Is Christianity based on older myths?

[SteveII]

Are there any surviving writings from the first half of the first century in Palestine?

Relevance to my point?

If you are using as an argument that we should expect to see mentions of Jesus in other writings, it is relevant to ask if there are any surviving writings to distinguish between an absence of a mention vs. and absence of any writings.

---

The Teacher of Righteousness was interesting. If illustrates that the Jews were waiting for a Messiah. A moral teacher and the same political climate would result in similarities. It does not seem to be a myth so therefore can't be a recycled myth.

Regarding The 10 Christlike Figures, I think you can always find some similar fact/teaching/circumstance in any ancient religion because all religions have certain characteristics in common: god(s), human interaction, teachings on origins, morality codes, gods being born, gods dying, unfaithfulness, redemption, how to live, and the fact that the human adherents all have the similar experience of being human.

The list of 22 things from Carrier is an interesting list. However, it seems to have been worded vaguely to include Jesus and as many "heroes" as possible. It also mis-characterizes some of the facts believed about Moses and Jesus. The list seems contrived to make a point ignoring the fact there would be hundreds of relevant differences in any "heroes" story to make it unique.

If Christianity was a recycling of old myths, then it all had to be developed and synthesized between Jesus' death and the writing of Paul's letters or at the latest the gospels a few years later. That would be an impressive undertaking resulting in a systematic theology that had to:

1. Be compatible with OT monotheistic doctrine of God
2. Be compatible with OT prophecies
3. Be internally consistent
4. and since most of you believe that Jesus actually/probably existed, had to be compatible with what the people knew to be true about Jesus--whom Paul never net.

It also assumes that, presumably Paul, was familiar with the details of each of the examples of ancient myths you give. I don't see reasons why that would be true. He would have been studied in Jewish law and the OT. Access to the details of extinct and eastern religions would have to be explained for this to be plausible.

Then you are back to the question of: Why would Paul go through all that trouble to make up such a complicated story? If you are tempted to say for power and/or money, please provide evidence for that assertion.