• 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?

The notion of "near contemporary" is meaningless, it's a subjective exercise in that "near" can mean whatever one wants it to mean.

No, it means written reasonably close to the event and is a standard aspect of historical scholarship.

It's like saying it's 'meaningless' to describe someone as tall because the term tall is not objectively quantified thus can mean whatever you want it to mean.

What you are referring to is non-sourced material, unless you consider spiritually inspired to count as a source, as in The New Testament, and you are comparing that with sourced based information that we have about Hannibal, you don't seem to be making the distinction.

You stated that we don't have primary sources for Hannibal while neglecting to state that we do have secondary sources that had extant copies of primary sources at their disposal, and we know they used them.

If you misrepresent my point, I point out you are misrepresenting it, then you continue to misrepresent it in exactly the same way as before, there is little point in discussing anything.

Why no let the chips fall where they may, what's wrong with not knowing?

What's wrong with making judgements based on balance of probabilities even if we can't be certain? We do this all the time.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
No, it means written reasonably close to the event and is a standard aspect of historical scholarship.

It's like saying it's 'meaningless' to describe someone as tall because the term tall is not objectively quantified thus can mean whatever you want it to mean.



If you misrepresent my point, I point out you are misrepresenting it, then you continue to misrepresent it in exactly the same way as before, there is little point in discussing anything.



What's wrong with making judgements based on balance of probabilities even if we can't be certain? We do this all the time.
You make faith based rather than source based judgments, big difference.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium 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"?

What would Christianity look like without Paul?

I understand there were followers of Jesus, but would these just have been Jewish followers of another claimed Messiah. Apparently there were several claiming to be the Messiah.

Paul spent 30 years, traveled 10,000 miles across the Roman Empire preaching Christianity. Several of hie epistles were written while imprisoned in Rome. Christianity in its current form is developed mainly via Paul and Rome.
 
What would Christianity look like without Paul?

I understand there were followers of Jesus, but would these just have been Jewish followers of another claimed Messiah. Apparently there were several claiming to be the Messiah.

Probably needed a Paul to focus on the gentiles and make it easy for them to convert as Jesus was a terrible fit for the Jewish messiah.

Was probably a much easier sell to the males among them that they didn't have to take a knife to their johnson in order to convert too :grimacing:
 

lukethethird

unknown member
I make probabilistic judgements based on the evidence and its context.
What evidence? Only historical Jesus theory advocates use the term "near contemporary" when in the real world any historian worth his/her salt references source based material. To suggest that Tacitus had used so called Roman records is another historical Jesus theory piece of wishful thinking. Please provide said evidence rather than faith based wishful thinking. Again, I am not saying that Jesus was not an historical figure, I just don't know and you are free to dream up excuses for yourself but you don't know either.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Again, I am not saying that Jesus was not an historical figure, I just don't know and you are free to dream up excuses for yourself but you don't know either.

And you are free to claim to know far more about historiography than you demonstrate. To contrast "historical Jesus theory advocates" to "any historian worth his/her salt" is little more that pathetic ad hominem.
 
Only historical Jesus theory advocates use the term "near contemporary"

If you are trying to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, this is a good way to do it.

when in the real world any historian worth his/her salt references source based material.

Yet, in the real world, the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was probably a historical Jesus :shrug:

Again, I am not saying that Jesus was not an historical figure, I just don't know and you are free to dream up excuses for yourself but you don't know either.

You also don't seem to know what probability means. If you did, you wouldn't need to repeatedly say "you don't know either".
 
Last edited:

lukethethird

unknown member
And you are free to claim to know far more about historiography than you demonstrate. To contrast "historical Jesus theory advocates" to "any historian worth his/her salt" is little more that pathetic ad hominem.
By advocates I am referring to online forum advocates for an historical Jesus vs historians. If any online forum advocates for an historical Jesus were offended by my poo pooing of the subjective term, near contemporary, I apologize.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Yet, in the real world, the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was probably a historical Jesus :shrug:
Yes, scholars that got their theology degrees from seminary schools. How dare me question the status quo of Christian supported institutions.
You also don't seem to know what probability means. If you did, you wouldn't need to repeatedly say "you don't know either".
Historical probabilities based on religious texts? You want me to play? How's 30% for an historical Jesus sound? I don't know anything about this historical Jesus because if there are any historical facts in the gospels it's not known what they are from the non-facts. I could go as high as 50% but to go higher I need this evidence you keep referring to, not vague opinions such as Tacitus could have referred to so called Roman records but some actual evidence or source material.
 
Yes, scholars that got their theology degrees from seminary schools. How dare me question the status quo of Christian supported institutions.

Again, you are just making things up.

"It's all just devious Christian apologists" :rolleyes:

Historical probabilities based on religious texts? You want me to play? How's 30% for an historical Jesus sound? I don't know anything about this historical Jesus because if there are any historical facts in the gospels it's not known what they are from the non-facts. I could go as high as 50% but to go higher I need this evidence you keep referring to, not vague opinions such as Tacitus could have referred to so called Roman records but some actual evidence or source material.

Probabilities based on the same things we base other historical probabilities on. I doubt there would be much value in repeating them though.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Again, you are just making things up.

"It's all just devious Christian apologists" :rolleyes:



Probabilities based on the same things we base other historical probabilities on. I doubt there would be much value in repeating them though.
Probabilities based on primary and or secondary sources are not worth repeating because we don't have any for Jesus. People believe, it's what we do, it's why people are so easily convinced from reading their Bible. Tacitus writing in the second century could have, should have, would have had access to Roman records is not something to base probabilities on. I'm sorry, but Jesus can't be found in the history books, second century Johnny come lately historians passing on the beliefs of Christians from their day notwithstanding.

Even if He did exist, which He very well could have for all we know, I keep asking how can we know with any degree of certainty one way or the other let alone the certainty of those that claim to know. What is it about this Dude, why does He have to be real in people's minds as if we can know?
 
Last edited:

susanblange

Active Member
I think people become more religious as they age and face the inevitability of death. Nobody wants to die and go to Hell. Christianity offers comfort and hope in the face of death. It's also very easy to receive salvation, all you have to do is believe. There are no other requirements.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I think people become more religious as they age and face the inevitability of death. Nobody wants to die and go to Hell. Christianity offers comfort and hope in the face of death. It's also very easy to receive salvation, all you have to do is believe. There are no other requirements.

Actually you need to also repent (Luke 13:3). And unless you forgive others, God will not forgive your sins (Matthew 6:15). I could add John 8:24 also, but I digress.
 

susanblange

Active Member
Actually you need to also repent (Luke 13:3). And unless you forgive others, God will not forgive your sins (Matthew 6:15). I could add John 8:24 also, but I digress.
There are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations and they all believe something different. All Christians believe they are going to Heaven when they die. We have all sinned, but if you do not forgive God, then God cannot forgive you. It is also important to forgive those who have sinned against you if they truly repent. This means remorse, confession, restitution, and most importantly, change. We are also not to take vengeance or hold a grudge. In the eyes of God if your sin is forgiven, it is also forgotten and will never be mentioned again. Only the righteous will enter Heaven.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
There are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations and they all believe something different. All Christians believe they are going to Heaven when they die. We have all sinned, but if you do not forgive God, then God cannot forgive you. It is also important to forgive those who have sinned against you if they truly repent. This means remorse, confession, restitution, and most importantly, change. We are also not to take vengeance or hold a grudge. In the eyes of God if your sin is forgiven, it is also forgotten and will never be mentioned again. Only the righteous will enter Heaven.

I don't believe ten thousand denominations all believe something different. I believe the overwhelming majority of them have Jesus as their resurrected Savior. And we don't need to make it a condition that unless those who have sinned against us repent, and then we will forgive them. We forgive anyway. And no one is righteous because of who they are or what works they have done. We are only righteous by God's grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-9).
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Unsolicited trivia:
  • One of the more or less interesting consequences of rejecting a historical Jesus, IMO, is that the rejection takes an ax to Islam, Baha'i: If Jesus never was, who's going to break the news to Allah, Muslims, and the Baha'i? And while that ax is swinging, somebody's going to go after Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. :eek::D

i believe it seems people are only historians if someone wants to recognize them. So maybe I decide Tacitus isn't a historian at all but just someone making stuff up.
 
Top