Jesus or Christ Myth Theory

[Bunyip]

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.

Sure, but 'nothing makes more sense than....' is not either proof or even evidence. Sure, it is the inference to the best evidence - but that does not constitute a reliable case for historicity.

 

[steeltoes]

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.

If it makes sense to you then it's true? Your method is astounding.

 

[outhouse]

Sure, but 'nothing makes more sense than....' is not either proof or even evidence. Sure, it is the inference to the best evidence - but that does not constitute a reliable case for historicity.

It is exactly how History is determined.


Enough Communities wrote about this martyred man, it leaves no doubt of his existence.


Its only the details that get fuzzy due to another culture creating a deity.

The same culture that worshipped another mortal man as "son of god"



Maybe you fail to realize a hypothesis is required to explain the poor evidence we have.

Explain Paul

Explain the gospels

And in doing so a historical core comes out that a Galilean caused some trouble and paid for it with a gruesome death.

 

[outhouse]

If it makes sense to you then it's true? Your method is astounding.

Making sense of the evidence, is what it is all about. :yes:


Not ignoring or perverting it.


No replacement hypothesis, no mythicist credibility.


My hypothesis has credibility from those who know the topic.

 

[Bunyip]

It is exactly how History is determined.

CORRECT. The difference is that in all other fields of history you do not see the inference to the best explanation constantly mistaken for proof. Yes mate, it is how history is determined - it is also why you never see a headline like 'The Historicity of Julius Ceaser a proven fact, say majority of historians'.

Enough Communities wrote about this martyred man, it leaves no doubt of his existence.

It leaves plenty of room for doubt - there are no contemporary records, none. And what few references there are come from much later and far away.

Its only the details that get fuzzy due to another culture creating a deity.

The same culture that worshipped another mortal man as "son of god"



Maybe you fail to realize a hypothesis is required to explain the poor evidence we have.

Explain Paul

Explain the gospels

And in doing so a historical core comes out that a Galilean caused some trouble and paid for it with a gruesome death.

Sure. Paul is easy to explain - he never even met Jesus. He had a vision, not an actual interaction.
The Gospels all come long after Jesus. Lots of Galileans caused trouble and were killed.

 

[Sapiens]

Is a known quack. But thanks

Yeah, but he's amusing. Since Jesus does not hold up to conventional historical analysis ... you might as well have fun with the myth.

 

[steeltoes]

Yeah, but he's amusing. Since Jesus does not hold up to conventional historical analysis ... you might as well have fun with the myth.

Darn right.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure, but 'nothing makes more sense than....' is not either proof or even evidence. Sure, it is the inference to the best evidence - but that does not constitute a reliable case for historicity.

But that is what history is. It is not about what can be proven, it is about looking at the evidence we have and making a determination of what is most probable. Inference to the best evidence is exactly what constitutes historicity.

If it makes sense to you then it's true? Your method is astounding.

Again it not about proving what is true, it is about what is most probable based on the evidence we have.

 

[Bunyip]

But that is what history is. It is not about what can be proven, it is about looking at the evidence we have and making a determination of what is most probable. Inference to the best evidence is exactly what constitutes historicity.

Exactly my point.

Again it not about proving what is true, it is about what is most probable based on the evidence we have.

Yes, I know that. And in this case the probabilities are calculated upon very little actual data.

 

[Agnostic75]

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 proponent 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.

That is also what Dr. Richard Carrier says at James Lindsay on the Historicity of Jesus.

 

[Bunyip]

That is also what Dr. Richard Carrier says at James Lindsay on the Historicity of Jesus.

It is also what any honest historian would tell you.

 

[outhouse]

, Sure. Paul is easy to explain - he never even met Jesus. He had a vision, not an actual interaction.
.

That does not explain Paul.

It is not even an accurate statement.


Paul tells us he hunted down the sect before converting. He invented nothing, he spread nothing.

He tells us there were already other teachers all through the disapora, which makes sense being he was hunting them down.

 

[outhouse]

It is also what any honest historian would tell you.

No, more being ridiculous.


All honest historians see what you do not.


Carrier is not respected and is sort of a obscure quack.

 

[steeltoes]

That is also what Dr. Richard Carrier says at James Lindsay on the Historicity of Jesus.

excellent, thank you for the links, frubal

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Less than 100 posts! Come on folks, this tiresome rerun is always good for at least 10 pages.

 

[steeltoes]

On our theory,[God], 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.

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

Carrier does not conflate the gospels with the epistle writings, a refreshing change in my opinion.

 

[outhouse]

Carrier does not conflate the gospels with the epistle writings, a refreshing change in my opinion.

Yes he has to avoid evidence for his pony show to fly. His intention is to sell books, nothing more.

 

[steeltoes]

Yes he has to avoid evidence for his pony show to fly. His intention is to sell books, nothing more.

The idea is to sell books, but to sell even more books he could write about Paul meeting with Jesus' brother, James, or Paul meeting with real disciples of Jesus, such as Peter and John. I would imagine that those sorts of things sell better, I would imagine Christians never tire of reading about that.

 

[Bunyip]

That does not explain Paul.

It is not even an accurate statement.


Paul tells us he hunted down the sect before converting. He invented nothing, he spread nothing.

He tells us there were already other teachers all through the disapora, which makes sense being he was hunting them down.

Don't be an idiot buddy - what is to 'explain'about Paul? Paul never even met Jesus.

 

[steeltoes]

Don't be an idiot buddy - what is to 'explain'about Paul? Paul never even met Jesus.

Paul saw Jesus through revelations, visions. Same with Peter and James.