Requia

Are you seriously arguing that something is not true because a bunch of orthodoxes wouldn't believe it?

ApostateAbe

If a Jesus was a myth, then it didn't necessarily start with one man, but cults are typically led by one man on top, and Christianity was a cult. The Jesus-myth theory I have in mind is where one man starts to make up a bunch of elaborate bullshit about Jesus, but you are right that I jumped to conclusions with a straw man. Go ahead and tell me what your theory of the origins of Jesus are.

Paul speaks of having doctrinal conflict with the apostle Peter. I think that is a tough thing to explain if Peter is a myth. I wouldn't take the disagreement about names to be an indication of mythical origin. Mythical characters are hardly different from actual human beings in the respect that they both start with one name (or one set of names). The names can be confused in later tellings in either case. The story of Judas killing himself is contained only in the introduction to book of Acts, a book of Greek Christian origin. Paul was a Jew, his writings predate the writing of Acts, and it is unlikely that he shared this belief about Judas, though possible.

"good comparisons to other mythical figures" -- if there were other purely mythical characters who led an apocalyptic cult, then the idea of Jesus being nothing more than myth would be more credible. As it stands, there are plenty of real human being who fit such a description. Lyndon LaRouche comes to my mind, personally.

"identities and motivations of authors" -- I hear a lot of propositions about who originated Christianity. Every proposition that is not Jesus seems to have a host of problems. A Jesus-myther needs to identify an originator or originators, solve the problems, and find the evidence.

"passages that give away the mythical origin" -- Such a passage might be something like a direct link to so many of the parallel myths that I keep hearing about, like, "Our lord, a manifestation of Osiris," or whatever.

"fitting explanations for the details given in the earliest texts" -- The gospels give a lot correct details of social climate surrounding Jerusalem--the leaders, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the passover, the temple, the laws, the rebellious discontent, the balance of power, the landmarks, the geography and that sort of thing. Such details are no problem if the myth originated in Jerusalem. If the myth originated among Greeks, as I so often hear proposed, then a good explanation must be given.

fatpie42

It was very decent of you to admit that. Thank you.

I must admit you've given me a lot to chew on and I'm not sure I've got the expertise to tackle it. Nevertheless, what worries me is that the historical Jesus is being used as a Jesus of the gaps. The way myths arise can be very complicated and, without any historical evidence, it is hard to assert anything about the context in which the myth arose. However, without any historical evidence it seems that you cannot assert anything at all about a supposed historical figure. Perhaps the myth arose around an anecdote about a person or a number of people, but the idea that it revolved around a real person who had some real influence on the later religion does not get us very far since it is very hard to say what parts of the Bible might have actually been influenced by the life of this supposed historical figure.

To put it simply, I don't think we should assert a historical figure just because the mythical Jesus viewpoint has difficulties. That a myth eventually formed is a fact. Where its origins were mythical or historical is more difficult.

Here are some attempts to solve the issues you mention above. I don't know how successful you think they are:
- Many myths have elements which are unique to themselves.
- Finding an originator is problematic in relation to any myth (even modern ones like the 9/11 conspiracy theories).
- The introduction of bread and wine is often viewed as an influence from Dionysian mythology (not least since the concept would have sounded horrific within a Jewish context).
- There are huge mistakes about historical elements in the gospels. The pigs are described as running into the sea in a setting that is many miles from the sea. The Quirinius census is described as working in a way that could not possibly have happened. The pharisees are described as getting very upset about debates which would have been the norm amongst one another. It seems likely that Jesus is formed from a variety of different stories and that the gospel writers were trying to tie them into a structured narrative in a particular historical context. As such, it is hardly surprising that the gospel writers refer to things which are historical. That doesn't mean that original stories upon which those accounts were based were so rooted in history or geography.

You might completely disagree with me about all of this. I suppose if this were an easy puzzle to solve it wouldn't hold such an interest for me. What do you think about this ideas I've come up with?

aa5874

Why do think a writer called Paul actually spoke to a character called Peter? Have you read anything about Peter?

Peter is an eye-witness to fiction. Peter witnessed events that never happened. And Peter did things that could not have happened.

Peter appears to be a creature of fiction.

Peter saw Jesus walking on water and attempted to walk to Jesus.
Peter was asked by Jesus to catch a fish with money in its mouth.
Peter saw Jesus transfigure and dead prophets come back to life.
Peter saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.
Peter saw Jesus ascend through the clouds.
Peter had something like fire on his head on the day of Pentecost.
Peter brought dead people to life by talking to them.

And there is no church writer or external source that can confirm the existence of Peter or Paul.

If Acts was written after the death of Paul and Peter, why was the martyrdom of the first bishop of Rome and that of Paul not included in Acts of the Apostles?

The stories in the letters of Paul appear to be fiction.

All the information in the NT can be found in even more details in the writings of Josephus.

Josephus describe the sect of the Pharisees and Saducees.
Josephus described the Jewish Temple.
Josephus described Galilee.

Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, he gave a list of the High Priests, he wrote about three persons who were crucified and one survived.

Josephus wrote about Herodias and Herod.

Josephus wrote about an Egyptian that predicted that he could destroy the Temple.

Josephus wrote about an expected messiah as written in the book of Daniel.

Josephus even wrote about the belief in the resurrection by the Jews.

Josephus writings basically covered every theme in the NT.

Atheos

Abe, you make a lot of good points, but I'm not sure I understand why a Jesus-myther needs to do all these things. People regularly allow that a host of other hero gods (Hercules, Promethus, Perseus, etc.) are purely mythical. Nobody has to go to any great lengths to identify originators, solve problems or find evidence that (for example) Hercules did not slay a multi-headed hydra.

Reasonal people routinely evaluate stories that include absurdities, miracles, contradictions and historical inaccuracies. The same people rarely hesitate to conclude that such stories are myths. Considerable evidence would be required before one would even begin to take such stories as anything but myths.

The "Jesus" stories fall into this category. From a miraculous virgin birth that includes an absurdity such as a star that someone can follow until they're standing right at the place the baby is laying to walking on water and raising dead people, the story is replete with things that rational people would never hesitate to dismiss as mythical.

The only difference between the Jesus myth and the Hercules myth is that billions of people make boatloads of money pimping the Jesus myth today and nobody seems to be buying the Hercules myth.

But popular appeal does not make something true.

I believe the stories about "Jesus" that we read in the four canonical gospels are myths. Period.

Even if there was someone named Jesus around which they were based, they're still myths because of the intent of the stories. These stories are not mere documents of the activities of an itenerant preacher who happened to have some incisive ideas. These stories are about a GOD. They would have us believe that a supreme god decided to "play human" for awhile so that he could wow the species inhabiting our planet with a few parlor tricks, add to the drama by letting himself get killed, then raise up from the dead and float off into the sky, conveniently leaving no trace that he ever actually existed (apart from the memories of those who saw him).

Even more telling is the fact that the only real test of whether or not one is "in" is whether or not one believes the myth. Mark 16:16 (I know it's not part of the original document) delineates the core doctrine: "Whoever swallows this ridiculous tale and symbolically expresses that acceptance through baptism gets to go to heaven. Those who don't believe go to hell." Okay, that's an Atheos paraphrase but it really is what that passage teaches.

ApostateAbe

You are completely right that the gospel accounts and other New Testament writings get a bunch of things wrong about the social environment. There are some elements that are apparently outright fictional, such as the alleged killing of baby boys by King Herod. So a good theory of Christian origins must account for both--the set of accuracies and the set of falsehoods. And I think that is what the mainline critical scholars have done. The gospels are not simply of Jewish origin. They are a mix of Jewish and Greek influence. I think it is great that you are putting so much consideration and thought into this. Often, I am stuck arguing with aa5874. I didn't know that the bread and wine thing is considered Dionysian. The last supper story I figured would be unremarkable enough to have originated with Jesus.
I do think that the proposition that Jesus started as a myth demands a lot more detail than other apparent myths, because the myths involve very specific historical (and often factual) people, places and events. As a comparison, the story of Pride and Prejudice is also placed in an accurate historical setting, and, if we didn't know that Jane Austen wrote it, then we could at least narrow down the authorship to a likely profile. Something similar needs to be done with the proposed originators of Christianity. Who were the people who were familiar with the political dynamics of Jerusalem? Who would be motivated to invent the Jesus story? Who knew of the earlier proposed myths? That sort of thing.

fatpie42

Well there is a story of Dionysos that involves him being ripped apart and then returning to life and, like with anything involving Dionysos, that would be linked with wine. I'm probably not the best person to consider whether it is right to tie it in with the last supper, but it is certainly being considered by some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysu...h_Christianity

Wouldn't the myths of Dionysos and the beliefs about a potential messiah be common knowledge to pretty much everyone? Doesn't that then mean that the Jesus myth could have been developed by pretty much anyone?

aa5874

Billions of dollars are being made by people claiming Jesus was actually on earth. As soon as Jesus is declared a myth, the Christianity "business" may have to be bailed out by the government.

Another clue to show that Jesus of the NT was purely mythical was the introduction of Marcion's Jesus, the phantom, the imaginary Jesus.

Marcion's imaginary Jesus was believed to exist at the same time as Jesus of the NT, during the reign of Tiberius.

Marcion's Jesus had no earthly parents, was not crucified and came directly from heaven.

But, what Marcion did was to expose that Jesus of the NT HAD NO RELATIVES ON EARTH.

Jesus of the NT was just imaginary.

Kapyong

Gday,

Abe -
aa5874 has been preaching exactly the same claims here for years. He is impervious to reason.


Kapyong

Transient

Rubbish.
Most people around here are not much different.
It is because we are dealing with a hopeless situation to start with.
Even you just used extreme reasoning that is baseless - that aa5874 is impervious to reason - that is not very likely at all - too extreme.
So if you think he is extreme - look at your own statements.
Everyone seems to have a hobby horse and never the twain shall meet it seems.