What do you think about the Jesus myth hypothesis?

So over the past decade or so, the Jesus myth hypothesis seems to have gained popularity.

For those of you who dont know, the Jesus myth is basically the idea that the Historical Jesus did not exist. Now when I say "Historical Jesus", I mean any flesh and blood Jesus whose followers (or followers of his followers) birthed Christianity. The Jesus myth hypothesis advocates that this man never existed. It is usually based on 2 lines of evidence
1: There are numerous parallels between the story of Jesus as found in the New Testament and older pagan mystery religions
2: There simply isn't enough evidence from contemporaneous

when I say "historical Jesus", I dont mean the Jesus whose life we can reconstruct, as so many skeptical scholars (Jesus seminar) say.

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Curlyfrii87

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Curlyfrii87

[QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Setsa

Science can't explain religion, and religion can't explain science.

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Science can't explain religion, and religion can't explain science.

[QUOTE="Setsa"][QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Legendaryscmt

Science can't explain religion, and religion can't explain science.

There is far more evidence for the man's existence than evidence for... say... Socrates.Oleg_Huzwog

But Socrates lived 400 years before Jesus was supposedly born.

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

Curlyfrii87

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]There is far more evidence for the man's existence than evidence for... say... Socrates.jehuty12

But Socrates lived 400 years before Jesus was supposedly born.

[QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"][QUOTE="Setsa"] What he said. Oh, and I think all science is ALL wrong because there isn't enough evidence to explain everything yet :Pdanwallacefan

Science can't explain religion, and religion can't explain science.

Care to explain?

[QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

CptJSparrow

What he said. Oh, and I think all science is ALL wrong because there isn't enough evidence to explain everything yet :PSetsa

[QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

CptJSparrow

That's quite the sophism you got there :P I'm guessing that a Jewish congregation just decided to start making chronicles about a made up character and formulate a new religion around him? The fact that Jesus was the Messiah is a subject of debate, Him actually existing really isn't, unless you wanna start redefining the meaning of existence and get into all that philosophical jumble :PSetsa

I believe Jesus existed, but he was just a man. Not the 'Son of Man' or the 'Son of God'.

The dates and events attributed in his "divine" life are all stories and myths from older religions that have passed throught out the times.

[QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Curlyfrii87"]

It's ignorant to say that He never existed! :?

mindstorm

Why didn't Jesus ever write anything? You know, keep a journal or something?MCPresident

I don't know much about the culture of the time, but I can't imagine the literacy rate for carpenters as being very high.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="Legendaryscmt"]

Science can't explain religion, and religion can't explain science.

-Jiggles-

Care to explain?

[QUOTE="Setsa"]That's quite the sophism you got there :P I'm guessing that a Jewish congregation just decided to start making chronicles about a made up character and formulate a new religion around him? The fact that Jesus was the Messiah is a subject of debate, Him actually existing really isn't, unless you wanna start redefining the meaning of existence and get into all that philosophical jumble :PCptJSparrow

[QUOTE="MCPresident"]Why didn't Jesus ever write anything? You know, keep a journal or something?Oleg_Huzwog

I don't know much about the culture of the time, but I can't imagine the literacy rate for carpenters as being very high.

Weeellll, that's where the whole philosophical aspect comes in. Heck, it can be debated that neither of us exist, so I guess it all boils down to perception....Setsa

[QUOTE="MCPresident"]Why didn't Jesus ever write anything? You know, keep a journal or something?Oleg_Huzwog

I don't know much about the culture of the time, but I can't imagine the literacy rate for carpenters as being very high.

[QUOTE="Setsa"]Weeellll, that's where the whole philosophical aspect comes in. Heck, it can be debated that neither of us exist, so I guess it all boils down to perception....CptJSparrow

If the historical Jesus didn't exist, then how would the religion have been created? Whether or not he made a conscious decision to create the religion is irrelevant, the religion was created in his name and grew out of what he taught. There is enough evidence to suggest that the man who spawned the religion existed but that is all. Any claims about anything he did that was any bit supernatural in nature is pure mythology.foxhound_fox

Then I would like to hear your take on the historicity of the empty tomb, the appearances of christ, and how you explain the origin of the belief in the resurrection. danwallacefan

There is far more evidence for the man's existence than evidence for... say... Socrates.Oleg_Huzwog

If we had Roman authors mentioning Jesus, or if his followers wrote about Him during his lifetime, I don't think I'd have much trouble convincing peope He existed.

Tombs get robbed all the time. foxhound_fox

Here's the problem: Ancients knew this. The fact that they came to belief in the resurrection is the reason why the tomb story is very important. No one would have come to belief in the resurrection just because they saw an empty grave.

When someone dies, people grieve and often "see" those who they loved a lot all the time, it is a common occurrence within the human psyche, it aids emotional healing. foxhound_fox

likewise, the ancients were very aware of this fact. Visions of the deceased always served as evidence that the man was dead, not alive and walking around. The visions simply cannot account for the belief in the resurrection. Furthermore, from what we've been able to gather from our most valuable sources, these appearances were bodily group experiences.

If you can point me to a source that isn't in the Bible that records anything about the resurrection I would love to see it. foxhound_fox

I would like to see why you don't trust the New Testament and only trust sources outside the New Testament. The fact that christians in 367 AD decided to call these books holy scripture is of no relavence.

Everything about Jesus that somehow twists his life into something supernatural or divine is purely mythology and based solely on faith. foxhound_fox

No, not really. Again, without the resurrection it is very hard to account for the cumulative facts of the empty tomb, the appearances of Christ to the twelve, to Paul, to James, and to the 500 bretheren, and it is very hard to explain the origin of the Christian faith.

There is absolutely not a shred of evidence to support any of it... if there were, everyone on the planet would be Christan.foxhound_fox

I'm sorry, but that comment sounds tantamount to saying that every American would accept Evolution, and every american would accept the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if there were actually evidence for it. We know that there is an incredible wide and diverse body of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, but we also know that only 28% of americans embrace this simple fact of science.

for more information, check out the following 3 sources
Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Fortress, 2003
Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, Baker Academic, 2007
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Wm. B Eerdmans, 2006

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]There is far more evidence for the man's existence than evidence for... say... Socrates.mysterylobster

If we had Roman authors mentioning Jesus, or if his followers wrote about Him during his lifetime, I don't think I'd have much trouble convincing peope He existed.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]There is far more evidence for the man's existence than evidence for... say... Socrates.danwallacefan

If we had Roman authors mentioning Jesus, or if his followers wrote about Him during his lifetime, I don't think I'd have much trouble convincing peope He existed.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] Pick another example. Jesus lacks contemporary sources, while there are tons for Socrates (Students such as Xenophon and Plato and even authors who poke fun at him, such as Aristophanes).

If we had Roman authors mentioning Jesus, or if his followers wrote about Him during his lifetime, I don't think I'd have much trouble convincing peope He existed.

mysterylobster

likewise, the ancients were very aware of this fact. Visions of the deceased always served as evidence that the man was dead, not alive and walking around. The visions simply cannot account for the belief in the resurrection. Furthermore, from what we've been able to gather from our most valuable sources, these appearances were bodily group experiences.danwallacefan

What sources besides the Bible record these anecdotal accounts?

I would like to see why you don't trust the New Testament and only trust sources outside the New Testament. The fact that christians in 367 AD decided to call these books holy scripture is of no relavence.danwallacefan

No, not really. Again, without the resurrection it is very hard to account for the cumulative facts of the empty tomb, the appearances of Christ to the twelve, to Paul, to James, and to the 500 bretheren, and it is very hard to explain the origin of the Christian faith.danwallacefan

ummmmm....:lol:

I'm sorry, but that comment sounds tantamount to saying that every American would accept Evolution, and every american would accept the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old if there were actually evidence for it. We know that there is an incredible wide and diverse body of evidence for evolution and the age of the earth, but we also know that only 28% of americans embrace this simple fact of science.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] you are aware of the fact that none of those authors actually wrote about Socrates while he was alive...right? danwallacefan

I'm not saying any of this proves that Jesus didn't exist, since I obviously believe He did. I'm only correcting those who think there's as much evidence for Jesus' existance as for Socrates'.

What sources besides the Bible record these anecdotal accounts?foxhound_fox

Why does being canonized make a document untrustworthy?

Religious texts are biased and contain frivolous amounts of myth and metaphors. foxhound_fox

All history is bias, especially ancient history. as Blomberg rightly pointed out, all ancient history had an agenda. THe notion of writing history purely for the sake of writing history had not really been invented. all good historians wrote history as a story. Furthermore, please define "Religious text" for the audience.

Not something that could ever be considered a reliable source for historical material. That is why correlation between non-religious sources is so important to those of us who wish to reach an objective conclusion.foxhound_fox

once again, please define "religious text" for the audience. Furthermore, once again, ALL ancient history was bias.

Is there anywhere but the Bible that records these 500 accounts? foxhound_fox

Just because the accounts were collected into the New Testament is of no relavence.

There is very little historical evidence to even suggest that the man named "Jesus" actually existed. foxhound_fox

Let's see we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Josephus, Mara Bar Serapion, and the many church fathers.

Compared to some of his other contemporaries, especially that of the Roman empire, have far more reliable textual and archaeological evidence to support their existence. foxhound_fox

actually our oldest and most reliable accounts and written sources on Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar post-date their deaths. They were written by Suetonius and Tacitus, several decades after their death. Furthermore, the textual evidence backing up the New Testament is outstanding. There are several lines of independent textual transmission. furthermore, our oldest manuscripts date to no more than 50 years after the autographa were written. Compare that to Tacitus' Annals, whose oldest manuscript is nearly 1,000 years removed from the autographa.

And if Jesus were in fact the son of God and ascended to Heaven to be with his father/himself, then why would his physical body need to be brought back to life in order to go to a realm where physical existence is unnecessary?

foxhound_fox