Some assumptions have to be made for discussion purposes. If you want to argue that these things are not so, that's fine but I am going with the people who make this their life's work.
A. Scholars believe Jesus existed.
B. Scholars believe the Pauline epistles to be written in the 50s and the 4 gospels between 60-100.
C. There are at least 8 different authors of 27 separate documents. Don't make the mistake of combining them all into one book. They are not.
Okay, to sum up whether Christianity is based on myths, I am hearing the following reasoning:
1. The gospels are not accurate or are complete fiction
2. Paul, Peter, John, and James had motives other than truth to write their letters
3. Therefore the narrative is fiction and the source must be recycled myths.
First, why would we not assume the 8 separate writers believed what they wrote until we have evidence or a plausible motive for a significant conspiracy? Do we assign this type of scrutiny to other historical documents? Can you give me an example of even a group of 5 historical documents that are attesting to something that are all thought to be intentionally false?
Or is it that you think that a plausible motive for this level of falsehood and conspiracy was to start a new belief system based on self-sacrifice, love, and humility in a political climate that was hostile to it?
Lastly, the conclusion 3 does not follow from the premises 1 and 2. To get to this conclusion, you would have to insert and prove probability of the premise that the early church conspirators had access to extinct and eastern religious characters, stories, and philosophies. I would argue that if premise 1 and 2 are true, it is far more probable that any similarity to myths is coincidence.
A. Scholars believe Jesus existed.
B. Scholars believe the Pauline epistles to be written in the 50s and the 4 gospels between 60-100.
C. There are at least 8 different authors of 27 separate documents. Don't make the mistake of combining them all into one book. They are not.
Okay, to sum up whether Christianity is based on myths, I am hearing the following reasoning:
1. The gospels are not accurate or are complete fiction
2. Paul, Peter, John, and James had motives other than truth to write their letters
3. Therefore the narrative is fiction and the source must be recycled myths.
First, why would we not assume the 8 separate writers believed what they wrote until we have evidence or a plausible motive for a significant conspiracy? Do we assign this type of scrutiny to other historical documents? Can you give me an example of even a group of 5 historical documents that are attesting to something that are all thought to be intentionally false?
Or is it that you think that a plausible motive for this level of falsehood and conspiracy was to start a new belief system based on self-sacrifice, love, and humility in a political climate that was hostile to it?
Lastly, the conclusion 3 does not follow from the premises 1 and 2. To get to this conclusion, you would have to insert and prove probability of the premise that the early church conspirators had access to extinct and eastern religious characters, stories, and philosophies. I would argue that if premise 1 and 2 are true, it is far more probable that any similarity to myths is coincidence.
