Kapyong's Jesus Myth Theory

Status
Closed

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,547
In any case its a mistake to claim that "atheists" (whether militant or otherwise) have a stake in the existence or non existence of Jesus purely because of their atheism

It can in fact be argued that from the pov of atheists a human Jesus would be a much stronger argument against religion than a mythical Jesus.

A human Jesus is "falsifiable" while a mythical one is not...
 
Dec 2011
586
Perth
Gday tomar :)

In any case its a mistake to claim that "atheists" (whether militant or otherwise) have a stake in the existence or non existence of Jesus purely because of their atheism
Indeed.
But the opposite is obviously true -
a believer has a huge personal stake in the existence of Jesus.

It can in fact be argued that from the pov of atheists a human Jesus would be a much stronger argument against religion than a mythical Jesus.
A human Jesus is "falsifiable" while a mythical one is not...
Yup,
best to believe in a heavenly Jesus Christ (a spiritual being, not a hoax or fiction) who can never be falsified.

Because the trajectory of knowledge of the alleged historical Jesus of Nazareth is clearly heading the way of Adam and Eve and Noah and Abraham and Moses and Joshua and David and Solomon - all myths.

Judaism survived Moses etc. being a myth,
but
I doubt Christianity will well survive the realisation that Jesus was too.

Kapyong
PS - remember that 'myth' means some message told in the guise of a story - it doesn't mean fiction or falsehood or hoax.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,924
Gday tomar :)
Because the trajectory of knowledge of the alleged historical Jesus of Nazareth is clearly heading the way of Adam and Eve and Noah and Abraham and Moses and Joshua and David and Solomon - all myths.
Meanwhile the majority of believers do not acknowledge that Moses et al are mythical beings. They still think them to be true persons of the past. And internet active theists even lead long debates trying to prove their historicity. So I think that even if the historicity of Jesus were proved to be false among the historians (as with Moses) the vast majority of common Christians would continue to believe in real Jesus. The Church will keep silent as usuall (like it does with the Turin Shroud).
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
3,809
Connecticut
So they all believed in something that was not true, meaning multiple attestation means nothing.
It means nothing when it concerns something obviously mythical, like a "creator' making everything just by saying "presto" or a worldwide flood. But the temple ruckus account is about a real world place, and is perfectly plausible.


I didn't say it was impossible.
Just that the evidence shows it didn't happen.
Just because the gospels are mostly invention doesn't mean they contain nothing historical.

Why do you believe the Gospels were meant to be taken as historical ?
People were expected to believe all that stuff, including the census, the flight into Egypt, the birth in bethlehem, the triumphal entry into jerusalem and other made up things.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,318
T'Republic of Yorkshire
It has been quite clear for some time that this thread has been taken over by people who wish to "disprove" religion.

Historum is NOT a site to discuss religious doctrine, and that includes the validity, or otherwise, of any religion. This subforum is provided for you to discuss religion in a HISTORICAL context.

You want to prove your god is the true god, or that god is a lie, do it elsewhere. This kind of behaviour will NOT be tolerated, and dressing it up as a philosophical or hypothetical question, or a need to "understand" religious doctrine won't save you. You really want to understand it, go and find a religious forum to ask it on, and stick to history on Historum.

THREAD CLOSED.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions