Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Sapiens]

Let's attempt to look at this rationally for a moment:

1. There are a large number of myths predating Jesus that are remarkably similar, even down to rather fine detail, to the Jesus story.

2. It is accepted that these stories are decedent, one from the other, through time, something that is made easier to accept by none of these older belief systems currently having a significant number of surviving adherents.

3. Were it not for all the Christians currently running about there would be no "Christ Myth" discussion, it would be a moot point. No one much cares about the historicity of Osiris or Hercules, etc., or if these legends have a basis in a real person or series of events.

4. I can not see why an atheist or non-Christian would care (beyond a simply academic interest) if the Jesus story had a basis in some desert sage, was descendent from similar earlier tales, or was made up out of the whole cloth, it just makes no difference.

 

[Bunyip]

Prophet

This is why I feel I can usually safely assume a myther cannot read ancient Greek. He has invested himself in a shaky theory which rests on his ignorance. So the myther calls the historical Jesus into question without even reading the secondary sources (you know, that whole argument that's been going on amongst the most knowledgable people in the world on the topic for the last 300 years) AND refuses to gain any sort of ability to consult primary sources. Historical Jesus is, thus, denied on the basis of ignorance.

No. It is doubted because you have barely any evidence to establish a historical Jesus.

You have no primary sources.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Let's attempt to look at this rationally for a moment:

1. There are a large number of myths predating Jesus that are remarkably similar, even down to rather fine detail, to the Jesus story.

2. It is accepted that these stories are decedent, one from the other, through time, something that is made easier to accept by none of these older belief systems currently having a significant number of surviving adherents.

3. Where it not for all the Christians currently running about there would be no "Christ Myth" discussion, it would be a moot point. No one much cares about the historicity of Osiris or Hercules, etc., or if these legends have a basis in a real person or series of events.

4. I can not see why an atheist or non-Christian would care (beyond a simply academic interest) if the Jesus story had a basis in some desert sage, was descendent from similar earlier tales, or was made up out of the whole cloth, it just makes no difference.

While some of these pre-existing stories are credible, most others I have seen are often nonsensical to the point of silliness. E.g., Isis a virgin? Then there are much-touted parallels to the life of Jesus that in the end do not actually appear in any ancient source or standard mythology reference.

Personally I suspect some Dionysian influences creeping in via Paul, but otherwise he is exploiting purely Jewish ideas and customs. It is exactly Paul's rather desperate efforts to explain away the uncomfortable idea that a supposed Messiah got executed instead of doing something Messianic that suggest to me that there really was a Jesus. Paul uses a mish-mosh of misapplied Jewish references to try to turn this disastrous event (if such it was) into something positive. Why make up a patchwork story like that unless there was really something to explain away?

Various (but not necessarily all) supposed pagan influences are more easily explained as also being stretched Jewish references. Example: Virgin birth? Matthew's penchant for overly literal interpretations plus the dual meaning of a Greek word plus Philo. Son of God? An actual Jewish expression for a holy or righteous person colliding with Daniel's heavenly Son of Man, with Paul's help again, then John taking it to its full expression, again with Philo's influence. Notice how when Jesus refers to the Son of Man it sounds like it may be a reference (or was originally a reference) to somebody else?

The detailed references to the political, religious and social life of Jerusalem in the putative era of Jesus, and the concordance of the actual message ascribed to Jesus that is found in the Gospels (before re-interpretation by later generations) to the apocalyptic ideas of that time, sound fully compatible with things that could really have happened. And the Gospels were written after that world was gone. Mark does not seem clever enough to have invented it all as a cover story.

Seems to me that the existence of an historical (and human) Jesus who saw himself as a prophet in the mold of Isaiah and Amos is more likely than not. Not married to the notion of course. Just strikes me as a more likely explanation than Jews buying wholesale into goyishe fables.

 

[Bunyip]

While some of these pre-existing stories are credible, most others I have seen are often nonsensical to the point of silliness. E.g., Isis a virgin? Then there are much-touted parallels to the life of Jesus that in the end do not actually appear in any ancient source or standard mythology reference.

Personally I suspect some Dionysian influences creeping in via Paul, but otherwise he is exploiting purely Jewish ideas and customs. It is exactly Paul's rather desperate efforts to explain away the uncomfortable idea that a supposed Messiah got executed instead of doing something Messianic that suggest to me that there really was a Jesus. Paul uses a mish-mosh of misapplied Jewish references to try to turn this disastrous event (if such it was) into something positive. Why make up a patchwork story like that unless there was really something to explain away?

Various (but not necessarily all) supposed pagan influences are more easily explained as also being stretched Jewish references. Example: Virgin birth? Matthew's penchant for overly literal interpretations plus the dual meaning of a Greek word plus Philo. Son of God? An actual Jewish expression for a holy or righteous person colliding with Daniel's heavenly Son of Man, with Paul's help again, then John taking it to its full expression, again with Philo's influence. Notice how when Jesus refers to the Son of Man it sounds like it may be a reference (or was originally a reference) to somebody else?

The detailed references to the political, religious and social life of Jerusalem in the putative era of Jesus, and the concordance of the actual message ascribed to Jesus that is found in the Gospels (before re-interpretation by later generations) to the apocalyptic ideas of that time, sound fully compatible with things that could really have happened. And the Gospels were written after that world was gone. Mark does not seem clever enough to have invented it all as a cover story.

Seems to me that the existence of an historical (and human) Jesus who saw himself as a prophet in the mold of Isaiah and Amos is more likely than not. Not married to the notion of course. Just strikes me as a more likely explanation than Jews buying wholesale into goyishe fables.

The issue is that there is a vast difference between 'more likely than not', and the claim that something has been evidentially established.

 

[Prophet]

Prophet

No. It is doubted because you have barely any evidence to establish a historical Jesus.

What I have seen suggests that Bunyip is psychologically incapable of considering evidence that strengthens the case for the historical Jesus, and characterizes all such evidence as irrelevant via ad hominem without debate.

You have no primary sources.

I imagine Bunyip must necessarily come to this conclusion via a twisting of what primary sources in the context of ancient history are. While modern history primary sources are often firsthand accounts, in ancient history, they are rarely so. Thus, as wikipedia says rather unambiguously, "'Primary' and 'secondary' should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

 

[Alt Thinker]

The issue is that there is a vast difference between 'more likely than not', and the claim that something has been evidentially established.

Entirely true. But there are those (present company excepted) who insist that Jesus could not possibly have existed and proceed to spout nonsense as 'proof'. We may of course by dint of real evidence (or lack thereof) and reasoning reduce the probability of some claim to negligible levels. Are we sure that Hercules never existed? For all practical purposes, yes. We do not need absolute proof. Highly reasonable doubt is sufficient. But based on evidence and reasoning I am of the opinion that there probably was an historical Jesus. The mythological aspects were added later, for discernible purposes.

 

[Bunyip]

What I have seen suggests that Bunyip is psychologically incapable of considering evidence that strengthens the case for the historical Jesus, and characterizes all such evidence as irrelevant via ad hominem without debate.

You haven't got much evidence to consider mate, you Max and Legion seem to be incapable of grasping that glaringly obvious fact.

The case for a historical Jesus is weak.

I imagine Bunyip must necessarily come to this conclusion via a twisting of what primary sources in the context of ancient history are. While modern history primary sources are often firsthand accounts, in ancient history, they are rarely so. Thus, as wikipedia says rather unambiguously, "'Primary' and 'secondary' should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

Only if you are an apologist desperately scrambling to pretend that your weak fourth hand evidence somehow establishes historicity.

For many other figures in the ancient world we have primary sources - lots of them. Just because you have none for Jesus, does not mean that we have none for hundreds of other people - or that the primary evidence for all of the other people magically doesn't cohnt just because you can't find any for Jesus.

Believing that Jesus may not be a real historical person is not mythicism, it's not even remotely radical - it is simply the default, there is not enough evidence to establish otherwise. Not only is the historicity of Jesus unreliable, for every person in the ancient world that we have a primary source of evidence for, there is a better case for historicity. Which would make the case for a historical Jesus relatively weak, as opposed to axiomatic as you fancifully imagine.

 

[Bunyip]

Entirely true. But there are those (present company excepted) who insist that Jesus could not possibly have existed and proceed to spout nonsense as 'proof'.

Several others have made that claim - but I'm afraid I do not believe you. Without changing the wording of your claim above - could you provide a supporting quote please?

We may of course by dint of real evidence (or lack thereof) and reasoning reduce the probability of some claim to negligible levels. Are we sure that Hercules never existed? For all practical purposes, yes. We do not need absolute proof. Highly reasonable doubt is sufficient. But based on evidence and reasoning I am of the opinion that there probably was an historical Jesus. The mythological aspects were added later, for discernible purposes.

How can you be sure Hercules never existed? How did you figure that?

As to Jesus, what evidence are you talking about?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No one much cares about the historicity of Osiris or Hercules, etc., or if these legends have a basis in a real person or series of events.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

Prophet

A person who believes that the historicity of Jesus has not been evidentially established is called a 'historian'.
A person who believes that the historicity of Jesus is better established than just about any other figure in the ancient world is called a 'propogandist'. (Or possibly just gullible)

 

[Prophet]

You haven't got much evidence to consider mate, you Max and Legion seem to be incapable of grasping that glaringly obvious fact.

It would become a lot more evidence were Bunyip to manage the faith to fully investigate his ideas. However, like most Jesus myther quacks, he disregards secondary sources without even the ability to investigate primary sources, and even if Bunyip did somehow pick up the ability to read ancient Greek, he still believes that avoiding the evidence he wishes to disregard is somehow a stronger position than an educated one.

The case for a historical Jesus is weak.

The case for Bunyip's ability to consider ideas outside his own is demonstrably weaker.

Only if you are an apologist desperately scrambling to pretend that your weak fourth hand evidence somehow establishes historicity.

For many other figures in the ancient world we have primary sources - lots of them. Just because you have none for Jesus, does not mean that we have none for hundreds of other people - or that the primary evidence for all of the other people magically doesn't cohnt just because you can't find any for Jesus.

Primary and secondary sources are relative terms. In ancient history, primary sources are the origin material being discussed, while secondary sources also affirm the subject by referring to the primary sources. For Jesus, the primary sources are the gospels and Paul's epistles and some of the secondary sources like the TF are ancient as well.

Bunyip wants to apply a definition to "primary source" that makes it nonsense for discussing the historicity of Jesus, when all it means in this case is that the gospels and epistles are the origin material for Jesus of Nazareth. Even assenting agreement to something as innocuous as admitting that the NT is our primary source for Jesus can feel like a dangerous trap when one makes poor arguments.

Believing that Jesus may not be a real historical person is not mythicism, it's not even remotely radical - it is simply the default, there is not enough evidence to establish otherwise. Not only is the historicity of Jesus unreliable, for every person in the ancient world that we have a primary source of evidence for, there is a better case for historicity. Which would make the case for a historical Jesus relatively weak, as opposed to axiomatic as you fancifully imagine.

I've already addressed this. You're a denialist.

The only difference in the propositions here is that the mythicist and denialist positions is the former is the intellectually honest position between the two. Denying the historicity of Jesus without submitting an alternative to mainstream interpretation of the evidence is a rather transparent attempt to recruit the strength of all possible mythicist positions without having to demonstrate the plausibility of even one. In this way, a denialist is able to gain all the the appearance of strength of submission of an alternate interpretation with none of its responsibility.

 

[Bunyip]

It would become a lot more evidence were Bunyip to manage the faith to fully investigate his ideas. However, like most Jesus myther quacks, he disregards secondary sources without even the ability to investigate primary sources, and even if Bunyip did somehow pick up the ability to read ancient Greek, he still believes that avoiding the evidence he wishes to disregard is somehow a stronger position than an educated one.

Insulting and making false accusations against other members is not debate. Please desist, I have reported your recent comments.

The case for Bunyip's ability to consider ideas outside his own is demonstrably weaker.



Primary and secondary sources are relative terms. In ancient history, primary sources are the origin material being discussed, while secondary sources also affirm the subject by referring to the primary sources. For Jesus, the primary sources are the gospels and Paul's epistles and some of the secondary sources like the TF are ancient as well.

Bunyip wants to apply a definition to "primary source" that makes it nonsense for discussing the historicity of Jesus, when all it means in this case is that the gospels and epistles are the origin material for Jesus of Nazareth. Even assenting agreement to something as innocuous as admitting that the NT is our primary source for Jesus can feel like a dangerous trap when one makes poor arguments.

I use the standard definition for primary sources, that this excludes all of the evidence you have for Jesus is hardly my fault, or my denialism. We have plenty of primary sources for many other ancient people. Yes the NT is your best source - and you have no provenance for it. To establish historicity you need more.

 

[Prophet]

Insulting and making false accusations against other members is not debate. Please desist, I have reported your recent comments.

The way you go at it in here, I would have assumed you were a snitch. You break the same rules you pretend to defend here. A moderator is going find your complaints against your adversaries of ill treatment and refusal to debate on the issue full of hypocrisy.

 

[Bunyip]

The way you go at it in here, I would have assumed you were a snitch. You break the same rules you pretend to defend here. A moderator is going find your complaints against your adversaries of ill treatment and refusal to debate on the issue full of hypocrisy.

I have nothing to fear in that regard. Unlike you I tend to focus on the topic.

 

[Prophet]

I use the standard definition for primary sources, that this excludes all of the evidence you have for Jesus is hardly my fault, or my denialism. We have plenty of primary sources for many other ancient people. Yes the NT is your best source - and you have no provenance for it. To establish historicity you need more.

Just like you used the STANDARD definition of "contemporaneous", right?

 

[Bunyip]

Just like you used the STANDARD definition of "contemporaneous", right?

Correct.

Sadly, although you have made the accusation that I misused several terms over and over - generally in a very insulting manner - I never actually did so.

As with all word I employ here, I refer to the standard definitions.

I prefer to discuss the topic, rather than insult others over false accusations.

 

[Prophet]

I have nothing to fear in that regard. Unlike you I tend to focus on the topic.

Unless the topic is "whinging", I fear I am unmoved by Bunyip's proclamation that he is focused on the topic, as he has already said things that demonstrate his ineptitude at exactly that. Whenever his adversaries fail to answer his loaded questions (and absolutely telegraphed intentions) and instead address the faulty reasoning behind his loaded questions, Bunyip invariably accuses them of irrelevant "whinging" and getting off topic.

 

[Bunyip]

Prophet

Back on topic, you said; "The comparison I have made is that the adherents of both views tend to be the fringe extremist crackpots within their respective populations, and like all fringe extremist crackpots, their views lean on ignorance.*"

Well doubting the historicity of Jesus is hardly an extremist, crack pot or ignorant position. Doubt exists in all areas of history. The adherents of the view that the historicity of Jesus is uncertain, would seem to me to be holding a perfectly rational postion.

Rather more rational than your position - which does in fact seem extreme.

Other than appealing to authority, what evidence do you have for such utter conviction that the historicity of Jesus has been established? Given that nothing in history is certain - how can doubt be radical?

 

[Prophet]

I'm not involved in the debate. I'm just pointing out that you're not engaging with Bunyip's points, just insulting them. Do you honestly think statements like:

"Bunyip is the worst debater I've ever seen here and the very reason I created this thread."

belong in any reasonable, factual debate?

Bunyip has said worse of me and many others and I see no commensurate repudiation of his slander. It is an all too typical philosophy to excuse or not even acknowledge mud slinging from the side of the aisle one identifies with and pretend to stand proudly against it when it flies the other way. It seems to me that this is possibly an attitude you hold.

You can reference the other thread if you wish to see the predictable result of addressing Bunyip's points. Just as in the case of source criticism, Bunyip will twist any words he can to "move the goalposts" out of reach. As for the post in question, at very least I address his twisted ideas on what comprises a primary source. Perhaps you think that is a minor point, but what commensurately minor point has he addressed of mine?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bunyip has said worse of me and many others and I see no commensurate repudiation of his slander. It is an all too typical philosophy to excuse or not even acknowledge mud slinging from the side of the aisle one identifies with and pretend to stand proudly against it when it flies the other way. It seems to me that this is possibly an attitude you hold.

You can reference the other thread if you wish to see the predictable result of addressing Bunyip's points. Just as in the case of source criticism, Bunyip will twist any words he can to "move the goalposts" out of reach. As for the post in question, at very least I address his twisted ideas on what comprises a primary source. Perhaps you think that is a minor point, but what commensurately minor point has he addressed of mine?

So... you don't like his debate tactics, therefore everyone who shares one position he happens to hold is irrational?