Christ myth theory

[dashcues]

Supposedly...
Paul never met jesus. Remember his story was that he was a persecutor of christians and had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Important to mention he never mentions jesus as a living breathing human walking around.

Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.

 

[ThickStemz]

We're not in disagreement about a "little change".We're in disagreement that Jesus came wholecloth out of mythology.The Christ myth theory denies even the most minimal of historicity.

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that christ myth theory says it's just as or even more likely that he never existed. To the extent the myth is based on a real person there is no resemblance.

 

[ThickStemz]

Paul talks about Jesus as a poor,humble Jewish man;born under the law; from a woman.A descendant of David,Jesse,and Abraham.Preaching to the Jewish people.Crucified in Zion.
Sounds to me like he's talking about a living breathing human.

Does the very fact that he has to say "born from a woman" not sound suspicious?

Where else would a person be born from?

My point is there is no stories of his life. No proof of life.

 

[New Age United]

His name might not have been Jesus and some of the details of his life could be a complete fiction but the fact remains; a very very wise man, what some would call a prophet, is responsible for the words that the character jesus speaks in the new testament.

 

[ThickStemz]

His name might not have been Jesus and some of the details of his life could be a complete fiction but the fact remains; a very very wise man, what some would call a prophet, is responsible for the words that the character jesus speaks in the new testament.

No. Paul is responsible for spreading a story that may or may not reflect reality. To the extent it does reflect reality, we cannot be sure.

That's all we know. Anything beyond that is belief.

 

[dashcues]

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that christ myth theory says it's just as or even more likely that he never existed. To the extent the myth is based on a real person there is no resemblance.

Not your understanding?
Didn't you say that there is "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up"?
And aren't you an advocate of Carrier's theory? He grants no historicity whatsoever.Claiming Jesus to be a complete myth.A 1st century celestial deity,crucified in the 2nd heavens.

 

[Rrog]

Who cares? The OP is a known racist lowbrow.

 

[ThickStemz]

Not your understanding?
Didn't you say that there is "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up"?
And aren't you an advocate of Carrier's theory? He grants no historicity whatsoever.Claiming Jesus to be a complete myth.A 1st century celestial deity,crucified in the 2nd heavens.

Even carrier doesn't say this is 100% proven. He simply thinks it's more probable that there was no real jesus.

There is a lot of evidence to his version of events. There is some evince that Jesus existed. It's just appropriate to correctly state the nature of that evidence. It isn't contemporary proof of life.

Evidence isn't proof.

 

[dashcues]

Does the very fact that he has to say "born from a woman" not sound suspicious?

Where else would a person be born from?

First you say that Paul never mentions Jesus as a living,breathing human.
After being shown that this was false, you now say that it's suspicious that Paul gives too much information that Jesus was human.
If inconsistency is what you're after,congratulations!

 

[ThickStemz]

First you say that Paul never mentions Jesus as a living,breathing human.
After being shown that this was false, you now say that it's suspicious that Paul gives too much information that Jesus was human.
If inconsistency is what you're after,congratulations!

Characterizing my statement as saying Paul gives "too much information" is rather disingenuous.

If you asked me to tell you something about my friend and I said "he was born from a woman." What does that tell you?

What did you expect me to do, deny that it didn't say that? It clearly does say that. But it doesn't say much. And saying a man was "born of a woman" is about as meaningless of a statement as you can imagine. How else are men born?

What I said still holds. There are no life stories in these letters. No tellings of the time Christ told his friends this or that, the time he went such and such place. Nothing of the details of the life of a man who recently lived and was so important to these folks.

That isn't me having it both ways.

The gospels are full of such detail. Paul isn't a character in the gospels. The gospels were written well after Paul wrote his letters.

 

[dashcues]

There is some evince that Jesus existed.

Well.There's a non-surprising turn of events.In just a few pages you've went from "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up" to "There is some evidence that Jesus existed".

 

[ThickStemz]

Well.There's a non-surprising turn of events.In just a few pages you've went from "loads of evidence that this whole jesus business is made up" to "There is some evidence that Jesus existed".

Its not a turn of events. Its just reality. Its not that there is no evidence, its that there is little or no good evidence.

 

[dashcues]

Its not a turn of events. Its just reality. Its not that there is no evidence, its that there is little or no good evidence.

At the beginning of this thread you asserted that there was no evidence to even suggest he was real.Matter of fact,you said there was loads of evidence that the whole Jesus business was made up.
Do you still say that there is no evidence? No. Have you presented this "loads of evidence"? No.
Now you say "there is some evidence that Jesus existed"
That's a turn of events.

 

[ThickStemz]

At the beginning of this thread you asserted that there was no evidence to even suggest he was real.Matter of fact,you said there was loads of evidence that the whole Jesus business was made up.
Do you still say that there is no evidence? No. Have you presented this "loads of evidence"? No.
Now you say "there is some evidence that Jesus existed"
That's a turn of events.

I might have meant to say there is no evidence to support that Jesus of the gospels was the son of god.

I might have been saying there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support jesus as depicted in the gospels.

I might have meant to say no good evidence and just left the word out... good.

If I stated that there is absolutely no evidence that there was an actual human being at the core of the jesus story then I spoke in error.

I'm simply here to discuss the theory. There is evidence for it. There is evidence that there was an actual person at the core of the jesus story. Neither proposition is more or less likely becuase of the skill of anyone who advocates it here.

That said, if I'm more swayed by the whole story Carrier puts together. I've not replicated it here. I'm not qualified or capable of doing it as he does. I simply enjoy the discussion.

 

[ThickStemz]

What I've been shocked by in this thread is that anyone could think that billions of people between about 200 C.E. and present day time believing in Christ is somehow evidence for him.

The number of people who believe something centuries after the fact have no bearing on its truth.

 

[dashcues]

I might have meant to say there is no evidence to support that Jesus of the gospels was the son of god.

I might have been saying there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support jesus as depicted in the gospels.

I might have meant to say no good evidence and just left the word out... good.

If I stated that there is absolutely no evidence that there was an actual human being at the core of the jesus story then I spoke in error.

I'm simply here to discuss the theory. There is evidence for it. There is evidence that there was an actual person at the core of the jesus story. Neither proposition is more or less likely becuase of the skill of anyone who advocates it here.

That said, if I'm more swayed by the whole story Carrier puts together. I've not replicated it here. I'm not qualified or capable of doing it as he does. I simply enjoy the discussion.

Nice post ThickStemz.

 

[dashcues]

What I've been shocked by in this thread is that anyone could think that billions of people between about 200 C.E. and present day time believing in Christ is somehow evidence for him.

It's not that their belief is evidence of him,it's that their belief is evidence of their faith in him.

 

[shishkaboy]

What did the Jesus dude look like?

 

[ThickStemz]

Nice post ThickStemz.

Thanks. Just trying to keep it real. To me it speaks volumes we cannot independently verify the life of Jesus. To some people that doesn't matter. I think that's all I was getting at.

It's not that their belief is evidence of him,it's that their belief is evidence of their faith in him.

Right. But those with faith in him will argue that it is evidence he is real.

 

[Red1966]

No I just misunderstood you, or you didn't express your thoughts well.

We can measure how far the galaxies are away. I can't explain it to you, I heard it explained and I understood it. Something to do with measuring the angle of observation to that galaxy 6 months apart while earth is on opposite sides of the sun.

Now, we can do that with every galaxy out there visible and we have ourselves a fairly accurate map of the universe.

We can see the way each of those galaxies is traveling, a rough idea of their speed and acceleration, and from there it's just physics. They're all flying away from a focul point apparently.

That is as clear as I can articulate it.

The picture itself isn't of the big bang. But for you to demand that is absurd. Particularly as a creationist. And a christian. Where is the video of the lifeless body of Jesus asending into heaven? Where is the picture of god creating the cosmos?

If you want to come in at this late hour as a christian and stand on the shoulders of secular science and say "ah ha, that's how god did it." Well no one can disprove that.

We can explain everything in the universe and the universe without a god. And putting a god into it adds nothing.

What is your point? I still don't get what you're trying to argue? Other than semantics.

See, this is an example of your arrogance. I was perfectly clear. You added words to my statement to get it to mean what you wanted me to say, not what I actually said. I know about triangulation, you don't have to explain it to me. You claimed such photos existed, yet you now say me asking for one is absurd? I'm not a creationist, nor a Christian, but I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus existed. You provided a link to rebut that contemporaries wrote about him that actually confirmed that they did. You are to trying to argue shit I didn't say, because you have no argument to what I did say. Why should I provide a photo of Jesus? I never claimed one existed. You did claim a photo of the Big Bang existed.
It pisses me off when people can't rebut my statements and then try to pretend I said something different and argue with that.