Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[steeltoes]

We have had a lot of threads about historical Jesus but not so much about Jesus myth theory, so here is a chance to pound away at such a theory. I hope we can focus on the theory itself rather than the people that propose it.





Jesus myth theory:




Those that propose the best Jesus myth theory source mainstream biblical scholarship. There is nothing fringe about that other than to say that they do not necessarily come to the same ultimate conclusions about Jesus' historicity as many, but not all, scholars do.


A good place to start in my opinion is with an analogy, any copy and paste I present will be short and to the point, it's a time saver for me, so here we begin;

"Akin’s analogy to Islam is on point, and I would add Mormonism as equally apt: their founders, Mohammed and Joseph Smith, respectively, were “sent by” and “communicated the teachings of” non-existent celestial beings, the angels Gabriel and Moroni, respectively. In the most credible mythicist thesis, Jesus corresponds to Gabriel and Moroni. Only in his case, Jesus was eventually placed in history in mythical tales about him (as was a common trend to do with celestial deities at the time), and that belief became the most popular (as also commonly happened with celestial deities)." Richard Carrier

I will continue as time permits but I think this is something to chew on for those that would like to oppose or add to Christ or Jesus myth theory. Please agree or disagree with the above analogy for starters.

 

[outhouse]

In paul we have similar, he is communicating with a heavenly Jesus whom he truly believes had died on a cross and previously walked the earth born of a woman and related to David.

Euhemerism clearly shows these people martyred a man believed to be put to death by Pilate.

 

[steeltoes]

The founders, Paul and Peter, correspond with Mohammed and Joseph Smith, they communicate with non-existent celestial beings.

 

[steeltoes]

In paul we have similar, he is communicating with a heavenly Jesus whom he truly believes had died on a cross and previously walked the earth born of a woman and related to David.

Gal 4:24, Now this is an allegory, these women are two covenants.

Paul tells an allegorical story about two women that give birth to children, and these women represent covenants. The woman of the promise "corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free and she is our mother." The woman is allegorical, she is not a real woman.

Since Paul described Jesus' birth in an allegorical way, such as corresponding to "the Jerusalem above", it sort of undermines the idea that Paul would view Jesus as having been born on earth. Paul only speaks allegorically rather than mention Mary, or Bethlehem, or any earthly details, so he is not speaking of an historical Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Gal 4:24, Now this is an allegory, these women are two covenants.

Paul tells an allegorical story about two women that give birth to children, and these women represent covenants. The woman of the promise "corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free and she is our mother." The woman is allegorical, she is not a real woman.

Since Paul described Jesus' birth in an allegorical way, such as corresponding to "the Jerusalem above", it sort of undermines the idea that Paul would view Jesus as having been born on earth. Paul only speaks allegorically rather than mention Mary, or Bethlehem, or any earthly details, so he is not speaking of an historical Jesus.

But the allegory has nothing to do with Jesus or pauls view of jesus human status.

It is out of context to try and apply it there. is it not?

 

[outhouse]

The founders, Paul and Peter, correspond with Mohammed and Joseph Smith, they communicate with non-existent celestial beings.

Peter has no historicity

 

[steeltoes]

But the allegory has nothing to do with Jesus or pauls view of jesus human status.

It is out of context to try and apply it there. is it not?

Paul explains what born of a woman, born under the law means, he describes two woman that give birth to children. They are allegorical, as in not real. Read Galatians 4.

 

[steeltoes]

Peter has no historicity

Paul mentions Peter in his letters, (epistles). If Peter has no historicity then that may be because Paul has no historicity, that may or may not be the case. Thomas Brodie thinks Paul is fictional but I haven't read into that yet, so I can't comment.

 

[outhouse]

Paul explains what born of a woman, born under the law means, he describes two woman that give birth to children. They are allegorical, as in not real. Read Galatians 4.

That is completely out of context.

Does that mean he believes in no such thing as natural birth by any mother?


Or was he speaking allegorical about the two women in just that one verse?



I don't think you can get away with applying that methodology to all of pauls writing's when he admits it is allegory.


To explore this, you would have to show, more obvious allegory that is not up for debate, and stays in an allegorical context.

I don't think you can.

 

[outhouse]

Paul mentions Peter in his letters, (epistles).

Yes he does.


And all of Pauls epistles are steeped in rhetoric.

If Peter has no historicity then that may be because Paul has no historicity,

Paul has as much historicity as anyone who is historical.


As far as Peter, there possibly could have been a Peter. But this Peter would not be the Galilean Peter, if he existed at all.

. Thomas Brodie thinks Paul is fictional

Which goes against his credibility as whole.

 

[steeltoes]

On our theory, this revealed being, the heavenly Jesus, was the one who chose and “sent” the apostles to spread the gospel. Which is why Paul says no Jews could ever have heard the gospel except from the apostles (Romans 10:12-18). Evidently the myth of Jesus having preached to the Jews himself had not yet developed. Richard Carrier

Akin says the “earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles,” but that’s not true. The earliest accounts (in the letters of Paul) know nothing of Nazareth and never mention Jesus recruiting or training anyone. When Paul mentions Jesus communicating with and sending apostles, it is always in the context of revelations. Richard Carrier

This is a different scenario than what I was taught in Bible school, but reading Paul on its own does paint a different picture than the gospels.

 

[outhouse]

This is a different scenario than what I was taught in Bible school, but reading Paul on its own does paint a different picture than the gospels.

True, because of his Christology.

Paul desperately wasn't to be viewed as a real apostle, and he is following and worshipping a mythical Jesus.

That is why he appeals to most mythicist, that and he has so much historicity battles are better fought over better territory.


But that is where the buck stops.


A martyred man at Passover is a much better explanation, then Paul blindly followed people he had to hunt down.

People following mythology was normal and posed no threat.


Why send paul out hunting this sect down unless they the temple elite feared more Zealot insurrection ?

 

[Bunyip]

The most striking characteristic of any discussion on the 'myth theory' is that the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is so scant that there is little the proponant of the myth theory need contest or refute. Sadly however it is a notion that is generally dismissed wih great confidence by many people on the basis of a misperception in regard to the nature of historical opinion on the matter.

A general consensus that Jesus is more likely than not to have existed is all too often mistaken for a general consensus that the historicity of Jesus has been established evidentially - it hasn't.

Unfortunately neither position is proveable.

 

[s2a]

We have had a lot of threads about historical Jesus but not so much about Jesus myth theory, so here is a chance to pound away at such a theory. I hope we can focus on the theory itself rather than the people that propose it.





Jesus myth theory:




Those that propose the best Jesus myth theory source mainstream biblical scholarship. There is nothing fringe about that other than to say that they do not necessarily come to the same ultimate conclusions about Jesus' historicity as many, but not all, scholars do.


A good place to start in my opinion is with an analogy, any copy and paste I present will be short and to the point, it's a time saver for me, so here we begin;





I will continue as time permits but I think this is something to chew on for those that would like to oppose or add to Christ or Jesus myth theory. Please agree or disagree with the above analogy for starters.

Not a popular mythology to set aside as pure myth, but then again, it is difficult to validate a mythological entity when virtually all the substantiation of that "person" is found within the (conveniently) same materiel source.

IE, "Jesus" IS, because the book that claims HIs existence, is the lone valued substantiation of the claim. NO contemporary records, accounts, diaries, transcripts, nothing. KInda bizarre, when you think about it, even a little.

When anyone even begins to ponder any legitimacy of any claim lacking ANY eyewitness testimony; provides no historical documentation beyond "trust me"; and worse, lacks the evidence that might seem as compelling as "proof" of Santa Claus...one might wonder why "Jesus" even seems "real" or "evident" to so many avowed adherents.

It gets even worse when one reads even other basic mythologies of the day, all the blatant similarities of other "popular" prophets of the time frame.

"Born of a virgin" claims are hardly first attributable to "Jesus". A close miss, but by centuries (to be generous).

This is not to say that "speeches, analogies, teachings" attributed to "Jesus" are unworthy or inapplicable even today,,,it is fair to say that "His" words are hardly the first to be uttered aloud in keeping with other alternative "testimonies" or records of "historical" storytelling of the day.

 

[outhouse]

same materiel source.

.

Collection of different and diverse sources, spanning roughly a hundred years.


Not the same source.

IE, "Jesus" IS, because the book that claims HIs existence

Do you know of any credible historian that uses that method?

NO contemporary records, accounts, diaries, transcripts, nothing. KInda bizarre, when you think about it, even a little.

Only if one did not realize it was for the most part, an illiterate culture.

It gets even worse when one reads even other basic mythologies of the day, all the blatant similarities of other "popular" prophets of the time frame.

YOU mean how the unknown authors competed divinity and mythology with the living Emperor, first called "son of god" just before jesus birth?


YOU mean you find it strange, that these people all lived mythology due to their ignorance of the natural world around them, and wrote using mythology to describe their lives?

claims are hardly first attributable to "Jesus".

Who says they were?


If your going to create a deity, rhetoric is required.

storytelling of the day

And that is what it is, a bunch of communities decided to preserve what they believed in, and wrote down what they knew from oral traditions, and previous written collection they called "good news" Steeped in rhetoric and mythology to steal people from the corrupt politicians labeled "son of god"

 

[idav]

A good place to start in my opinion is with an analogy, any copy and paste I present will be short and to the point, it's a time saver for me, so here we begin;


I will continue as time permits but I think this is something to chew on for those that would like to oppose or add to Christ or Jesus myth theory. Please agree or disagree with the above analogy for starters.

It is quite interesting that often people regard other religious texts as mythology while their own rely heavily on the myths to have some semblance of truth.

 

[s2a]

Collection of different and diverse sources, spanning roughly a hundred years.


Not the same source.

You are welcome to quote any other credible and supported sources of that time (time and date are critical here).

Do you know of any credible historian that uses that method?

Nope. Do you?

Only if one did not realize it was for the most part, an illiterate culture.

Talk much about cases of "special pleading"? If most are/were "illiterate" in that time, this simple and indisputable "revelation" serves to bolster a claim of legitimacy? ie, "people couldn't read", sooo...it must be "true"?

YOU mean how the unknown authors competed divinity and mythology with the living Emperor, first called "son of god" just before jesus birth?

Is is it then your summary that NO OTHER religious beliefs EVER offered a similar "prophecy" beforehand? Even today, it is "impossible" for a writer (of any sort) to "predict" an outcome before it has been realized? How sad for the thousands of mystery writer/authorss of planned homicides....

YOU mean you find it strange, that these people all lived mythology due to their ignorance of the natural world around them, and wrote using mythology to describe their lives?

In a word...YES!

This is hardly a baffling or "mysterious" outcome.

Who says they were?


If your going to create a deity, rhetoric is required.

OK. Why?

And that is what it is, a bunch of communities decided to preserve what they believed in, and wrote down what they knew from oral traditions, and previous written collection they called "good news" Steeped in rhetoric and mythology to steal people from the corrupt politicians labeled "son of god"

OK, I can accept that idea. But to then only conclude that a "god", or "Jesus" MUST be "real"...well. that is a stretch of credulity.

 

[Sapiens]

My Favorite (from link):

A historical scholar claims to have found evidence proving that the story of Jesus as described in the New Testament is a fiction, and that historical claims about Jesus were actually created by Roman aristocrats to control the poor.


According to a news story in The Independent:
“Joseph Atwill, who is the author of a book entitled ‘Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus’, asserts that Christianity did not begin as a religion, but was actually a sophisticated government propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman Empire.”
Atwill’s take on Jesus is of course not new. In 1844 Karl Marx famously declared religion as the opiate of the masses. History is filled with skeptics, freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and other doubters who have questioned religious doctrine and dogma.


Atwill’s claims are based on what he described as important and revealing parallels between a first-person account of first-century Judea (an ancient Roman province now part of Israel and Palestine) and the New Testament.


“What seems to have eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of the military campaign of (Emperor) Titus Flavius as described by Josephus,” Atwill wrote in a blog on his web site.


Atwill believes that the story of Jesus was actually copied and created from the biography of the Roman emperor.

Evidence for a Historical Jesus?


While Atwill’s thesis is intriguing, there are reasons to be skeptical.


“The reality is we are unlikely ever to know the ‘facts’ about Jesus,” says Ronald A. Lindsay, a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry, a non-profit educational organization. Lindsay authored an essay on the evidence for Jesus in the book “Sources of the Jesus Tradition.”
“There are too many different stories about him, all of which have some serious credibility problems and which are inconsistent with one another,” Lindsay told Discovery News. “For the objective historian, he will always remain a shadowy figure, with little substantive biographical content. On the one hand, we have many who will take things on faith, accepting some subset of the stories as unquestionably true. On the other hand, there are those who insist that Jesus is an invented figure, a myth or a hoax. I think both of these extremes are almost equally implausible.”
Biblical scholars, as well as lay Christians, have long sought hard evidence of events and miracles described in the Bible, ranging from Noah’s Ark to the Shroud of Turin, with little success. New claims about proof of Jesus surface every few years.


People Claiming to Be Jesus


For example, in 2003 a relics dealer claimed to have discovered a limestone mortuary box that held the remains of Jesus’ brother. The inscription read, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”


The find made international news and spawned several documentaries, including one titled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which aired on the Discovery Channel. Further investigation by the Israeli Antiquities Authority concluded that though the ossuary box was authentic, the inscription on it had been faked.


And just last year an historian at Harvard Divinity School claimed to have found documentary evidence in the form of a fragment of Coptic writing on papyrus that Jesus was married; a later analysis by Biblical scholars suggested the writing was hoaxed.


Over and over, these “discoveries” typically turn out to be far more hype than fact and are trotted out as teasers to promote a new book, TV series or film. And, of course, Dan Brown made millions from his own fictional, conspiracy-laden versions of Jesus’ story — though his premise is claimed by a few writers to be based on fact.


Though Atwill’s claims have yet to be verified by other historians, whatever their consensus it will certainly not resolve the matter. The likelihood that any sort of real, definitive proof about Jesus will suddenly be discovered two millennia after he died (assuming, of course, that he existed) is vanishingly remote. Then again, that’s why religions are based on faith.

 

[outhouse]

Joseph Atwill

.

Is a known quack. But thanks

 

[outhouse]

OK, I can accept that idea. But to then only conclude that a "god", or "Jesus" MUST be "real"...well. that is a stretch of credulity.

Nothing makes more sense then a martyred Galilean man Yehoshua, who was placed on a cross during Passover during Pilates reign. His death sparked a martyrdom, and mythology created a deity.

Mythology did not create the man.