Christ myth theory

ThickStemz said:

My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results.

Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.

Click to expand...

No, they don't. Your personal beliefs absolutely influence your perceptions. Early man saw an eclipse and saw the world ending, modern man sees an eclipse and sees the moon passing in front of the sun.

ThickStemz said:

The methodology of history is tried and true. When it's turned onto the bible this is what is found.

Here is a blog on the anonymity of the gospels by one of the world's leading expert on the bible. He went to Billy Graham's scool. Grew up in the faith.

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/

Click to expand...

Your citation counters your claims:
"Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
Read the first sentence.
On a side note, this is an example of your beliefs altering your perceptions

Red1966 said:

No, they don't. Your personal beliefs absolutely influence your perceptions. Early man saw an eclipse and saw the world ending, modern man sees an eclipse and sees the moon passing in front of the sun.

Click to expand...

No they saw the exact same thing. They eyes witnessed identical spectacles.

Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better.

Red1966 said:

Your citation counters your claims:
"Most of the *other* books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the *later* Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.). Those authors were not afraid of having their person get in the way of the message. So why were the Gospel writers?"
Read the first sentence.

Click to expand...

Look it was a popular thing to do at the time, forge a document. My understanding of what they found at Nag Hamadi, one of the largest discoveris of ancient books ever, was the fabrication of one of the books.

If 1 Peter is real we know 2 Peter to be a forgery. We just do. Don't be mad at me.

Your Sunday school teacher spins a cute little story of mark and Matthew writing this stuff down but it just didn't happen that way.

Red1966 said:

I work with scientists on a professional basis. My experience is that scientist often aren't even aware of their prejudices. I have seen many experiments fail because of wrong assumptions, or assuming some vender knew the equipment they sold better than the people who actually use the equipment. Basically, they assume a degree makes one smarter than one without a degree. After 7 years of watching the same device fail at the same point, I modified the device without permission and increased the strength of the device three-fold. The scientist assumed it was "accidental", because he could not admit that a layman could do what hundreds engineers could not. I should apply for a patent.
"Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria" Wrong. Faith is often a rudimentary way to explain things we don't understand. The "Big Bang" theory is as close to creationism as one can get.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time.

The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind.

The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.

ThickStemz said:

No they saw the exact same thing. They eyes witnessed identical spectacles.

Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better.



Look it was a popular thing to do at the time, forge a document. My understanding of what they found at Nag Hamadi, one of the largest discoveris of ancient books ever, was the fabrication of one of the books.

If 1 Peter is real we know 2 Peter to be a forgery. We just do. Don't be mad at me.

Your Sunday school teacher spins a cute little story of mark and Matthew writing this stuff down but it just didn't happen that way.

Click to expand...

"Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better" Exactly my point. Their beliefs caused them to see the same event differently.
"If 1 Peter is real........." Conceding my point while trying to refute it.
"Your Sunday school teacher" I haven't been to church in over 50 years. An example of your belief causing you to see something that isn't there.

ThickStemz said:

I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time.

The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind.

The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.

Click to expand...

I doubt anything thought to have happened 400 billion years ago is testable. The Bible clearly describes God. "God this...God that..." Perhaps you miss-worded that statement?

ThickStemz said:

I'm glad you have a mechanical mind. I, too, have had run ins with egg heads. They're super smart at one thing it seems most of the time.

The big bang is not well understood. But it is testable and can be proven false. I can't sit here and say with certainty that it wasn't the result of a first mover, a creation of a god of somekind.

The argument that flows from that is intelligent design. Even if intelligent design is true, it doesn't prove Christianity. It gets you no closer to proving god is the person described in the bible.

Click to expand...

One thing I can say is that I am not out to make a case for Christianity. It can do that on its own if it so chooses. One of the reasons that I feel that I was created was because two people created me. K, cool, got that part down. I've even made someone, too! (fun, buddy, really fun )

Anywho, I cannot take it far back enough to see anyone who wasn't made in that way, it becomes impossible. I'm not filling in a gap by assuming a fractal nature in that process, I am admitting my inability as a human being to see beyond it. From there, it becomes a matter of choice, and it is not based on some radical faith. Reason got me there, I don't know how else to explain it.

I don't mean to throw a wrench into the works, but, here we are talking about people. Inevitably, we are placing them in some local that best fits the era. Now, if you consider that places are states, and states are also states of being, of consciousness, then what does that make those people? They are part and parcel with a state of consciousness. To search for them on the ground, so to speak, is somewhat futile. They may have existed as personages in history, but they, as do all things, represent something non-tanbgile.

(2 beers and some GDK, btw )

Red1966 said:

"Their mind played tricks on the early man. Modern man knows better" Exactly my point. Their beliefs caused them to see the same event differently.
"If 1 Peter is real........." Conceding my point while trying to refute it.
"Your Sunday school teacher" I haven't been to church in over 50 years. An example of your belief causing you to see something that isn't there.

I doubt anything thought to have happened 400 billion years ago is testable. The Bible clearly describes God. "God this...God that..." Perhaps you miss-worded that statement?

Click to expand...

Gravitational waves were predicted. We just discovered them.

It's testable becuase looking into space is looking back into time.

The cosmic background noise is the afterglow. It's all next level stuff that someone's I feel I might fleetingly understand. But most of the time I dont. But when I read the words of Krause and others I understand their case. It's a good one.

ThickStemz said:

Gravitational waves were predicted. We just discovered them.

It's testable becuase looking into space is looking back into time.

The cosmic background noise is the afterglow. It's all next level stuff that someone's I feel I might fleetingly understand. But most of the time I dont. But when I read the words of Krause and others I understand their case. It's a good one.

Click to expand...

Except we haven't the ability to see that far, so not testable with current technology. Any case is a good one if you want to believe it. Once again, belief alters perception .

Red1966 said:

Except we haven't the ability to see that far, so not testable with current technology. Any case is a good one if you want to believe it. Once again, belief alters perception .

Click to expand...

We actually can see that far.

ThickStemz said:

We actually can see that far.

Click to expand...

Nope, not yet. Show me an actual photograph of the big bang if we have that ability. We can only see back a few million years at present. The universe is estimated at 450 billion years old.

ThickStemz said:

With all the similarities between the jesus story and lots of older religions and mythical figures there have long been those who have drawn those comparisons and said jesus was the myth too.

Becuase mainstream scholors have long held to the story that, son of god or not, there is a man behind the story of jesus. Why?

Click to expand...

Historical analysis.

ThickStemz said:

Western civilization descends from a very christian past. In fact, many who are professionals in this field have to sign statements of faith even today. That means their paychecks depend on holding to this traditional story.

With the professionals excluded, it had been left up to amateur historians to make this case. And it has shown.

Enter dr. Richard Carrier

Click to expand...

So,we are to exclude all other professionals,because of a perceived agenda,but allow Carrier's work? And you believe Carrier doesn't have an agenda?

ThickStemz said:

He has peer reviewd books that have passed that process, using accepted methods to draw the conclusion that Jesus never existed.

I'm very impressed with his work.

Click to expand...

His "accepted methods"(Bayesian analysis) is mathematical probabilities.Still requiring subjective input.
Carrier begins with the presupposition that Jesus never existed.In my opinion,Carrier's conclusion is no less tainted than the academic standard that he opposes.

ThickStemz said:

I think you'll find its a forger. It's my understanding that is settled.

Be that as it may, when Paul refers to James as "brother of the lord" all he is doing is saying he is a christian. Christians references to each other at the time was as brothers of the lord.

Click to expand...

James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.

Red1966 said:

Nope, not yet. Show me an actual photograph of the big bang if we have that ability. We can only see back a few million years at present. The universe is estimated at 450 billion years old.

Click to expand...

It isn't in the visible light spectrum.

It's in infrared ultraviolet and other wavelengths.

You'd know that if you cared to look into it.

dashcues said:

James is differentiated by the definite clause "the".When Paul speaks of other "brothers" he uses the indefinite clause "a".
It might seem like a small difference,but in linguistics,it's difference is the possessive.

Click to expand...

It really is unknowable. I've heard arguments from both sides and it's still not something we can be absolutely sure about.

I'll just add this. There is a long tradition of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. So was James the result of god impregnation Mary also?

Furthermore, isn't it quite pathetic that the best evidence that Jesus was actually a living breathing human being that actually existed so weak as to come down to this one line? He used "the" instead of "a"...

The gospels depict jesus as a fairly famous and well known man. They speak of large crowds and miraculous events. None of them are recorded elsewhere and they are the kinds of things people who were writing back then would have written about. But nothing survives.

To the extent jesus was a living man, he was nothing like what the gospels describe.

ThickStemz said:

It really is unknowable. I've heard arguments from both sides and it's still not something we can be absolutely sure about.

Click to expand...

"knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.

ThickStemz said:

I'll just add this. There is a long tradition of the "perpetual virginity" of Mary. So was James the result of god impregnation Mary also?

Click to expand...

I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her until she bore Jesus.
I'll let the Catholics (and others alike) defend Mary's perpetual virginity.My interests are with the historical aspects.

ThickStemz said:

Furthermore, isn't it quite pathetic that the best evidence that Jesus was actually a living breathing human being that actually existed so weak as to come down to this one line? He used "the" instead of "a"...

Click to expand...

Who says it's "the best evidence"? Not I.
Dig long enough and hard enough and you'll find that it's not just one piece of evidence that places Jesus within history.It's the most logical explanation to the type of (internal evidence) and amount of (historical references) evidence that we do have.
When added together,the case of historicity becomes likely.Not "knowable",and certainly not "absolute",but again,history doesn't work that way.

ThickStemz said:

The gospels depict jesus as a fairly famous and well known man. They speak of large crowds and miraculous events. None of them are recorded elsewhere and they are the kinds of things people who were writing back then would have written about. But nothing survives.

To the extent jesus was a living man, he was nothing like what the gospels describe.

Click to expand...

Jesus preached to the poor,downtrodden,and illiterate of backwater Judea in the 1st century.Educated writers would have been scarce and papyrus expensive.
What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.

It's a wondrous tale(though not without controversy).The story of a pious Jew who healed the sick,fed the hungry,and preached against the corruption of his day.Falsely accused of sedition.Scourged,ridiculed,and crucified for his practices.All the while,forgiving his executioners for their actions.
His tale was of such profound influence that it set a chain of events into motion that we see reflected in society still today.
If the story ended there it would be no less fascinating.But it was just beginning.

The perpetual virginity is referencing the womb that is untouched by man, the one that gives birth to stars. (Queen of "Heaven")

dashcues said:

"knowable" and "absolute" are not words that fit well when discussing history.Barring the invention of time travel,the best explanation to historical data,at the present,are varying degrees of plausibility.

I'm not a traditionalist,but I have heard arguments in favor of James being from a previous marriage of Joseph.There was no word in Koine Greek for step-brother.
What it says in the New Testament (Matthew) is:Joseph wouldn't know her until she bore Jesus.
I'll let the Catholics (and others alike) defend Mary's perpetual virginity.My interests are with the historical aspects.

Who says it's "the best evidence"? Not I.
Dig long enough and hard enough and you'll find that it's not just one piece of evidence that places Jesus within history.It's the most logical explanation to the type of (internal evidence) and amount of (historical references) evidence that we do have.
When added together,the case of historicity becomes likely.Not "knowable",and certainly not "absolute",but again,history doesn't work that way.

Jesus preached to the poor,downtrodden,and illiterate of backwater Judea in the 1st century.Educated writers would have been scarce and papyrus expensive.
What we wind up with is oral transmissions of his life.(what could be considered as the Q gospel,though certain scholars disagree.But that's a discussion for another time and place).
It's not until the gospel writers and Paul that we see some form of textual notoriety for the life of Jesus.
The gospel writers would have,I think,attained their information from diasporic Jews returning home from Passover.Relaying second-hand tales of a traveling preacher/healer.Hence the variations in the gospels.
Paul brought the Roman world to attention with the inclusion of gentiles(uncircumcised).
Without these occurrences,Christianity may have not have risen to what would come.

It's a wondrous tale(though not without controversy).The story of a pious Jew who healed the sick,fed the hungry,and preached against the corruption of his day.Falsely accused of sedition.Scourged,ridiculed,and crucified for his practices.All the while,forgiving his executioners for their actions.
His tale was of such profound influence that it set a chain of events into motion that we see reflected in society still today.
If the story ended there it would be no less fascinating.But it was just beginning.

Click to expand...

As I've always understood the myth theory it was that Jesus either didn't exist, or the person who did had stories told about him that evolved into what we know now are so unlike those stories that they are myth.

We've seen these myths developed in less time than the information gap that exists with christian writings. The cargo cults of the south pacific developed messianic figures out of whole cloth in 20 years time.

It's my understanding that the earliest christians were a Jewish sect that no longer exists and none of their writings survive.

The jesus story is myth. It's possible they're inspired by a real man or not.

ThickStemz said:

It isn't in the visible light spectrum.

It's in infrared ultraviolet and other wavelengths.

You'd know that if you cared to look into it.

Click to expand...

Show me the infrared photograph then. All cameras produce photographs.

Red1966 said:

Actually, "zero evidence" is contrary to everything you've cited. You have spoken throughout this thread of the Bible, which is evidence of his existence.

Click to expand...

OMFG