Why The Gospels Are Myth

[Brother Jeff]

I think this bears repeating, often. The Gospels are MYTH and Jesus as he is portrayed in them almost certainly did not exist.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILldt2XHZw0

 

Glory!

[mymistake]

That video is about an hour and five minutes too long for me to watch but if I had not been indoctrinated from childhood I probably would have noticed all the mythical creatures in the Gospels.  Just about any story that talks about gods, sons of gods, Satan, holy ghosts, miracles/magic, angels, levitation, and people rising from the dead is a myth.

[Blood]

No! The gospels aren't myth! They're just like any other Greco-Roman biography!

 

It's amazing the lengths people will go to deny that these are mythical stories. 

[miekko]

No! The gospels aren't myth! They're just like any other Greco-Roman biography!

 

It's amazing the lengths people will go to deny that these are mythical stories. 

Way to go strawmanning those secular scholars who study early Christianity and reject the christ myth theory. But I guess fallacies don't bother you.

[Blood]

Theologians aren't secular scholars, and secular scholars who do write about the Messiah (e.g., Michael Grant) rely upon theologians' arguments.

[Margee]

Thanks Jeff. I'm going to watch this tonight. I still love to watch these documentaries even after almost 4 years on this board.

 

You are such an asset to this community!! 

[miekko]

Theologians aren't secular scholars, and secular scholars who do write about the Messiah (e.g., Michael Grant) rely upon theologians' arguments.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that to yourself. 

[directionless]

Thanks, Brother Jeff. The mythical Jesus idea is hard for me to understand, so I hope the video will make it clearer.

[mymistake]

 

Theologians aren't secular scholars, and secular scholars who do write about the Messiah (e.g., Michael Grant) rely upon theologians' arguments.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that to yourself. 

 

 

 

Here Miekko, knock yourself out.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64866-is-there-evidence-of-historical-christ-from-non-religious-sources/#.VCAsSijqp5g

[Margee]

 

 

Theologians aren't secular scholars, and secular scholars who do write about the Messiah (e.g., Michael Grant) rely upon theologians' arguments.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that to yourself. 

 

 

 

Here Miekko, knock yourself out.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/64866-is-there-evidence-of-historical-christ-from-non-religious-sources/#.VCAsSijqp5g

 

 

Thanks MM. Much appreciated. Jeff posted this thread and it is meant to help the deconverting christians who are suffering.

 

Hug

[Blood]

 

Theologians aren't secular scholars, and secular scholars who do write about the Messiah (e.g., Michael Grant) rely upon theologians' arguments.

Yeah yeah, keep telling that to yourself. 

 

 

Keep telling myself the truth? 

 

"Unlike almost all biblical scholars, who operate in departments of religious studies, or religion, I am a professor of history ... in history, the evidentiary bar is considerably higher than it is in religion." -- William H.C. Propp, emphasis his (2013)

 

There you go. A history professor, who is also a Bible scholar, drawing a sharp distinction between the two disciplines. 

[rerics]

That video is about an hour and five minutes too long for me to watch but if I had not been indoctrinated from childhood I probably would have noticed all the mythical creatures in the Gospels.  Just about any story that talks about gods, sons of gods, Satan, holy ghosts, miracles/magic, angels, levitation, and people rising from the dead is a myth.

 

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that when we were Christians we did not recognize mythical elements inside the stories.  However, it does amaze me that they somehow believe that there *can't* be any mythology involved in the Gospel stories, developed over the course of the first hundred-or-so years, in an ever increasing and embellishing fashion.  If that were true, Jesus would be the only historical (assuming for the sake of argument that he is historical) figure who's life did *not* get mythologized to some degree.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had many legends build up around them, and they only lived a couple of centuries ago, not 2,000 years.

[Brother Jeff]

Thanks Jeff. I'm going to watch this tonight. I still love to watch these documentaries even after almost 4 years on this board.

 

You are such an asset to this community!! 

 

Thanks, Sister Margee! I feel exactly the same way about you! Glory!

[Brother Jeff]

Thanks, Brother Jeff. The mythical Jesus idea is hard for me to understand, so I hope the video will make it clearer.

 

Whether a historical Jesus actually lived or not is a subject of hot debate right now. Some historians and scholars such as Dr. Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty and David Fitzgerald say no. Others say yes he did live in history. I am undecided and don't really care either way. The historical Jesus is long dead if he did exist, and the Jesus of the Gospels is clearly and obviously myth. You might check this out. I have not had time to read through it all, but it's a critical response to David Fitzgerald's book entitled "Nailed".

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

 

I have read the article, but not Fitzgerald's response or any further discussion. I will get it done, though... Glory!

[mymistake]

 

That video is about an hour and five minutes too long for me to watch but if I had not been indoctrinated from childhood I probably would have noticed all the mythical creatures in the Gospels.  Just about any story that talks about gods, sons of gods, Satan, holy ghosts, miracles/magic, angels, levitation, and people rising from the dead is a myth.

 

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that when we were Christians we did not recognize mythical elements inside the stories.  However, it does amaze me that they somehow believe that there *can't* be any mythology involved in the Gospel stories, developed over the course of the first hundred-or-so years, in an ever increasing and embellishing fashion.  If that were true, Jesus would be the only historical (assuming for the sake of argument that he is historical) figure who's life did *not* get mythologized to some degree.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had many legends build up around them, and they only lived a couple of centuries ago, not 2,000 years.

 

 

 

Well in my case when I was a Christian it couldn't contain a single word of myth because I had built my life around the gospel message that God had planed all of creation around.  Doubts must be suppressed or else the whole thing might fall apart.

[wyson]

Awesome. Just cut in around 29:00 in. The first part is not related, a lot of annoucement, housekeeping, some stuff about relativity.

[directionless]

 

Thanks, Brother Jeff. The mythical Jesus idea is hard for me to understand, so I hope the video will make it clearer.

 

Whether a historical Jesus actually lived or not is a subject of hot debate right now. Some historians and scholars such as Dr. Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty and David Fitzgerald say no. Others say yes he did live in history. I am undecided and don't really care either way. The historical Jesus is long dead if he did exist, and the Jesus of the Gospels is clearly and obviously myth. You might check this out. I have not had time to read through it all, but it's a critical response to David Fitzgerald's book entitled "Nailed".

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

 

I have read the article, but not Fitzgerald's response or any further discussion. I will get it done, though... Glory!

 

Thanks, the reviewer of "Nailed" seemed to have good criticisms. I still need to watch the video.

[Joshpantera]

Well I've read the link to O'Neils criticism and found it a little suspicious in some areas. He really made Fitzgerald out as a bumbling idiot so I followed the link at the bottom of the article to Fitzgerald's response to the criticism:

 

And Then There’s This Guy...

 

 

That said, there is one review that I do want to respond to here; not simply because it’s almost completely wrong, but because it’s often so ass-backwards wrong in ways that actually prove the points I argue. (and because demonstrating all this gives a surprisingly high entertainment value) It’s the screed-in-book review’s clothing from an Australian blogger, Tim O’Neill....

 

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

The rebuttal is worth a read. 

[Sextus]

Well I've read the link to O'Neils criticism and found it a little suspicious in some areas. He really made Fitzgerald out as a bumbling idiot so I followed the link at the bottom of the article to Fitzgerald's response to the criticism:

 

And Then There’s This Guy...

 

 

That said, there is one review that I do want to respond to here; not simply because it’s almost completely wrong, but because it’s often so ass-backwards wrong in ways that actually prove the points I argue. (and because demonstrating all this gives a surprisingly high entertainment value) It’s the screed-in-book review’s clothing from an Australian blogger, Tim O’Neill....

 

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

The rebuttal is worth a read. 

 

The comprehensive demolition of his rebuttal is even more worth a read:

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

[Blood]

Carrier makes a good point at the start of his talk: "myth" is not really a genre per se. Thus, simply describing the gospels as "myth" doesn't really convey the genre. The gospels are actually trying to rationalize a myth, the mythic core being "the Jews killed the Messiah but he rose again." The myth is much older than the gospel, in my opinion. 

[mymistake]

 

Well I've read the link to O'Neils criticism and found it a little suspicious in some areas. He really made Fitzgerald out as a bumbling idiot so I followed the link at the bottom of the article to Fitzgerald's response to the criticism:

 

And Then There’s This Guy...

 

 

That said, there is one review that I do want to respond to here; not simply because it’s almost completely wrong, but because it’s often so ass-backwards wrong in ways that actually prove the points I argue. (and because demonstrating all this gives a surprisingly high entertainment value) It’s the screed-in-book review’s clothing from an Australian blogger, Tim O’Neill....

 

http://davefitzgerald.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/nailed-completely-brilliant-or-tragic.html

 

The rebuttal is worth a read. 

 

The comprehensive demolition of his rebuttal is even more worth a read:

 

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-jesus-myth-theory-reponse-to-david.html

 

 

What a waste of time.  So some blogger likes to characterize people as angry fanatics.

 

Is there any evidence that Jesus was a real person?

[directionless]

Is there any evidence that Jesus was a real person?

O'Neil's initial review of "Nailed" mentioned the references to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus and Paul.

 

I watched Richard Carrier's talk last night, and it was interesting. Some of his arguments seemed convincing. (I started from about 29 minutes in as suggested )

[mymistake]

 

Is there any evidence that Jesus was a real person?

O'Neil's initial review of "Nailed" mentioned the references to James the brother of Jesus by Josephus and Paul.

 

I watched Richard Carrier's talk last night, and it was interesting. Some of his arguments seemed convincing. (I started from about 29 minutes in as suggested )

 

 

 

So it is all built on hearsay and if James lied then Jesus was a myth.

[directionless]

So it is all built on hearsay and if James lied then Jesus was a myth.

That's true. I think if James lied then he would have been involved in creation of the mythical Jesus. We know a little bit about James and his followers, so that might give clues about their motivations?

 

James's followers remind me of the people from Qumran who had a "Teacher" who founded their sect and may have been mythical. Of course the people from Qumran predated the supposed lifetime of Jesus.

[Brother Jeff]

I found the exchange between Fitzgerald and O'Neil very interesting, and I spent a few hours last night reading through it all and thinking about it the best I could with my sleep-deprived and fried brain. I came away from it much more impressed with O'Neil and leaning toward the view that a historical Jesus did exist. Though the two mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus are controversial and the Testimonium Flavium is a Christian interpolation, once the obvious Christian additions are removed, it still reads like something Joshephus would write. 

 

I think the question of whether a historical Jesus lived or not is fun to think about, but that it ultimately doesn't matter now. The Jesus of the Gospels is clearly a myth, and the real historical Jesus, if indeed he did live, is long dead now.