Jesus myth theories

It's a jungle out there on the net. Christians have to cope with a lot of disinformation circulated by various crackpots to the effect that Jesus never existed but was a myth invented by the early Christians or by someone else. Most serious scholars reject this claim, and some of the more extravagant variants were debunked decades ago, but they keep turning up as atheist propaganda. I'd like to devote this thread to examining these "Jesus myth" theories as objectively as possible. Was Jesus a real historical person or was He fictional?

 

To start things off, I'd like to distinguish among three major variants of the Jesus myth thesis which I'll call (1) Christ conspiracy theories; (2) copycat theories; and (3) mythical pattern theories. The Christ conspiracy theories include claims that Jesus was a deliberate fabrication, especially by the Romans, to dupe or divide people. In this category I'd put Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, claiming that Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the Jews, and John Allegro's Jesus the Mushroom theory, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. The Christ Conspiracy by S. Acarya (aka D. Murdock), and the Zeitgeist film which relies on her work would seem to be naturals for this category, although the overlap with the copycat theories and are easier for me to discuss there. The copycat theories charge that Christians borrowed or "stole" their savior from other religions. Most of these theories allege that Christians borrowed their ideas from the pagan mystery religions of the ancient world. (Price, Freke and Gandy, Doherty, Zindler). A variant holds that the Christians constructed Jesus out of Jewish sources (Thompson, G. A. Wells). Finally, the "mythical pattern" theory is noncommittal about copying, but holds that a mythical Jesus developed by the same processes by which other myths develop. Richard Carrier is the principal proponent of this position. It's my own opinion that evidence for an historical Jesus is not great, but enough for reasonable people to conclude there probably was such a person. However, it also seems unlikely to me that He said or did a lot of the things attributed to him, and that so many legends and dogmas developed surrounding the historical Jesus that believing in Him requires faith and discernment.

 

Objectively it doesn't make a difference. Absent some profound intervention the whole story is an axiomatic model used as a basis for further reasoning or to get a grasp on willful action. The axiomatic model makes accessible things that otherwise would not occur to you. Or put it this way, jesus intercedes to bring down more understanding than you can muster from your limited perspective.

Having said that, I think the axiomatic model is not just the brainchild of one person. These things shall you do and even greater than these. Many players figure in the making of this model so in a profound sense the power that jesus represents comes from more than the one jesus. When we see christ in our brother, we shall be like him. These are real men just as we are real men. He who believes on me believes not on me but the one who sent me. Let us make man in our own image. Who does god send to, the one who calls upon him. It doesn't occur to god that his creation might be having trouble sleeping. What good father would give a child a stone when he wanted, needed bread? What god gives is truly given. Having life and being alive are the same. And the lesson of resurrection, death has no power over life. How is resurrection from the specter or spectacle of death achieved. In all you do for the body, re-member me, in other words treat everyone as though he were the one standing before you. What would jesus do? Odd question since there is debate as to whether he even exists and in what capacity but he told you what to do. This cup of blood is the chalice of the heart and in all that you long for, re-member me. The path to god goes through your brother and this is the way and the truth and the life.

I apologize if this statement is not in keeping with the spirit of the question as I put the question to spirit.

 

As a practical matter, it might seem not to make a difference whether a figure is made up from whole cloth or was an actual person who became a legend. King Arthur comes to mind. Many historians today believe there was such a person, but don't think he had a round table, a magic sword,a bunch of knightly followers who did marvelous deeds, etc. Same with Troy. So what difference does it make? In exchanges on this and other sites, the Jesus myth theories are often put forward in strongly accusatory language that suggests Christian believers are dishonest or dupes. We "stole" ideas from others, or we are dupes of some conspiracy. In reality, the conspiracy theories and copycat theories are themselves half-baked products of sloppy scholarship. I think it's useful from the standpoint of accuracy to set the record straight. Beliefs on such matters can have significant consequences. Drews The Christ Myth convinced Vladimir Lennin that Jesus never existed. If that book had never been published, maybe the history of Russia would have turned out differently.

 

If you are saying Jesus was real [I am not sure what else you are saying is real - perhaps say] and that 'crackpots' are wrong why are you to inviting people to add disinformation?

Anyhoo, I agree with the op last few sentences.

 

I understand your frustrations.

So it is a practical matter to those keeping score but I would suggest that god is not mocked or what is so is so. If someone accuses you of stealing show them what you really have. The holy are every bit as obvious as the poor or the criminal or the light in you is simply darkness. A good speaker draws a crowd of the admiring, a charlatan draws an unpleasant rabble. Having and being are the same. Beliefs only argue with other beliefs, not the truth. An argument about whether someone lived or died in the past is not an argument for abundant life, it is trying to nit pick the lint off of other peoples souls by setting the record straight. Everyone has the truth, the truth as told by god that his creation is like him and he saw that it was good.

So what do we do with their truth but honor it, it has some basis otherwise they wouldn't see anything to point to. In the case of those who suggest that the axiomatic structure was stolen from earlier times or places I say the wise take from their stores something that is old and add to it something that is new. It's called learning. I have already addressed the question of conspiracy, yes there is conspiracy, conspiracy means to be with the spirit. And of those who say there is no proof jesus existed I say all proof is found in the present and wisdom is justified by it's deeds.

If you think you know god, be a teacher of god not of his-tory.

Again I'm sorry if I disappoint, I am not trying to be obstinate but to suggest a clear path to straightening out the implications and recriminations of the past. To have a future different from the past we make a fundamentally different choice in the present not try and figure out what may have been right or wrong about our choices in the past. The only meaningful change is fundamental. The accounts of antiquity will never be straitened out, they can only be approximated in the present. But the realities of god account for the present itself. If this is in fact new wine or the straight talk don't wrap it in old skins or both the wine and the skins of those who come before us will be ruined.

So do we gather the truth by attacking illusions of past, or do we bring the illusions of the past to the truth of present and dispel the illusions brought forward from the past?
My will for you to succeed in finding your ease.

 

From the standpoint of accuracy,
consequences only seem significant in relation to what you see as potential.
Could have been worse. If something were significantly consequential, consequences would change. They don't. It is not what goes into the man but what come out. The measure you give is the measure you receive. It is absolutely correct that limited perception is not knowledge and it is also correct that without knowledge you have no willful knowledge. No political movement is consequential in time because the politic is using shrewdness tact and cunning to contend with the perceived problems of the moment. Most of the time the most prescient problem is how to keep authority. Whereas the traditional or institutional system is invisioned to be stable it is in fact reactionary in practice. Why worry for what will be tomorrow, there is enough trouble in a day, it causes cost overruns for public projects. Politics is not the answer but the trick of appeasement. Honest dealings are called for.

 

I'm inviting a discussion pro and con of the Jesus myth theory. I'm not saying that all people who think that Jesus was a myth are crackpots, or uniformed. I'm hoping that an exchange of ideas will help in clearing up misconceptions and getting at a more accurate picture of reality.

 

Fair enough. Still not sure it makes sense. Probably me.

 

an art of realism ? at the funeral yesterday i was looking at all the
art of a small town country church . look way down low and within
a people who are dying . what do they hear ?

one song goes that jesus was depressed as a teenager then afterwhile
hitch-hiked to India .

 

Sounds like a church with a New Age perspective. Did he get many rides?

 

I think Jesus was,is everything the bible says he was, is just because.. mark 9:23

 

A couple of incidents made me aware of how much the "Jesus myth" theory has become an urban legend in our culture. First, there is Stephen Pinker, respected Harvard psychologist and atheist, in The Better Angels of Our Nature , where he casually dismisses Christianity by saying that in the first milennium BCE : “the story of Jesus was by no means unique. A number of pagan myths told of a savior who was sired by a god, born of a virgin at the winter solstice, surrounded by twelve zodiacal disciples, sacrificed as a scapegoat at the spring equinox, sent into the underworld, resurrected amid much rejoicing, and symbolically eaten by his followers to gain salvation and immortality.” Does it matter that practically none of this is true?


Second, there is Bill Maher in his 2008 box office satirical documentary Religulous, in which he surprises an unwary Christian with the following exchange:

Bill Maher: "But the Jesus story wasn’t original".
Christian man: "How so?"
Maher: "Written in 1280 B.C., the Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus. Horus is the son of the god Osiris, born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead. “Asar” translates to “Lazarus.” Oh, yeah, he also had twelve disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first, and after three days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected. "



So here in these two quotations we have the gist of the Copycat version of the Jesus myth and lots of details to chew on:
(1) Jesus wasn’t original, because lots of pagan myths were telling a similar story.
(2) A number of pagan myths had saviors who were sired by gods in virgin births,
(3) These gods had the same birthday: the winter solstice.
(4) They also had twelve disciples, representing signs of the zodiac.
(5) They were sacrificed as scapegoats at the spring equinox.
(6) They visited the underworld.
(7) They were resurrected from the dead.
(8) Their followers symbolically ate them in a communal meal to gain salvation and immortality.
(9) Horus was fathered by the god Osiris and born to a virgin, the goddess Isis.
(10)He was baptized by Anup the Baptizer
(11)He performed remarkable healings, cast out demons and walked on water;
(12) He raised Ansar from the dead (which translates to Lazarus)
(13) He had twelve disciples and
(14) He was crucified.
(15) he was resurrected in three days and
(16) this was announced by three women.

Sure sounds like Jesus to me. Us Christians got a lot of ‘splaining to do. So I'd like to consider each of these claims and see if they have any substance. If anybody has other items to add to the list, feel free.

 

what's that to do with taking a vow of poverty , living on
life's crumbs , sitting in the dirt , praying for all tribes , and
singing the glory ?

 

Nothing in particular, unless the folks rejecting that are doing so because they think (like Lenin, or Steven Pinker, or Bill Maher) that the role model for that behavior, Jesus Christ, didn't really exist but was only a copy of a dime-a-dozen set of pagan myths.

 

What is discounted doesn't figure in.

 

I mentioned that part of the Jesus myth info I listed came from Pinker’s Better Angels. Where did he get his information? He cites only one source: B.G. Walker’s B. G. Walker’s “Pagan Jesuses: ‘The Other Easters,” Freethought Today, Apr. 2008, pp. 6–7. That’s Barbara G. Walker, an ardent freethinker, anti-Christian and feminist of the male-bashing variety with a journalist background and an agenda to defend her theory that the original Neolithic religions were goddess religions and societies were run by matriarchies until they were usurped by patriarchal invaders like the Hebrews. She develops these ideas fully in her book The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. Nothing wrong with feminism or the Neolithic matriarchy theory, so long as it's rooted in good scholarship, which hers isn’t. Her sources are often very old sources, which seems to be the case in her article for Freethought Today. Much of her thesis seems to be based on the work of James Frazer (1890), J. Rendel Harris (1913), and Edward Carpenter (1920), whose reputations have seen better days. Their views are considered antique today, and are criticized for over-generalizing and imposing their own preconceptions on the data, which are also criticisms made of Walker’s work by such feminist scholars as Margot Adler.

 

This description is affecting the fine sense of accuracy you are after and affects your perception of events. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so. In comparing things of like kind it is not necessary to be greater only alike.

 

I think it's a reasonable characterization. That's exactly what he does, and I'm calling a spade a spade.

 

The belief then is because of the saying. Heaven and earth could pass away as far as evidence but those words stick to you.
The truth of the saying makes it so.

He who believes on me believes on who invited me.
We cannot escape the effects of our own thinking.