• 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!

Christ-myth Theory and its Problems, by Robert M. Price

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Greetings all

I was wondering if any of you have read this book, and if it changed your outlook in any way.

I have to say I put off reading this book for awhile, and when I finally did it challenged me.

I am still not exactly sure where I stand on the historicity of Jesus.

Did this book do anything for you, or have you thought about reading it?
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Like one of the things Price points out in it is how heavily Jesus's miracles and some of his narrative hinge on Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament.

The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness for example also happened to Elijah, who was also ministered to by angels.

Jesus's narrative is almost identical, but borrows three passages from Deuteronomy in his discourse with Satan.

This would lead some to believe the whole account was simply constructed from these older sources.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Like one of the things Price points out in it is how heavily Jesus's miracles and some of his narrative hinge on Elijah and Elisha in the Old Testament.

The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness for example also happened to Elijah, who was also ministered to by angels.

Jesus's narrative is almost identical, but borrows three passages from Deuteronomy in his discourse with Satan.

This would lead some to believe the whole account was simply constructed from these older sources.

You mentioned this in another thread. Sounds interesting. How objective is it, in your opinion?
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
You mentioned this in another thread. Sounds interesting. How objective is it, in your opinion?

I'd say its reasonably objective, and very thorough. As mentioned many take for granted a historical Jesus because its the mainstream consensus.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
If anyone really wants to read it. I got my kindle edition for like 9 bucks I think it was
 

steeltoes

Junior member
This would lead some to believe the whole account was simply constructed from these older sources.

Modern scholarship acknowledges that, it's not just Price. In order to explain the silence from the time Jesus lived and died until the time the gospels were finally written it was said that an oral tradition prevailed until these stories were written down, a Jesus of the gaps as it were. Now it appears that the author of gMark, the gospel that the later gospel writers were dependent on for their story, drew from his ancient scriptures, what we call the OT, to write a new story.

Well, the discovery of all these lines in gMark as coming from the OT rather than from oral tradition puts a bit of a damper on historical Jesus theory. Historical Jesus proponents are upset about it and are trying to downplay it but the problem is, is that it's there for all to see.
 
Last edited:

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Modern scholarship acknowledges that, it's not just Price. In order to explain the silence from the time Jesus lived and died until the time the gospels were finally written it was said that an oral tradition prevailed until these stories were written down, a Jesus of the gaps as it were. Now it appears that the author of gMark, the gospel that the later gospel writers were dependent on for their story, drew from his ancient scriptures, what we call the OT, to write a new story.

Well, the discovery of all these lines in gMark as coming from the OT rather than from oral tradition puts a bit of a damper on historical Jesus theory. Historical Jesus proponents are upset about it and are trying to downplay it but the problem is, is that it's there for all to see.

I find it interesting you acknowledge this. How does the problem of the historical Jesus effect your faith?
 
Top