The Christ Myth Theory

[bilby]

But can you not agree that it is ALSO at least plausible that a charismatic preacher DID exist?

Sure. But again, so what?

He's still a Clark Kent, and of no import until Paul told the first Superman stories, using him as the template.

 

[bilby]

Do you see the possibility? Can you stipulate this is at least POSSIBLE?

I lterally always have. I am not at all sure where you get the absurd idea that I care enough to rule out such a worthless possibility.

 

[bilby]

Are you suggesting that some Christian might read my comments here at IIDB, and come to some stupid conclusion which would adversely affect society?

No, just that they would use it to bolster an already stupid position.

You seem so desparate to argue about this that you have invented a caricature of me to whom you ascribe a bunch of absolutist and absurdist positions. I would thank you to stop it. If you want to argue with someone who holds such positions, you will need to look elsewhere.

My interest, such as it is, is merely to point out that your position is poorly evidenced and of slightly negative value, if any.

 

[bilby]

Why I "give a crap" about it is a bit of a mystery.

^ QFT.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sometimes I wonder that maybe atheists shouldn't organize behind a "messianic figure", similar to the FSM or IPU but a human representative that in some ways does better than Christ did.

They would have to be someone born on an auspicious date in the middle of winter and who received gifts for the birth, but whose pedigree is decidedly "bastard". Their biological mother has to be a woman prone to lies, and their father must be a "carpenter" or more modern variant.

They will have to have been raised within a hypocritical church, and need to have a philosophical message fundamentally as good or better than Jesus's message with supporting arguments, and most importantly they must be an atheist.

They need to have done all the things and checked off all the boxes to look, act, and BE the part of a "prophet", and to have a message that has real utility to people right here and now, and completely deny any need for preaching of hell or "heaven beyond" even if hope is held for it. There needs to be nothing deeply philosophically challenging to their "claim" other than the fact that they just don't accept it's meaningful in the first place.

They have to be someone that looks and acts like Jesus, who gives and gives and gives, and does a "martyr" in a way that fundamentally states true ideas about God and gods and so on, including the idea that God cannot logically exist, as a member of their record. They must support a philosophy of peace on earth and good will among all people.

They will have to be someone who is a bit of a pervert, but whose perversion tends entirely to the consensual and adult, no matter how weird it gets after that. It will have to be someone who has found joy in the worldly and in the wonders of experiencing the world and accepting each other's consensual activities.

It has to be a philosophy which emphasizes freedom and working together and the edification of everyone in a way that acknowledged the majority of folks' beliefs in important ways.

The problem here is that there are vanishingly few people like that ever likely to be born, that is, "carpenter, liar, auspicious winter-ish date". Few people are born on Christmas or the First or the Solstice or the Spring Equinox or Easter, let alone to a lair and a crazy carpenter both, with a verifiable pedigree of coming from the lowest of the peasantry. Ideally they should be born on the outskirts of an unruly province that ends up under occupation.

Adding in things like that they have a special philosophy at least as good as Jesus's and they're atheist, and all that makes it like an impossibly hard task to find a good match, especially for someone who looks the part.

You could probably find even tighter coincidence like "mother's name is Mary" or get away with cheats "technically cribbed someone else's work" or "is the offspring of wealthy rather than homeless or under-housed people" or "can't really prove they aren't a bastard" or "father is named Joseph, but is not a carpenter", but I think we have to aim as high as possible and avoid cheats if we can.

Whoever it is has to recognize that all those coincidences are just coincidental and don't really mean anything, and are just for fun. The thing is, it shows "hey, us atheists can do it, too!"

Then we can all answer the question "Yes, there was a guy who did all that, well documented with news articles and everything!"

We would even have the benefit of that person being an atheist and not claiming to be a worker of miracles at all.

It would be a fantastic hoot to see that happen.

The problem is that there are few people as idiotic to stand up and organize something like that, and while I can think of a few ways to pull it off assuming you had an idiot like that on hand, I'm not sure how easy it might be to find said idiot; it's volunteering for a death sentence at the get go if they want to really stick to the shtick and that's assuming you can even find a working candidate in the first place.

Anyway, I recommend that if you really want to make a statement about religion, that's how to do it.

Good luck finding someone like that, though.

 

[Swammerdami]

But WHY do you assume that ALL of the Jesuses were "nobodies"?

Because there's zero evidence to the contrary.

You're better than this! I just flipped a coin. Are you going to insist it must have come up Heads "Because there's zero evidence to the contrary"?

Please approach the topic as a math exercise rather than a forum for spewing propaganda at any Christians stumbling on the site.

And what scant evidence there is, largely describe him as such - poor birth, lowly job, political agitator; So basically, an ordinary Judean of his time.

Spartacus was just a slave but ended up NOT a "nobody." Your claim seems to be that "Jesus"^* was BORN an "ordinary Judean" -- (He was in fact a Galilean^**, but dealing with the FACTS does NOT seem to be your contribution to the thread) -- he must have DIED ordinary. Despite attestation from contemporaries that he was NOT ordinary.

* - I write "Jesus" in quotes because it's not clear whether you're assuming him to be (a) a single ordinary man, (b) a conflation of 2 or more Jesuses, all ordinary, (c) a composite of zero Jesuses, i.e. Carrier's mythical Jesus. Can you stipulate to one for the purpose of the thread? Or do you prefer opportunities to duck and weave?

** - Cite that Galilee was treated as distinct from Judea, both politically and socially: The lyrics to a famous 1971 Broadway musical

An amazing thing, this silent king.
Since you come from Galilee, then you need not come to me,
You're Herod's race!
You're Herod's case!

 

[Swammerdami]

My interest, such as it is, is merely to point out that your position is poorly evidenced and of slightly negative value, if any.

Blah blah blah. The ONE thing that is VERY clear is that YOU have ZERO clue about what the evidence even is. You have presented ZERO arguments to refute any evidence, nor offered even a vague hint that you're acquainted with any details of the debate.

You QFT'ed the mystery of why I give a crap! YOU have devoted considerable time to ranting at me whenever the topic comes up, so YOU are also part of that "crap mystery"!

Here's a challenge for you:
List a few of the STRONGEST arguments used by historians that support the "minimal Jesus hypothesis" and summarize your refutations.

I'm pretty sure you will NOT do this. You'd need to research what the arguments even are. You'll waste hours with the same rants, repeated over and over, but will have a snooty excuse why you can't spend a few minutes outlining refutations that pass a sniff test.

 

[bilby]

You're better than this! I just flipped a coin. Are you going to insist it must have come up Heads "Because there's zero evidence to the contrary"?

You're better than this. I just picked a person off the street at random. Are you going to insist that there's a 50:50 chance that they are an important historical personage?

Most people are nobodies.

 

[bilby]

I write "Jesus" in quotes because it's not clear whether you're assuming him to be (a) a single ordinary man, (b) a conflation of 2 or more Jesuses, all ordinary, (c) a composite of zero Jesuses, i.e. Carrier's mythical Jesus. Can you stipulate to one for the purpose of the thread?

No, I can't, because I don't know, and nor does anyone else - which is my entire point.

It is absurd and ridiculous to be certain about the answer to a lny question for which insufficient evidence exists. That is the province of the religious.

 

[bilby]

Here's a challenge for you:
List a few of the STRONGEST arguments used by historians that support the "minimal Jesus hypothesis" and summarize your refutations.

I'm pretty sure you will NOT do this.

You are absolutely correct.

 

[steve_bank]

I have come up with a revolutionary new idea.

The Bank Regurgitation Theory Of Jesus or BRTJ for short.

One takes the same old what is considered evidence and give it a new name.

Thank you for the applause but I already know it is brilliant and profound.

 

[Jarhyn]

I write "Jesus" in quotes because it's not clear whether you're assuming him to be (a) a single ordinary man, (b) a conflation of 2 or more Jesuses, all ordinary, (c) a composite of zero Jesuses, i.e. Carrier's mythical Jesus. Can you stipulate to one for the purpose of the thread?

No, I can't, because I don't know, and nor does anyone else - which is my entire point.

It is absurd and ridiculous to be certain about the answer to a lny question for which insufficient evidence exists. That is the province of the religious.

Quite my point!

If you want to prove a historical Jesus, you have to roll up your sleeves and make some history. You just have to find yourself a candidate, and follow the script. It's more the province of engineering than religion.

But the odds you'll find someone who matches closely enough, and is "authentic" enough to fit the bill are kind of hilariously long, and they probably won't be an atheist.

I wonder what odds Carrier would put on that...

 

[Learner]

Sometimes I wonder that maybe atheists shouldn't organize behind a "messianic figure", similar to the FSM or IPU but a human representative that in some ways does better than Christ did.

You'll have to invent it though.

They would have to be someone born on an auspicious date in the middle of winter and who received gifts for the birth, but whose pedigree is decidedly "bastard". Their biological mother has to be a woman prone to lies, and their father must be a "carpenter" or more modern variant.

Ah, but of course, an individual "born in the mid of winter" ,the invention doesn't fit the description of a LAMB being born in the warm 'lambing season'.

They will have to have been raised within a hypocritical church, and need to have a philosophical message fundamentally as good or better than Jesus's message with supporting arguments, and most importantly they must be an atheist.

Yes, yes, the act of collecting money for personal wealth and gain requires you to be atheist (in Christian guise).


(Apologies, I was off topic. I got a little carried away with the various attempted derails by the 'topic sabatuers').

 

[Learner]

It should also be mentioned that Tom Holland is not a Christian. He's very much an atheist. What he is, is a world renowned historian of the ancient world. He's one of the best qualified ever to talk about the general context in which Jesus was (allegedly) born. He can read all the source text in their orignal languages. So while he's not a religious scholar. He can talk about the other stuff, the stuff that matters more imho.

I can also recommend his book on Muhammed. In the Shadow of the Sword.

And Tom Holland agrees with Bart Ehrman that the only thing likely historically correct about the Jesus narrative was that a man called Jesus created the Jesus movement and later got executed. The rest of the story of his life is probably mythic and not true. Both of them think it's unlikely that Jesus was a tecton (carpenter/day labourer). Both of them think that it's more than likely that the Jesus character may well be several people conflated.

Yeah, likely there was an historical Clark Kent. Probably more than one. Likely even one (or more) by that name, or a close variant. Big woop. This says zip about any historical Superman.

.... and no one is claiming any of the historical Clark Kents that should exist is superman! No disciples,no apostles equivalents, no reports!

 

[steve_bank]

Learner is inventing theology again, it is what Christians do,

Two things essential to Chrtianity are the virgin birth and the resurrection. The few statements in the gospels are considered objective eyewitness accounts, IOW proof.

Everything else in Christian theology is largely irrelevant.

 

[WAB]

No, the gospels are not considered objective, or proof. They are believed on faith. Religion is not about knowing, but believing. In fact, apologists and believers who try to 'prove' anything about their religious beliefs are at odds with their faith.

 

[ideologyhunter]

the resurrection. The few statements in the gospels are considered objective eyewitness accounts, IOW proof.

D.A.: Now, Mrs. Magdalene, tell the court what you saw, as you approached the tomb.
MM: I already told all this to Matthew.
D.A.: Suppose you tell us again.
MM: Well, as I said to Matthew, I went with this other Mary to the tomb, and we seen a big rock there, but suddenly, BOOM!, there was an earthquake or somethin', and this angel comes down and rolls the stone away, and he says there aint no body in there, but Jesus has been and gone, but he wants us to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. So we start to leave, and who do we see but Jesus, who says, tell them to go to Galilee.
D.A. Are you quite sure that he said Galilee?
MM: I got ears. He said Galilee.
D.A.: And this other witness that you call Mary. What is her last name?
MM: Just Mary. Like she don't want to tell on herself.
D.A.: Do you have any contact information for her -- cell phone, street address?
MM: Like I'm gonna snitch.
D.A.: The witness is excused. With the court's permission, I'd like to enter this map into evidence. It shows that Jerusalem and Galilee are several days' journey apart. (Map is labeled State's Evidence #17.) The state calls anonymous witness Jane Roe. (Witness is sworn in.) Ms. Roe, you have claimed protective anonymity. Did you in fact go to the tomb in question, along with some friends?
JR: I already said all this to Luke.
D.A.: Very well, but we need to hear it again. When you got to the tomb, did you find it blocked by a large rock?
JR: Like I told Luke, there was no rock in the way.
D.A.: Mrs. Magdalene said that not only was there a rock, but some sort of earthquake plus an angel moved that rock.
JR: Did you ask what drugs she was on?
D.A.: All right. No earthquake, no angel. Did you meet anyone there?
JR: Like I said to your staff, there were two guys in like day-glo clothes who said Jesus was gone or that he got up and left or something. Anyway, we left in a hurry.
D.A.: So, if Mrs. Magdalene says that there was one angel and the angel told you and your friends that Jesus was headed for Galilee, she is lying?
JR: She's a dirtbag. I wouldn't believe anything she says.
D.A.: Witness is excused. State calls Cleopas. (Cleopas is sworn in.) Now, sir, you were out for a walk on the Sunday in question?
Cleopas: I already said all this, to Luke.
D.A.: Yes, yes. Now, is your testimony that you and a friend were walking when Jesus joined you?
Cleopas: Okay, yeah. He came up and -- mind you, we didn't know who he was -- and we went to some joint in E-town, a Denny's, I think, and had dinner with him, and we had a funny feeling about him, and then he ate and just vanished.
D.A.: He vanished?
Cleopas: Vanished. Guess who paid the check? I paid the check.
D.A.: And then you went to Galilee?
Cleopas: You think I walked 65 miles? Me and my buddy went to Jerusalem, and like I said to your boys, we met with the disciples and Jesus came and told us to stay in town, and go nowheres else, until we got our powers. So we stayed.
D.A.: Witness is excused. Your honor, the State moves to impeach all of these witnesses, as they have presented the court with a patchwork of contradictory statements which makes everything they say impossible to believe. Perjury has been committed in this courtroom between these three witnesses.
Judge: Motion denied. Counsel for the state is clearly exhibiting hostility toward religion, and furthermore he is willfully denying what the Court finds to be a marvelous coherence of testimony, taking into account the points of views of the witnesses. One might call it testimony in stereo. Or quadraphonic sound. The Court finds that the counsel for the state deserves an eternity in hell, for Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

 

[steve_bank]

You must not know my history on the forum.

Not to me, objective first hand accounts and proof to Christians.

There is a very old saying about something being 'the gospel truth'.

To Christians the gospels and the OT are the TRUTH.

The resurrection is true because there are witnesses in the gospels.

Without he resurrection and divine birth Christianity does not exist. If not Jesus is just another wandering moralist.

HJ or not. the resurrection to believers means an eternal afterlife. Bear your burdens and believe.

 

[Learner]

Learner is inventing theology again, it is what Christians do,

Two things essential to Chrtianity are the virgin birth and the resurrection. The few statements in the gospels are considered objective eyewitness accounts, IOW proof.

I see...so is 'proof" the same word you don't use to make the claims for the following below ?


No Final Certainty:
As physicist Richard Feynman said, "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Even the most successful theories—like evolution, relativity, or the Big Bang—remain theories because they are subject to future testing and possible revision.

Everything else in Christian theology is largely irrelevant.

That's where you keep missing a lot.

Nothing is irrelevant when investigating thoroughly, ancient cultures, the psychological aspects or character profile of minds back then (emotional, cultural traditions, attitudes,relationships etc.& etc. to name a few).

 

[steve_bank]

Learner is inventing theology again, it is what Christians do,

Two things essential to Chrtianity are the virgin birth and the resurrection. The few statements in the gospels are considered objective eyewitness accounts, IOW proof.

I see...so is 'proof" the same word you don't use to make the claims for the following below ?


No Final Certainty:
As physicist Richard Feynman said, "If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Even the most successful theories—like evolution, relativity, or the Big Bang—remain theories because they are subject to future testing and possible revision.

Everything else in Christian theology is largely irrelevant.

That's where you keep missing a lot.

Nothing is irrelevant when investigating thoroughly, ancient cultures, the psychological aspects or character profile of minds back then (emotional, cultural traditions, attitudes,relationships etc.& etc. to name a few).

By any stretch a few lines in a short ancient writing of unknown authorship claiming Jesus was seen back from the dead is it not proof.

Without a belief in the reu8rction tale and in turn resurrection in an afterlife for all who believe there is no Chrtianity.

You spin and interpret scripture in the moment, stock and trade for Christians.