gnosis92

I've learned not to try to get into a Christ-mythicist debate but.....

I want to make this 1 point --

Let us assume, arguendo, that the Christ-mythicist theory is true,

you're a first century Jew living after the Temple was destroyed. You've seen your family members murdered by the Romans. Your best friends committed suicide at Massada. Young Jewish children were wrapped in Torah scrolls and burned alive. Your grapevines have been destroyed and your house is burned to the ground and your wife ravished and decapitated and your children sold to slavery. You've heard of other messianic figures including the Samaritan Prophet and Theudas, and they were cut down. The Essenes were wiped out. The Romans are coming after you. Your synagogue has been destroyed and your rabbis were murdered, put to the sword.

You turn to religion.

You have two choices:

You meet two missionaries.

One missionary tells you of a prophet and messiah, named John the Baptist, whose existence is independently confirmed by Flavius Josephus (at least, I do not know if Philo confirms it) -- you can follow some one who really did exist and was executed, beheaded by Herod Antipas. Please follow us.

Another missionary tells you that there is this purely spiritual redeemer named "Yeshua" who never existed and never walked the earth, despite what other Christians have said (and confirmed by both Gospels and Pliny and Tacitus) and was crucified in the heavenly realms. Please follow us.

Would you follow a real historical figure, whose followers state really did exist, John the Baptist, or a purely spiritual figure, some followers say did not exist except spiritually, others say did exist and was executed under Pilate.

As Bart Ehrman pointed out, history is about reconstructing what probably happened, and it strikes me as improbable that first century Jews would prefer to follow a religion with a purely spiritual savior to the extent it easily outcompeted a religion that was based on a historical figure (John the Baptist). It seems suspicious to me that the two groups of Xian missionaries, the Christ-mythicist and Christ-historicist, do not seem to have come into conflict as they were both proseltyzing in the same geographic and time.

The followers of John the Baptist could out-compete the followers of non-existent Yeshua for the Jewish soul just by claiming that their messiah existed, whereas Xian savior did not. And the two different groups of Xians (only one of which is recorded by secular pagan historians) would present a conflicting message as to Yeshua's existence, further limiting their success on the mission field.

dog-on

What if you didn't happen to be a Jew?

Toto

Why would anyone follow John the Baptist? He wasn't the Messiah, he got himself beheaded, and he lived in the desert and ate bugs.

PS Philo does not mention him.

Malachi151

This is incredibly weak.

Seeing as how you've never met either one of them and would have no way of confirming anything about either one of them and you would probably be a superstitious fool and its possible to tell much better stories about people who never lived anyway and you would be in total despair and and irrational, I hardly think that these issues would be of concern.

premjan

Even then there was a difference between the Christian and Eastern mystics (veg. vs. non-veg). Milarepa used to survive, emaciated, by eating nettles.

http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Av/Milarepa/Milarepa.htm

pharoah

You have set up a false dichotomy here with this absolutely absurd second scenario. What missionary for Christianity would believe that he never existed? Particularly one in the first century? Or even if he had doubts, why in the world would he think that this concession would be a successful missionary tool?

Amaleq13

I agree. The "MJ" position (via Doherty) should be more like:

Another missionary tells you that there is a Heavenly Messiah who took on flesh and descended to allow demons to execute him not knowing this would serve as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.

Malachi151

I don't think so. Paul never said anything like that, if he had things would be much easier to figure out.

They just talked about "Jesus" in general terms, they didn't have to be this specific. In addition, he said after the destruction of Judea, which is when Jesus became historicized anyway.

Its much easier to make grand claims about someone who never existed than it is about someone who did exist. If someone really existed then there is a real record to refute the claims, if someone never existed there isn't anything to refute.

I would contend that Paul could only be talking about a "mythic" Jesus, because if he were talking about someone who had supposedly been on earth some 15 years prior, people would have called him on his bullshit.

DramaQ

People had already (and continue to) put tremendous faith in invisible god beings. Why does it strike you as surprising that this particular group would?

Sometimes what is not seen is much more powerful as it allows one to tap into their imaginations to fill in the blanks.

Need a savior? We’ve got a godly one!

gstafleu

Given that all the real people had been ignominiously chopped up by the Romans, I might be in a mood to give a spiritual being a shot.

Gerard Stafleu