The Christ Myth Theory

[Cheerful Charlie]

I recall a Christ mythicist from highschool, the only other one I've met in the flesh. I think about her, wishing that she had not been essentially dragged off to Texas by her dad and forced to marry and be "cowed".

Eventually her point sank in even if it took almost a decade, and exposure to these forums: a hundred percent of the cultists came about in the timeline that would be explained well by a Greek style play presented as reality.

Whether Jesus existed or not, the only contemporary accounts are accounts about the cultists and what they believed.

Trusting the documents OF a cult ABOUT the cult is about as reasonable as picking up a Mormon text and saying it's an argument for the historicity of Xenu.

We have 2000 years of vigorous book burnings and book HIDING going on from the organization that grew up from those tiny cults.

There's just no evidence for it.

Personally I think it has more value as a tragedy and allegory and work of fiction anyway.

From this lens as "fiction but one which contains truth", we can glean much: a number of decent fables, some ethical paradigms with good staying power, and a number of good imprecations against being a greedy fuck which I managed to learn (and more importantly come to understand) in spite of rigorous Republican upbringing.

I appreciate Christian origins from a secular philosophical standpoint. For instance, I appreciate Jesus redefining Love/Agape from love of God and neighbor to include love of enemy. This helps us move beyond the eros of glory/honor obsessed Achilles to bestowing value where even those who are sometimes seen as undesirable like widow, orphan, stranger and enemy have full worth. That was Nietzsche's positive takeaway from Jesus in the Antichrist: the loving Jesus vs the blaming Christ. It's just a healthy approach to life if you strip away the magic/superstition.

It can certainly get heated debating with mythicists. Ehrman said of Carrier that:

Carrier wrote a very long and detailed response which was meant to show, as is his wont, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I have been asked several times by several people to respond to his response, but I know where that will go – it will take a response twice as long as his to show why his views are problematic, he will reply with a reply that is four times as long to show I don’t know what I’m talking about, I will respond with a response twice as long as that to show that I do, he will rejoin with …. (Ehrman, 2016, ehrmanblog)

I mean, fuck, I'm a mythicist and I'm a fucking wizard. I am going to point out that I do absolutely think that parts of this story are the result of someone the original author knew, being observed living his life.

It sounds like the kind of trouble I would get into if I was born at the turn of the age, myself.

Even so, the majority of it is a work of fiction, and was spread around originally as such. The cult only likely ever saw this fiction is how I see it, and it has value moreso as fiction.

There's value in a good piece of fiction. I mean shit, my favorite author is a Mormon! And a fiction author.

Akkadian Councils Of Wisdom

Behavior toward your enemies (41-55?)
Do not exchange hostilities with your opponent;
repay your evil-doer with goodness.
Grant justice to your enemy;
show a cheerful heart to your foe.
Guide […] even the one who gloats over you.
Do not let him set your mind on evil.
[remainder of stanza is broken]

 

[Elixir]

We can muck around with evolution. Results are unpredictable.

 

[Learner]

"Did The Greco-Roman Elite Class Write The Gospels?! - Professor Robyn Faith Walsh". YouTube. History Valley. 24 May 2022.

2:12 ...I consider [the gospel authors] elite culture or elite persons within a particular you know stratum of culture .. those who have access to what's called Paideia, so advanced education in the ancient world, and the number of people who actually had that kind of advanced education was really really narrow...

22:01 [Q: What else what led you to the conclusion that it's possible that Christians actually didn't write the gospels] Well this is something that I've been a little surprised that people have taken away from the book, because what I say in the book is that I'm interested in what's the most formative group that we can attribute the content of the gospels to...

Ideas like this, (Caesars' Messiah etc..) where the suggestion that the writings of the Gospels were written by the Greco-Roman elite, seems self harming, like "shooting oneself in the foot" not thoroughly thought-out if this was the case. The Gospels IOW is anti class-elitist, Jesus is the King above Caesar etc..

It wouldn't be surprising at all, to expect people of the elite classes would instead, become followers of Christ - just like the Romans in military who became Christians, where there are reports written by Romans, that the new converts were refusing to fight - i.e. becoming 'conscientious objectors'.


IRENAEUS (180 A.D.) "For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight."

JUSTIN MARTYR (150 A.D.) "That the prophecy is fulfilled, you have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one another, do not now fight with our enemies."26 "We, who had been filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have each one-all the world over-changed the instruments of war, the swords into plows and the spears into farming implements, and we cultivate piety, righteousness, love for men, faith, (and) the hope which is from Father Himself through the Crucified One

JUSTINUS (150 A.D.) "We who hated and slew one another, and because of (differences in) customs would not share a common hearth with those who were not of our tribe, now, after the appearance of Christ, have become sociable, and pray for our enemies, and try to persuade those who hate (us) unjustly, in order that they, living according to the good suggestions of Christ. [....}.

 

[steve_bank]

Facinating how people endlessly quote and reference people from thousands of years ago. People for who we know nothing about what they wrer really like as human beings.

 

[dbz]

Facinating how people endlessly quote and reference people from thousands of years ago. People for who we know nothing about what they wrer really like as human beings.

Euhemerus (fl. late 4th century BCE) wrote Iera Anagraphe in which he maintained the Greek deities actually were historical mortals.

Circa 1865 in literature on myth—the word "euhemerism" was coined as the "historical theory" of mythology.

We do not know if Euhemerus was an atheisist who really did believe what he said, or was just advocating for the belief in the the Pythagorean's Monad, Middle-Platonic "All-Father", etc..

All we do know for sure is that Euhemerus turned a god(s) into a human—the exact opposite of apothéōsis (Greek ἀποθέωσις ).

"psychology". Etymonline.

Origin and meaning of psychology

• 1650s, "the study of the soul," from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhē "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of" (see -logy). The meaning "science or study of the phenomena of the mind" is attested by 1748, in reference to Christian Wolff's "Psychologia empirica" (1732). The modern behavioral sciences sense is from the early 1890s.

 

[fromderinside]

Magic is by concept a name given for acts performed by tricksters, charlatans, mediums, fortunetellers, magicians, witches & wizards (the big tricks sometimes assisted by summoning spirits etc.) - all to which, are NOT of GOD,

You are absolutely right. You often say really stupid stuff, but you are not stupid. You nailed the definition of magic, as distinguished from a miracle where the laws of the universe are actually broken.

I'm glad someone agrees with the contextual differences (even if you're entertaining the idea at least, getting the theist viewpoint ).

Now for the hard part: demonstrate that the stories of Jesus performing miracles are true. Not people being deceived by skilled magicians, not people being lied to or making up stories, but actual miracles where the laws of the universe were broken. You can't do that.

You are correct Atrib... I can't do it. Obviously to demonstrate those miracles to be true... It would have to be Jesus Himself, who would need to be in front of you ( If it was I, who appeared to be doing some illusionary miracle, I would probably be a magician). It's not a sufficient good enough answer I know, especially when it comes to 'repeating' or trying to demonstrate 'how' miracles are performed by altering the laws of physics etc..

When every single person who does something apparently impossible, and who has been checked out, has turned out to be a magician, it's more than a little unwise to accept a claim that someone who wasn't checked out, and can't be because he's been dead for two thousand years, was the one solitary instance of a genuine miracle worker.

So what justification do you have for taking such an unwise stance?

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Every single time we have checked out such a thing, it has always turned out to be a duck. What reason could you possibly have to believe that on this one single occasion, it's a goose on the way to a fancy dress party?

You've said it yourself. No miracle duck has ever quacked.

 

[dbz]

Am I quackers to be a devotee of said canard^fr?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I just went back to the Wikipedia page on the Christ myth theory, which I haven't looked at in years, to find it is basically being portrayed as analogous to Young Earth Creationism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory .

Yes, that's a popular way among historicists to impugn the Christ-myth "theory" which is actually a set of theories, a fact that seems lost on historicists. In any case, comparing Christ-myths to creationism is a weak analogy at best. The evidence for evolution is far more robust and convincing than the evidence for a historical Christ. Those who doubt evolution are doubting a theory supported by very strong evidence while those who doubt the historicity of Christ are doubting a claim that has comparatively weak evidence to support it.

And, Internet Infidels/Secular Web gets a mention:

Ehrman notes that "the mythicists have become loud, and thanks to the Internet they've attracted more attention".[380] Within a few years of the inception of the World Wide Web (c. 1990), mythicists such as Earl Doherty began to present their argument to a larger public via the internet.[note 35] Doherty created the website The Jesus Puzzle in 1996,[web 24] while the organization Internet Infidels has featured the works of mythicists on their website[381] and mythicism has been mentioned on several popular news sites.[382]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGullotta2017311–312,_n._34-466

It's common for Jesus historicists like Ehrman to impugn mythicism as a product of the internet and do so using the internet! Ehrman is implying that since mythicism is popular on the internet, then it doesn't have a scholarly basis. Another way to look at it is that the internet has enabled skeptics to more freely express their views that there simply are no good reasons to believe Jesus existed, a notion that Ehrman and his ilk find repugnant and unacceptable.

Since its resurgence in the 1970's, proponents of the Christ Myth Theory have only managed to publish one peer reviewed book on the topic, "On The Historicity Of Jesus" by Dr. Richard Carrier, with the footnote that this was published by Sheffield, who also published Thomas Brodie's mythicist autobiography, so they seem to like that sort of thing. The only related peer reviewed publication was by Dr. Raphael Lataster, arguing for Jesus Agnosticism. I have interviewed Richard before and find his argument rigorous and plausible, though I ultimately disagree with mythicism on interpretive grounds.

It's very common for people to impugn the sources of anybody who espouses an idea they disagree with. If historicists are so concerned about sources of information, then they need to take a look at the New Testament, the source they use for information!

What do others think of Jesus Mythicism? Do you find it plausible, or finge/crank?

I have no convincing evidence that Jesus existed or not. Since it's plausible either way, I keep an open mind on the issue.

Would anyone be interested in discussing the recent Loftus/Price mythicist book Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist.

View attachment 38791

I realize I'm raising this in the context of Internet Infidels / Secular Web, where Richard used to work, and he has a significant online following, so there may be some interesting discussions to be had!

I'll put it on my reading list and get back to you when I'm done reading it.

 

[steve_bank]

Facinating how people endlessly quote and reference people from thousands of years ago. People for who we know nothing about what they wrer really like as human beings.

Euhemerus (fl. late 4th century BCE) wrote Iera Anagraphe in which he maintained the Greek deities actually were historical mortals.

Circa 1865 in literature on myth—the word "euhemerism" was coined as the "historical theory" of mythology.

We do not know if Euhemerus was an atheisist who really did believe what he said, or was just advocating for the belief in the the Pythagorean's Monad, Middle-Platonic "All-Father", etc..

All we do know for sure is that Euhemerus turned a god(s) into a human—the exact opposite of apothéōsis (Greek ἀποθέωσις ).

"psychology". Etymonline.

Origin and meaning of psychology

• 1650s, "the study of the soul," from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhē "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of" (see -logy). The meaning "science or study of the phenomena of the mind" is attested by 1748, in reference to Christian Wolff's "Psychologia empirica" (1732). The modern behavioral sciences sense is from the early 1890s.

In the 70s when I was reading through Tibetan Buddhism after a while itsunk in that take away the paranormal aspects and it vwas a practical psychology. The mental practices ere about mental health.

I see Buddha s the first 'self help guru' so to speak.

I watched an old Bill Moyers show where he had psychologists, atheists, and theists picking apart Genesis. There is actualy a pscyholgy to it beyond the supernatural.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Do you find it plausible, or finge/crank?

Those aren't necessarily non-overlapping categories.

True, I find it fringe, and yet plausible. \

All ideas start out as "fringe." If those ideas are also plausible, then we should hope they get their days in court.

I think Carrier makes a compelling argument that there is definitely influence here from Pagan Dying/Rising God mythology (see his post https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890 ). Another good point he has is the Rank-Raglan mythotype, that if we put the names of figures in a hat that are as heavily mythologized as Jesus, the likelihood of drawing the name of an historical figure is at best 1/3.

Sure. Jesus is a possibly mythical figure who is very often privileged over other such figures. This "privileged Jesus" should come as no surprise in a culture greatly influenced by Christianity. I should emphasize that anybody who privileges the historicity of Jesus need not be a Christian. Even scholars who may be atheists can be influenced by our predominately Christian culture especially when those scholars have been educated by Christian institutions.

I also don't feel the historicist's "go to" arguments like the "James, the brother of the Lord" passage, or the seed of David passage in Paul are particularly problematic for mythicism. With the former, Carrier is right that "James" in Paul could simply be referring to a non-apostolic baptized Christian, not a blood brother of Jesus, and for the latter, as Covington pointed out to Carrier, we have an analogy to magically preserved sperm in Zoroastrianism (which the Christians seem to have been using anyway), so that objection doesn't really work either.

I think that the "James, brother of the Lord" mentioned by Paul was a real man. However, to say he ate at the same breakfast table as Jesus did is a stretch. How many people who say that they are "the brother of the Lord" are saying that they are literally God's blood brother?

I disagree with Carrier on interpretive grounds since the message the first Christians were trying to sell makes far more sense from a historicist perspective than a mythicist one.

I've often wondered if Jesus existed, then why didn't the early Christian sect encourage people to visit his presumably empty tomb or the place of his crucifixion? Real people tend to have real places of death and burial whereas fabricated people have no such evidence left behind.

It's not important to me from a personal point of view, since Christianity is not more likely true if Jesus existed. It's all just ancient superstition however you paint the portrait of Jesus, mythical or historical.

The probability of Christianity's claims being true if Jesus never existed is close to zero. That's what scares many people about mythicism. For those of us who have no stake in the historicity of Jesus, we can openly consider the very real possibility that he was but a myth.

 

[Jarhyn]

The probability of Christianity's claims being true if Jesus never existed is close to zero. That's what scares many people about mythicism. For those of us who have no stake in the historicity of Jesus, we can openly consider the very real possibility that he was but a myth.

I'll point out that this is only partially true when addressing claims beyond immediate historical reification.

While 100% of the events are suspect, all the stories themselves are extant. It is trivially so.

Most don't need the stories to be true for them to carry important messages and for people to accept the need to forgive one another and love one another.

In fact there is even an important message about redemption from ignorance through the passage of knowledge, and the necessity of it for there to be any hope of saving ourselves from our flaws.

It's just that back then there wasn't much a concept of an independent genre of "fantasy", and folks tended to write their fictions as if they happened in the actual past about real people.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Current discussion topics:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Title
2. The Hypocrisy Of Dr. Bart Ehrman On The Historicity Of Jesus & comments @

That's a very informative video. Bart Ehrman's judgment of the Gospels is a paradox. On one hand the Gospels are full of historical problems, and on the other hand they are totally convincing historical sources for a historical Jesus.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The probability of Christianity's claims being true if Jesus never existed is close to zero. That's what scares many people about mythicism. For those of us who have no stake in the historicity of Jesus, we can openly consider the very real possibility that he was but a myth.

I'll point out that this is only partially true when addressing claims beyond immediate historical reification.

What is only partially true?

While 100% of the events are suspect, all the stories themselves are extant. It is trivially so.

Yes. We have stories about Jesus. That's not in dispute.

Most don't need the stories to be true for them to carry important messages and for people to accept the need to forgive one another and love one another.

I wonder why people need stories to teach them that love and forgiveness are often advantageous. But yes, stories can impart "truths" beyond their plots and their characters. Aesop's fables come to mind. Many people in antiquity told stories for that purpose.

In fact there is even an important message about redemption from ignorance through the passage of knowledge, and the necessity of it for there to be any hope of saving ourselves from our flaws.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

It's just that back then there wasn't much a concept of an independent genre of "fantasy", and folks tended to write their fictions as if they happened in the actual past about real people.

I've heard that before. I understand that people in antiquity did not distinguish between myth and history. So for the early Christians, it perhaps didn't matter if Christ really existed or not. Only later was his earthly life made into a dogma with the Apostles' Creed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here

The entire theme of the new testament, and like... Half of the old testament?

Sin has always been a metaphor for the ignorance we are born in. Knowledge, understanding, and the work of and for each other are our only freedom from that.

It's just also much more useful as a tool of control when that isn't spelled out clearly, and people think that it's somehow their fault they were spewed into the world knowing nothing, among a society that knows only the barest bit more than that.

Only in accepting how little we know (and how shaky our knowledge is even in the things we do 'know') may we ever come to know more.

I wonder why people need stories to teach them that love and forgiveness are often advantageous

Because Darwinism pushes hard towards selfishness, with many compartments of defense shielding this core from modification.

The less engaging and empathetically available information is, the less it can make it through that swamp of denial and self-deception and narcissistic tendencies. So we need stories about people to deliver them more effectively than a dry fucking lecture.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here

The entire theme of the new testament, and like... Half of the old testament?

I'm not familiar with any single themes that cover such large portions of the Bible. Generally, a particular theme usually applies to only one book of the Bible, but it can be argued that some themes, like Jesus' death on the cross, can be found in more than four books.

Sin has always been a metaphor for the ignorance we are born in. Knowledge, understanding, and the work of and for each other are our only freedom from that.

I think the opposite it the case. In Genesis 3, the first sin involved the acquisition of knowledge. I know of no sin that's described as ignorance.

It's just also much more useful as a tool of control when that isn't spelled out clearly, and people think that it's somehow their fault they were spewed into the world knowing nothing, among a society that knows only the barest bit more than that.

What "it" are you referring to? It's best not to use all pronouns. Doing so can make statements too vague.

Only in accepting how little we know (and how shaky our knowledge is even in the things we do 'know') may we ever come to know more.

I'm not sure if knowledge of ignorance is necessary to acquire knowledge, but I have found that the more I know, the more I know that there's much I don't know! You know?

I wonder why people need stories to teach them that love and forgiveness are often advantageous

Because Darwinism pushes hard towards selfishness, with many compartments of defense shielding this core from modification.

Actually, generosity can be a genetic survival mechanism because if we act to preserve others, then we act to preserve the genes they have that we share.

The less engaging and empathetically available information is, the less it can make it through that swamp of denial and self-deception and narcissistic tendencies. So we need stories about people to deliver them more effectively than a dry fucking lecture.

Using stories to impart knowledge can be helpful, but I've found that "dry lectures" are generally effective in that way.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not familiar with any single themes that cover such large portions of the Bible

Sin. The major them of the whole thing is "sin", which is a metaphorical treatment of "ignorance".

I'm not sure if knowledge of ignorance is necessary to acquire knowledge

It is, absolutely, necessary. If Christians had knowledge of their ignorance of the origin of the earth, it would be possible to reason them away from that ignorance...

Often, the worst kinds of wrongness that pop up here are those who are wrong and don't even have the tools to understand that wrongness.

 

[JemStone]

Here's a book refuting Ehrman's stance:
Jesus: Mything in Action
See review at https://volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/26/jesus-mything-in-action/

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm not familiar with any single themes that cover such large portions of the Bible

Sin. The major them of the whole thing is "sin"...

Wouldn't it be more correct that the theme of parts of the Old Testament is the prohibition of sin, and the New Testament theme is redemption from sin? To say that sin is a theme is too vague.

...which is a metaphorical treatment of "ignorance".

Can you cite a passage or two that equates ignorance with sin?

I'm not sure if knowledge of ignorance is necessary to acquire knowledge

It is, absolutely, necessary. If Christians had knowledge of their ignorance of the origin of the earth, it would be possible to reason them away from that ignorance...

OK, if I'm making an error, then yes, I need to know that I'm making an error to get it right. However, if I'm correct to begin with, then there is no error to know. So in your statement if Christians err regarding the origin of the earth, then to know how the earth truly originated they need to realize that they're wrong. If they're right to begin with, on the other hand, they have no ignorance to realize.

Often, the worst kinds of wrongness that pop up here are those who are wrong and don't even have the tools to understand that wrongness.

That's often the case. If we don't know we're wrong, then we won't seek what's correct. But like I've pointed out, if we are right to begin with, then there is no error to know.

 

[Learner]

Facinating how people endlessly quote and reference people from thousands of years ago. People for who we know nothing about what they wrer really like as human beings.

I don't know your identity or know much about you... but I can quote you and get your perspective from what you've posted;, e.g., knowing your stance and view on religion, and knowing a little about your engineering experience etc.. which you've shared on the forum. That's not that much more info than what I get, from what I quoted from the references made from people thousands of years ago.

There's enough info in their writings to express their world view.

 

[steve_bank]

Facinating how people endlessly quote and reference people from thousands of years ago. People for who we know nothing about what they wrer really like as human beings.

I don't know your identity or know much about you... but I can quote you and get your perspective from what you've posted;, e.g., knowing your stance and view on religion, and knowing a little about your engineering experience etc.. which you've shared on the forum. That's not that much more info than what I get, from what I quoted from the references made from people thousands of years ago.

There's enough info in their writings to express their world view.

If you have read my posts over the time you have been on the forum my worf view on relgion is clear.

As to what I said it is what it is..

Christians constantly iterpret and spin the disjointed writings thousands of years old written at differnt times by unknwn authors.

In secular philosophy major histrcal figures are generaly lnwn by multiple historical coronations and clear coherent writings. That the bible is a moral guide is ridiculous. As has been pointed out recently the Chrtianity you have rginated as a blend of pagan and Jewish culture. Who Jesus was o if he ever existed s depicted in the gospels is unknown.

Plato, Aristotle, and up through history. There is also a history of Asian philosophers.

Ww do not tale all of it as gospel truth and we do learn from what they wrote. But we also recognize their place as a point in the evolution of human thought and ideas.


While I believe I understand the allure and psychology of religion, it is mind boggling in our times of mass education, widely availability of books, and modern science that Christians try to shoe horn modern reality into the bible. It is mystifying.

I have been wtaching old wetern reruns on TV i grew up wtaching. A common tme is two peole or groupds sytuck on a moral issue. One sides quotes the bible to make their point. The other side couets with a differnt quotef rom the bible.

The boble is an incoherent mess when it comes to a moral philosophy.I blive part of it is brain chemistry and how our brains are wired. Single minded beliefs increase endorphins, feel good hormones. It becomes a self [perpetrating addiction.