Is Christ Myth Theory Credible?

[sojourner]

Like the bit in Matthew 15, where he argues against the people who tell him that he and his disciples should wash their hands before eating. Very wise.

Your point? Oh, I'm sorry! It's just to provide the Daily Snark.

Thanks for doing that. Can we move along now?

 

[sojourner]

You sure that was "his" name? There was nobody by that name.

Proof, please. Otherwise it's vapid opinion.

 

[Audie]

And how did those incidents come to pass? Through their own devices? No; through acts of God. The whole resurrection thing (as I said before) is a sign of Divine work. All this goes to show that Jesus is Divine.

See, here is what you are missing in your lack of
knowledge about other religions.
Stories of those sorts are common as houseflies.

Including gods who die and come back to life.

Are they all true? None but your chosen one?
Other religions promote differences (we're right; everyone else is wrong).

You will not propose to have this both ways, will you?

 

[sojourner]

As I said, not all places were so harsh. And they
independently of any "Moses" or "Jesus" developed the
same concepts-the rules for living successfully in a
group such as fair play, consideration, hospitality
and so on, that probably have their origins deep deep
in prehistory, possibly predating human speech.

Communing as best one can with nature and the great
spirit, likewise.

As noted earlier, you are not at all showing that
"Jesus" brought in anything vaguely resembling
an awe inspiring unique wisdom.

Its more like people compiled folk wisdom and
attributed it to him-a common device in folk
tales.

I'm not in disagreement. I'm only saying that it was ahead of the curve in it's time and place. Did you miss that part?

But it goes further than "communing with nature." Much further. So far as to blur the lines of social identity and barriers. That's why he was killed.

 

[Audie]

Your point? Oh, I'm sorry! It's just to provide the Daily Snark.

Thanks for doing that. Can we move along now?

Snarky delivery, yes, but, can you address the issue
of wisdom there, or would'st move along and avoid contact
with contrary data?

 

[Audie]

I'm not in disagreement. I'm only saying that it was ahead of the curve in it's time and place. Did you miss that part?

But it goes further than "communing with nature." Much further. So far as to blur the lines of social identity and barriers. That's why he was killed.

"Miss that part" no.
And BTW, that is a touch o' snark on your part,
Mr. Kettle!

Ahead for his time and place, far behind the curve in
others. IF those were even his idea.

I am not seeing the divine here.

With all the legends that grew up around the
American revolution, in a primitive society of oral traditions
we'd probably find that G Washington wrote the
Declaration all by himself, his ideas.

AS I SAID, it is common for a single figure to
be represented as the father of great ideas
that are actually the product of many.

Why "Jesus" is supposed to be different,
esp as the ideas were ancient by the time
he showed up, is just not apparent.

He was killed for being a rebel, which t he
Romans did not like. Hence the disgraceful
means of execution, setting an example.

He provoked the Romans, and the magic he
was counting on didnt work out.

 

[sojourner]

See, here is what you are missing in your lack of
knowledge about other religions.
Stories of those sorts are common as houseflies.

Including gods who die and come back to life.

Are they all true? None but your chosen one?
Other religions promote differences (we're right; everyone else is wrong).

You will not propose to have this both ways, will you?

Gods. What about human beings? In every other religion I'm aware of, there is a difference between human and Divine. Not so in Xy. That's part of what upset the Jewish religious authorities; "blasphemy" they called it. In other religions, gods come back to life. Humans are allowed to become gods -- or demigods. IOW, they are no longer human. I don't know of any other religion where the teaching is that we are all one in the Divine in quite the same way Jesus presents it.

As for the second part of your post: Yes -- they all have truth. I do, however know that other religions teach difference. Xy doesn't. Which is why it's unique.

 

[sojourner]

Snarky delivery, yes, but, can you address the issue
of wisdom there, or would'st move along and avoid contact
with contrary data?

That's what I'm trying to do, but the snark and rampant "skepticism" is getting in the way. I'm done wasting time -- not going to change your mind or his. But the smugness displayed in the posts is very off-putting.

 

[Audie]

Gods. What about human beings? In every other religion I'm aware of, there is a difference between human and Divine. Not so in Xy. That's part of what upset the Jewish religious authorities; "blasphemy" they called it. In other religions, gods come back to life. Humans are allowed to become gods -- or demigods. IOW, they are no longer human. I don't know of any other religion where the teaching is that we are all one in the Divine in quite the same way Jesus presents it.

As for the second part of your post: Yes -- they all have truth. I do, however know that other religions teach difference. Xy doesn't. Which is why it's unique.

EVEN IF "Jesus" imparts some little spin to the
tired old theme, that does not hold much
"J is god" .

Joseph Smith did him one or two better, and
JS was not god.

Finally on this...how you can claim that
Xy, as you call it, does not teach that it
is different-which is what you have been
doing-is just beyond me.

 

[sojourner]

Ahead for his time and place, far behind the curve in
others. IF those were even his idea.

That's what I said.

I am not seeing the divine here.

Of course not. I'd be floored if you did.

With all the legends that grew up around the
American revolution, in a primitive society of oral traditions
we'd probably find that G Washington wrote the
Declaration all by himself, his ideas.

Not cogent to the argument.

AS I SAID, it is common for a single figure to
be represented as the father of great ideas
that are actually the product of many.

Every religion needs an avatar.

Why "Jesus" is supposed to be different,
esp as the ideas were ancient by the time
he showed up, is just not apparent.

Jesus isn't supposed to be "different."

 

[Audie]

That's what I'm trying to do, but the snark and rampant "skepticism" is getting in the way. I'm done wasting time -- not going to change your mind or his. But the smugness displayed in the posts is very off-putting.

As you like. But for smug, one can hardly beat a Xian
who "Knows" that he is right, and god backs him up.

Call me smug and run away because your are outmaneuvered
and unable to defend the indefensible.

And, Mr. Kettle, is there a tinge of possibility that you
would change your mind in the least fraction?

We are inclined to doubt that. Smug?

 

[sojourner]

EVEN IF "Jesus" imparts some little spin to the
tired old theme, that does not hold much
"J is god" .

Joseph Smith did him one or two better, and
JS was not god.

Finally on this...how you can claim that
Xy, as you call it, does not teach that it
is different-which is what you have been
doing-is just beyond me.

I'm not surprised that you think so. Xy didn't really become a "religion" as such, until it was imperialized. That's probably what you're familiar with.

I'm not arguing for imperial, Roman Xy.

 

[Audie]

I'm not surprised that you think so. Xy didn't really become a "religion" as such, until it was imperialized. That's probably what you're familiar with.

I'm not arguing for imperial, Roman Xy.

"not cogent"

 

[sojourner]

As you like. But for smug, one can hardly beat a Xian
who "Knows" that he is right, and god backs him up.

Call me smug and run away because your are outmaneuvered
and unable to defend the indefensible.

And, Mr. Kettle, is there a tinge of possibility that you
would change your mind in the least fraction?

We are inclined to doubt that. Smug?

When did I ever say "I know I'm right -- and God backs me up on that?" When? And who's running away? I've answered every one of your posts.

I think you have me confused with a fundigelical. Which I'm decidedly not.

I may be persuaded to change my mind, but I don't think you have the least inkling of what I'm trying to get across to you; you seem too stuck in your presuppositions and preconceived notions. Therefore, we're not arguing the same thing.

 

[sojourner]

"not cogent"

Of course it is. Because that's the Xy in which I believe; that's the Xy I teach; that's the Xy I follow. If you don't get it, perhaps you need to listen more closely. Don't you understand that Xy is a multifaceted and diverse umbrella covering many different threads of specific beliefs?

Edit: It seems as if you're hellbent on confining Xy to what you understand (which, judging from your posts is precious little). That's not my problem. But it becomes my problem when you play "religion police" and try to force me into your preconceived box. It doesn't work that way, my dear.

 

[Audie]

Of course it is. Because that's the Xy in which I believe; that's the Xy I teach; that's the Xy I follow. If you don't get it, perhaps you need to listen more closely. Don't you understand that Xy is a multifaceted and diverse umbrella covering many different threads of specific beliefs?

Edit: It seems as if you're hellbent on confining Xy to what you understand (which, judging from your posts is precious little). That's not my problem. But it becomes my problem when you play "religion police" and try to force me into your preconceived box. It doesn't work that way, my dear.

That is the x you believe. We dont doubt that at all.
It is what believers do; they believe things.

Including what you make up about people
who are not impressed.

Smug smug smug.

Now, I will excuse myself for responding in kind
so you need say no more.

 

[sojourner]

It is what believers do; they believe things.

1) There's nothing wrong or abnormal about belief. It appears that's how the human brain is wired.
2) Non-believers believe things too. You certainly do.

Including what you make up about people
who are not impressed.

Have I made something up about people? I wasn't aware that anyone need be impressed.

so you need say no more.

Yeah, no. That ain't how debate works my dear.

 

[David J]

Morality in the Graeco-Roman world was very different to our morality today though. What moral values are self-evident?

I don't need to believe in a god to believe that murdering, stealing, ****ing your wife, etc. is bad. You don't either.

 

[David J]

Actually it isn't. It might be explaining why you left a fake version of christianity, though.

Ok whatever.

 

[1213]

...
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.). ..

The problem with that is, it is possible that we don’t really know what is earliest. Also, Bible tells disciples of Jesus were persecuted. If they had early writings, they would probably have been destroyed, or hidden well, if the story is true. That is why, ironically, few evidences confirm the story.