ApostateAbe

This goes out to all you atheist activists. I am posting it in the activism forum because it is a message that needs to get out to atheist activists, not the philosophers of the upper fora.

A lot of you think that Jesus of Nazareth started as nothing more than a myth. I think it all started with Kersey Graves' book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors over a hundred years ago. It claimed that Jesus was simply a hodge-podge of various mythical god-heroes. The scholarship is almost 100% bogus, but, no matter, it has ballooned into various "fakelore." Why? Because the people who hate Christianity love to eat it up. A modern reformulation of this is argument is made by the website mystic "Acharya S," who cites Kersey Graves heavily.

But that is actually only the fringe of modern-day Jesus mythers. Other Jesus-myth scholars are more scholarly in their scholarship. These scholars are Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, and until recently G.A. Wells. Mainly Earl Doherty--he has authored a large website called JesusPuzzle.com. His scholarship became further popularized among atheist activists by Brian Flemming in the film, The God Who Wasn't There. The Rational Response Squad hands out these videos like pamphlets. The arguments are various and convoluted; also convincing, perhaps because they are various and convoluted.

Whatever convinces you that Jesus started as a myth, I won't argue with that. I will let those arguments stand in the hope that the weight of the evidence I have for my theory will sufficiently counter-balance the weight of whatever convinces you that Jesus started as a myth. The evidence in my favor should be enough that I don't need to remove weight from the Jesus myther side. I have seen their arguments, and they seem light like a bundle of feathers in comparison.

My theory was that Jesus started as a cult leader and his character became a myth. Cult leaders have always been around, and new ones pop up all the time. Examples are Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. When I say, "cult leader," I don't mean just any nutcase leading a devoted group I don't like. Cults are a well-described sociological phenomenon. Review the "Checklist of Cult Characteristics" published by the Cult Studies Journal to see what I am talking about. A cult is basically a group of people who adhere to the will of one central authority figure to great extremes.

Most of the largest religions in the world started as small cults led by singular men. People like Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, and Zarathustra. Very many of the denominations of Christianity started as cults. Any time a religion started in written history, it began something like a cult. The religions that started in pre-history evolved from mythology (as far as we know), like Judaism and Hinduism. The rest of the religions seem to have started as cults.

So how do I know that Christianity isn't an exception? Christianity, as presented in the New Testament, was a special kind of cult that we are familiar with today. We call it a "doomsday cult." The cult leader predicts a large-scale disaster--the end of the world--and the followers are commanded to prepare for that prophetic doom. The Lyndon Larouche following is this modern-day kind of cult.

Here is where Jesus predicts the day of judgment and his second coming:

Matthew 16:27-28
Matthew 24
Matthew 26:64
Mark 8:38-9:1
Mark 13:24-30
Mark 14:62
Mark 9:27
Luke 9:26-27
Luke 21:25-32

In all of these verses covering all three synoptic gospels, Jesus predicts that the day of judgment and the second coming will occur in the lives of his listeners. The phrases used are, "this generation will not pass away, until..." and, "some standing here will not taste of death, until..." all in the context of the apocalypse and/or the second coming.

A different sort of prediction about the second coming is made in the non-synoptic gospel, the gospel of John. And this one has special significance. It is John 21:20-23.

²⁰Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?"

²¹So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"

²²Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!"

²³Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?"

Two disciples are the subject of this passage, Simon Peter and John. In verse 18, Jesus had told Simon Peter, cryptically, that Simon Peter would be crucified for being a follower. John was trailing close behind, so Simon Peter asked Jesus what would happen to John. Jesus responded, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" The implication, at least on first blush, is that John would remain living until Jesus returns. This was the understanding of the "brethren." But the writer intends to clarify, saying that Jesus did not say John would not die. It is left up to the reader to make sense of exactly what Jesus meant.

The three synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew and Luke are thought to be derivatives of Mark because of the close similarities in language. The authorship of Mark is thought to be the late 60s and early 70s. At this time, at least some of the listeners of Jesus would be thought to be still alive, and the day of judgment would be thought to be any second. But the gospel of John is dated to be in the 90s. Wikipedia could be wrong, but I don't want to make a trip to the library, so forgive me for relying on it. In the 90s, there would be a lot of people scratching their heads about the promised return of Jesus, because life-expectancy wasn't quite as good back in the day, and the listeners of Jesus would have almost completely died off (at best). The writer of the gospel of John steps in and makes an excuse for it (verse 23). Jesus was merely misunderstood, and this whole thing about returning before the death of the last listener--well, that was merely a rumor.

That may not yet convince you that Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet, but the smoking gun is found in 2 Peter 3:3-4,8

³Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, ⁴and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

...

⁸But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

The second epistle of Peter is dated to be the second century. It would be just the right time for the mockers to ridicule the gullible flock, because everyone who saw a glimpse of Jesus is dead for sure. And another excuse was given to pacify the anxious Christians--the excuse that time has no meaning to the Lord.

Failed doomsday prophets exist all over the place as people, but they do not exist as mere myths. Cult leaders are smarter than that. If the whole thing was a lie invented circa 30-70 CE by someone who isn't Jesus, then people would probably want to talk to all of those people who saw Jesus, like those at the supposed trial and crucifixion. If the story was invented any time after 70 CE, then it would seem like a prophecy that failed directly upon the telling.

There you go. Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet, not just a myth. He was mythologized only later on.

I think atheist activists are making a big mistake by claiming that Jesus started as a myth. Normally, we have the scholarly consensus on our side. But Jesus mythers do not. Here is what the secular scholars think of the Jesus myth theory:

Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, by Christopher Price

The seven scholars quoted on that page do not cover all the secular scholars, but they are respected scholars, and the first six give exceptionally dismissive opinions on the advocates of the Jesus-myth theory and Jesus mythers themselves. And they claim to speak for "most historians" on the matter.

If you think you can damage Christianity a lot by telling people that Jesus started as a myth, then I think you can do greater damage by making the case that Jesus was a failed doomsday cult leader. Now go out and be excellent.

Toto

Are you suggesting that activists should adopt a convenient theory without regard to the actual facts?

Nope. The Jesus Myth theory started with German scholars. Graves set mythicism back. But his scholarship is still not 100% bogus. See Richard Carrier's review on the SecularWeb.

People who hate Christianity don't need a mythical Jesus, and some Christians have decided that Jesus was a myth.

So why bring it up?

The arguments are simpler that many Christian arguments.

Side question to think about:You realize that you are saying that where we have evidence of how a religion started, we think that there was a human founded, but otherwise we think that they started as mythologies. Do you think that human nature changed?

The idea that Jesus was a failed apolcalptic prophet is quite respectable. Bart Ehrman supports that idea. But this is far from "proof."

Please. Christopher Price is a Christian apologist, publishing on the site of a Christian apologist. He is not an authority on scholarly opinions on the historical Jesus. He and used to post in BCH as Layman, and you can find a lot of his arguements rebutted there.

I'm not sure why you think that atheist activists should adopt a theory that insults Jesus, a popular figure in American culture. Why not claim that Jesus was a hippie pacifist socialist nice guy, who would be an atheist today? It makes as much sense.

FatherMithras

I'm not on either side of the debate honestly, but to claim there isn't an argument is foolishness. Even if you (like me) suspect Jesus as a real figure, perhaps a cult leader as Abe mentions, to pretend there's enough evidence to show that as conclusive is ludicrous.

I'm tired of all the criticisms people give the MJ people. There's real work to be done to see whether or not he existed, and claiming the idea shouldn't be put out there by activists is just silly. The above arguments about him being a doomsday prophet are of zero relevance because they are only claimed to be from Jesus, decades and even centuries after his supposed existence. People assume Jesus must have been real, but I'm continuing to see it's simply on a "just so" basis.

wordy

Abe, I both agree and disagree. We most likely will not have any success by spreading the news that many of us are supporters of Jesus as myth.

But maybe the best argument is that most christians don't care about the historical Jesus, they only care about the Jesus Christ they feel in their hearts. I predict that there are more atheists who are interested in the historicity of Jesus than there is christians who cares at all. You don't need a historical Jesus if you feel the living Christ in your heart. That feeling is what makes christian faith tic.

Hydra009

Either way, Jesus being a fictitious hodge-podge of various mythical God-heroes or the real-life leader of a doomsday cult that didn't quite pan out, imo is of very little concern - what is said about him is bunk either way. You don't have to piece together every bit of the history of the time to realize that there's something fishy about the story as it is commonly believed.

bluesky

Um... I was exposed to ancient myths before I was exposed to Jesus. After hearing about him, I was bored, because I already heard 'his' story told before with better characters.

That Jesus has a *few things* in common with predecessor gods isnt a false claim at all. The fact that those predecessor gods dont exist, therefore Jesus probably didnt either, isnt something Im going to stop saying any time in the future. Oh certainly some nebulous "Jesus-kinda-but-not-really-person" might have existed and preached on mounts, but I have no more reason to believe it did any more than some nebulous "Heracles-kinda-but-not-really-person" who wore a lion cloak existed.

I mean honestly, you just have to read some popular myths from the worlds major eras to see 'Jesus' is a plagiarized deity.

ApostateAbe

No. The activists are not it in the BCH forum, that's all.


Thanks for the correction there.
People who hate Christianity don't need a mythical Jesus. Regardless, the idea that Jesus started as a myth is an elegant and useful idea for acting against it. It is just a phenomenon I have observed and experienced myself. I would like to replace it with the doomsday cult leader Jesus.
Lots of atheists really believe Kersey Graves or Acharya S arguments.
Maybe some of them, but the main ones--not in my opinion.
I think human societies changed. Instead of isolated tribes, societies changed into urban cosmopolitan cities, and religion changed along with it.
OK, I haven't heard of Bart Ehrman. But I do think it is proof, or else very close to conclusive evidence.
I don't think it matters that much who Christopher Price is. It matters who he quotes and what the quoted people say.
I think the reasonable truth should be the top priority and the front gunner. It is like the only asset that atheist activists have. If we are unreasonable, then we have nothing left. Yeah, I guess the Jesus-doomsday-cult-leader theory is insulting. But I always thought that the Jesus-myth theory was very insulting. The advantage of the former over the latter is that the former is provable by just a small collection of Bible verse.

ApostateAbe

I think the fact that Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet is very relevant against the idea that he started as a myth. It simply wouldn't succeed as a myth without some substance to it. If you think that the myth started centuries after the prophecy was proposed to be said, then how do you think that someone was smart enough to invent the story and dumb enough to include the end-times prophecy that would seem to have already failed? It seems necessary for them to invent excuses to fix the mistake, as in John 21 and 2 Peter 3, just as a talk about.

ApostateAbe

That would be true for most Christians. It is easy to overlook the Christians who are something like you and me, who believe in Christianity mainly because they think it is reasonable, not mainly because of anything they feel in their hearts. Those are the only Christians whose minds can be changed by the evidence, in my opinion. I was a Christian like that.

Toto

Just 3 points:

--Christopher Price is a Christian apologist and a lawyer. His business is shaping arguments and selective quotation. Always look behind what he quotes.

--Read Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is short, very readable, and supports your point of view, and you will know a lot more about the subject. If you say "who's Ehrman?" no one will listen to anything else you say, since you haven't begun to read the standard literature on the subject.

--You can't "prove" anything with a few Bible verses, unless you are a fundamentalist, in which case you will be able to find a few Bible verses that "prove" the opposite.

And good luck in your endeavors. It's not going to be easy.