Christianity would be unaffected imo.
Islam is different in that respect. Mohammed was a lot more instrumental to the origins of Islam then the other characters you mentioned were. Many of these aspect depend on Mohammed being a real person. The many times he lead early muslims into battle and conquest, for example. It's actually in that context that we have quite good independent contemporary evidence of him.


Jesus on the other hand is primarily a mythical character. Mythical in the sense that he has superpowers. The very story is all about vague abstract supernatural stuff, to the point that in context of the story, it actually doesn't matter if it's based on a real person or not.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
It's really easy.

I'll take your word for it that you think you could perceive a person just by believing he or she is real. But I don't seem to be able to do that and I don't think there are many who can.

No matter how much I wanted to believe that the girl of my dreams was real and waiting for me in bed, I never was able to actually perceive her there. Maybe she was in somebody else's bed, but it sure wasn't mine. I don't know, maybe you know a schizophrenic who can perceive what they choose to believe? I can't.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I'll take your word for it that you think you could perceive a person just by believing he or she is real. But I don't seem to be able to do that and I don't think there are many who can.

No matter how much I wanted to believe that the girl of my dreams was real and waiting for me in bed, I never was able to actually perceive her there. Maybe she was in somebody else's bed, but it sure wasn't mine. I don't know, maybe you know a schizophrenic who can perceive what they choose to believe? I can't.
When it comes to Christianity all that matters is that we believe, historical Jesus or no historical Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
[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"?

It is one possibility. For me, it does not matter if an actual person named Jesus existed or not. The important question is did he rise from the dead or do other miracles. I have no reason yet to think that is so.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'll take your word for it that you think you could perceive a person just by believing he or she is real.

To believe X is real, is literally to perceive X as real.

If you truelly believe something, then that something is real as far as you are concerned.
It's kind of what "believing" means..... :rolleyes:


But I don't seem to be able to do that and I don't think there are many who can.

It's what the word "believe" means.
If you believe X is real, eventhough it isn't, you'll perceive it as real. Be it a person, an object, or whatever.

No matter how much I wanted to believe that the girl of my dreams was real and waiting for me in bed, I never was able to actually perceive her there.

"wanting something to be real" isn't the same as "believing something to be real".
As for Jesus, if he was real, he's been dead for 2000 years. Anyone today believing the dude was real, won't be able to validate that belief in reality. So not only is your analogy invalid (wanting to believe vs actually believing), it's also not a proper analogy.


Maybe she was in somebody else's bed, but it sure wasn't mine. I don't know, maybe you know a schizophrenic who can perceive what they choose to believe? I can't.

Beliefs are not a choice.
A schizo isn't having hallucinations by choice.

Another failed analogy.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
It is one possibility. For me, it does not matter if an actual person named Jesus existed or not. The important question is did he rise from the dead or do other miracles. I have no reason yet to think that is so.

I can give you reasons for the resurrection. It's a fine book with good evidences and compelling logic.

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
We can only wish.

Screenshot_2019-11-05 Is Christ Myth Theory Credible .png


Neat, huh?
 
It's actually in that context that we have quite good independent contemporary evidence of him.

No we don't. Best we can do is vague and near contemporary (although only a few years after his purported* death). We have a reference to 'The Arabs of Muhammad', and another to 'a saracen prophet'.

This is pretty good evidence imo (and slightly better than that of Jesus), as near contemporary evidence is often all we have and that it's independent makes it much better, but ultimately has some of the same issues that mythicists see as problematic with Jesus.

If we discovered some new near contemporary Roman sources from c35AD that referred to 'the followers of Jesus' and 'the Jewish prophet' no doubt mythicists would say 'not contemporary eyewitness testimony', 'refers to Christians not Jesus', 'the Jewish prophet could have been anyone'.

The idea that we should expect high quality, independent contemporary eyewitness testimony to exist and if it doesn't then this is a major problem is based on an unrealistic standard.


* i.e. according to the Islamic traditions. They could potential qualify as contemporary if he lived longer than that
 
Top