The Christ Myth Theory

The Christ Myth Theory is the argument that Jesus never existed. There is a new peer reviewed article out today critiquing Jesus mythicism:

I don’t understand where theory comes in?

While interpreting theology may not be particularly helpful in gaining information about the historical Jesus, we can still interpret the theology to show that in general it was built on a historicist framework rather than a mythicist one. In the end, one of the main things that we have with early Christianity is a theodicy. God’s previous answer to an evil world was destroying it with a flood and destroying Sodom. Now what we have is a removal of the source of sin, satan, so that people can be fairly judged and have the opportunity to make it into the kingdom that is to be set up on Earth.

Lots of myths and fictions are built around tidbits of real history, then embellished beyond the real.

Problem is there’s little internaL consistency to either the Bible or notions of God, nor the faiths people profess (I mean packing the closet with weapons of mass destruction while screaming about the Sanctity of Life is pretty twisted.) It’s a melee of wishful thinking, and self aggrandizement.

Our Gods and theology come from within us human longing creatures.

Any true God of space & time, life & love, could never be as petty as the God’s we create for ourselves, which turn out on closer inspection to be our own egotistical wishful thinking projected onto the world…

I’m not convinced Jesus ever existed, at least not as described in the Bible. I am convinced that the stories in the Bible were built around animism, astrotheology, and numerology, as well as other myths circulating at the time. IMHO, the story of Moses was probably built around volcano worship. I don’t talk about this much, because not even some atheists agree with this idea and only want to dispute it as though JC actually existed and Moses actually happened. So I just keep it to myself.

The scholarly consensus is that Moses did not exist. It took centuries to develop that, and it’s still not mentioned in church much. The consensus on Jesus is that someone wandered around the ANE at that time and preached, and might have been crucified. That’s it. No consensus on miracles, birthday, actual name, family, words he said, who he talked to, none of it.

I’m not sure how many agree on the various general messages of Jesus.

On this topic, do morals really exist? Its not like happiness, which we can prove by brain chemicals in our mind. Morales just exist as beliefs.

And my favourite film clip about who makes who:

That’s what I was saying, but I’ve ran into some atheists who believe he did exist.

A lot of men wandered around and were crucified, but that’s not evidence that JC existed. If he did exist, he wasn’t as written in the Bible, yet again, I’ve ran into supposed atheists who believe he existed. I find it really crazy, but I have ran into that.

You know the old saying, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Jesus is too perfect, since god didn’t make him, we just had to make Jesus.
A guiding spirit for the lost and broken and have-nots, a counselor to help some face their own sins, and to stand with some as they burn on the crosses of our own making, in order to help them be reborn into a more humane aware human.

How’s that for the meaning of Jesus?

1 Like

Even the word “consensus” is challenging. I don’t hear it used a lot outside of scholarly circles, and when I do, it’s often countered with people saying it means “popular”, as if it’s just voting. But that’s not accurate.

This is really good

It was taken years ago, but I’m glad to see it’s back

Ouch. 1:43:22 :scream:

Have a ten minute digest? :melting_face:

Probability is that Moïse did not exist.

Probability is that a Jewish Rabbi existed, preached and was condemned to death. Beyond that most of what is said is legend and myths.

When the gospels were written, christian ism was competing with Mithra. the authors and the church choose to copy some elements of Mithra myth.

The idea that Jesus was born in a grotto, around Solstice winter is one of them.

And it is more than possible that he was hanged, the idea of a crucifixion being a late addition.

[Why does the Bible say Jesus was hanged on a “tree?” | For What Saith the Scriptures?]

1 Like

I’m not an expert in this field so I can only go with the general condenses of experts. My understanding is that most academic experts in the field think a person that Jesus of the bible is at least based on probably did exist.

That would be worth backing up with some legitimate references.

That would be worth backing up with some legitimate references.

That’s why I qualified it as my opinion and the fact that I am not an expert. This should drastically lower the readers confidence in my claim.

Finding these links should raise there confidence.
Here’s a Wikipedia page. Not the most reliable but it adds merit.

Here is a writeup from a Scholler at the university of Arizona that is arguing against Jesses historicity. However, he states that “Most secular scholars of the New Testament believe that this figure certainly existed.” and argues that they are not basing there arguments “sound footing”.

Here is a page on the Jesus Myth Theory on rational wiki.
Some academics have accepted the Jesus myth theory,[3][4][5] although most scholars in the field do not

I found several academic sites that argued for a mythical Jesus however, I could not find any that contradict the idea that most schoolers accept the probable historicity of Jesus as a person.

I’m starting to wonder if you are making spelling errors on purpose.

I don’t feel like looking up the reference right now, but there’s a book that contains data that shows, yes, most scholars say Jesus existed, BUT, most of them work for religious institutions that might even require a statement of faith to keep their jobs.

It might be in this book

I was just making conversation, and it was a cheap way of asking you to do my homework for me.

Thanks for sharing that stuff, even though you went for the low hanging fruit, but fair enough.

I looked at that and it lost me in a hurry. It’s the kind of stuff that makes me think about the rationality of spending hours arguing over Sherlock Holmes’ sister and how she influenced his crime solving. Fun stories upon stories, but stories just the same.

What’s the point of it?
What’s needing to be resolved?
What benefit would a resolution one way other achieve?

Seems to me self-evidence that Jesus is a composite, an idealize human being, all those millions who believe, each believe in him their own unique interpretation of his Passion and how it relates to their personal lives. All of it drawn from our human imagination and psychological needs, collective and individual.

I think you answered your own question. To me, the world has improved as more people see Jesus in this way. Many of them are still in church, doing good works. Getting the history right, makes it more acceptable to speak out loud about it.

I don’t know how many times I have to tell people, but Wikipedia is the worst source for information. So bad in fact, that professors would not allow us to use it, when I was in college, for papers. It is not a reliable source, especially for this topic. You’d do better with scholars like Robert M. Price, Victor H. Matthews (also was one of my Prof), Borg, David Fideler, Karen Armstrong, and others. Even if you do find an accurate statement on Wiki it doesn’t make up for all the rest of the misinformation.

I think it was you who was talking about rational thought (it was “bad reasoning”) or something like that in another thread, well the use of WIki, I hate to tell you, isn’t it. It’s definitely not good reasoning to use only one source and it be an unreliable one. Wiki is only good for looking up entertainers (probably not accurate about them anyway), TV shows and other entertainment stuff.

No it doesn’t. You are giving bad sources, which equals bad reasoning, especially to conclude that we’d take Wickedpedia as “good reasoning”, good source, or good anything. And your spelling, as Write4you has mentioned… it would be “their” in this case, not “there”.

As a regular WIKI user, I think you are exaggerating. Like any tool it can be misused.

Is Wikipedia Accurate? - Wikipedia - Canisius College - Andrew L. Bouwhuis, S.J. Library at Canisius College

"Much has been made of the nature of peer contributions to Wikipedia. Conventional wisdom is that widespread contribution without adequate credentialing of contributors will lead to poor accuracy and poor reliability of information. Some studies contradict the conventional wisdom; others confirm it.

" Wikipedia entries often contain many references. The editors of the Wikipedia page have read those sources, summarized the content and added it to the Wikipedia entry. Is the Wikipedia editor able to understand the scholarly journal article they just read and summarized? Possibly yes and possibly no. But you can follow their reference and review the original study/book/article yourself!

Wikipedia should be used as a tool to get started, and should never be the only source of research.

Users should never forget that important advice: Caveat emptor
do your due diligence.

I don’t care if any or all of these people existed. It proves nothing about the existence of a god.

Throughout history there have been about 4000 gods, they’re all dead. Atheists didn’t kill them all.
Do you know who killed them? Religious people who believe in another god.

Thousands of years and not a single hint of a god, other than a mentally conjured Tulpa who is a creation of a human mind and not experiential to anyone else.

1 Like