Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Atom]

Atom, I think the reason why you haven't got an substantial argument for mythicism in this thread is because you haven't demonstrated that you'd fairly evaluate our arguments. It would be a waste of time. One of the members here could write a lengthy case for mythicism as has been done several times in past threads and you'd just dismiss it with your appeal to authority gimmick.

This is a completely fair statement and concern. Can you point me to one of those old threads?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Atom, I think the reason why you haven't got an substantial argument for mythicism in this thread is because you haven't demonstrated that you'd fairly evaluate our arguments. It would be a waste of time. One of the members here could write a lengthy case for mythicism as has been done several times in past threads and you'd just dismiss it with your appeal to authority gimmick.

This is a completely fair statement and concern. Can you point me to one of those old threads?

I can't remember where. I just remember reading it several times here.

---

In the absence of an argument presented here for mythicism, here's some materials you can check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX4LvKvIWJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzOrc_kwcU4

Also, since Ehrman's latest book has received so much praise from Christians and atheists who don't know better, Doherty has a very lengthy rebuttal to his book (Doherty is one of the scholars Ehrman criticized): http://vridar.wordpress.com/earl-doherty...sus-exist/

Carrier also has several rebuttals to Ehrman which I posted a few days ago in this thread.

[FallentoReason]

Professional historians writing for peer reviewed articles are prevented from concluding that Jesus was resurrected because of the assumption of naturalism that is an essential, and I would even say proper, part of their methodology. If the presupposition of naturalism is set aside, the resurrection can be deduced directly from the historical events acknowledge by most critical historians.

The problem with the resurrection is that no one witnessed it. Have a look at Mark, it ends with the young man claiming Jesus is resurrected and then the women flee telling no one about it. Witnesses? None to be found. Of course later on, the Gospels based on Mark (Matthew & Luke) give us erronious information like a birth story and witnesses to a resurrected Christ and then voila, Mark suddenly conforms with them.

The only thing you've got going as far as witnesses is good ol' Paul and his spiritual encounter with a light. Is there evidence in the Bible for a human resurrection? No sir.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Jesus was not a real person, so where did this Jesus myth come from? Was it based on a single other faith? Was it a combination of other faiths? Or was it completely invented out of nothing?

You start off with proclaiming that Jesus was not a real person.
Well, since you know that much, I believe that you should be able to tell me where the Jesus myth comes from, oh great scholar?

[Atom]

No conspiracy is involved, methodological naturalism is one of the philosophical assumptions used for most scientific inquiry. You can read about it here.

Atom, do you know what they call a supernatural phenomena that has been proven to be real and can be inspected by science?

They call it "natural".

What supernatural phenomenon are you acknowledging that you think science has not yet understood?

If ghosts were real, we have Dr. Venkmen style gadgets that could detect ectoplasmic readings to sense if ghosts were nearby. There would be an entire scientific field devoted to the study of ghosts. Ditto for faeries, ditto for magical spells, ditto for anything else.

Why?

Because if it can be shown to really exist, it can be studied.
If it can be studied, it can be understood.
If it can be understood, it can be explained.
If it can be explained, TA DA, it's natural.

I disagree with two of the above claims
"If it can be studied, it can be understood".
"If it can be understood, it can be explained".
This isn't the topic of this post, so I'll just mention time, dark matter, dark energy, and quantum particles like bosons.

See the "placebo effect" for something that sounds like woo but is real and studied by medical science.

I'm not getting your point here. I know quite well what the placebo effect is, but don't understand "sounds like woo".

[DeistPaladin]

My point, Atom, is that science and history don't have a predisposition against the supernatural. They have a preconception against what's not proven.

I mention the Placebo Effect because, on the surface, it sounds like New Age woo. Your attitude can affect whether or not you recover from an illness? Really? Yes, really. Wow, OK then, let's study this further and factor this effect in to all our medical reviews of the effectiveness of medicine.

If the Resurrection really were real, if there are multiple independent attestations of the dead coming back to life, if there were witnesses to zombies of dead saints walking the earth, historians would not be quick to discount that evidence. The fact is there is no proof of the miracles or events in the life of Jesus nor any attestations of it until at least decades after the supposed events from Christian sources and even these are hearsay and/or anonymous accounts.

[Minimalist]

That's the whole point of peer-review; to weed out bad or inconsistent science.

H. L. Mencken pointed out that a similar tactic is used in theology.

Of learned men, the clergy show the lowest development of professional ethics. Any pastor is free to cadge customers from the divines of rival sects, and to denounce the divines themselves as theological quacks.

The main difference is that preachers use rhetoric and not facts.

[Lion IRC]

...If the Resurrection really were real, if there are multiple independent attestations of the dead coming back to life, if there were witnesses to zombies of dead saints walking the earth, historians would not be quick to discount that evidence. The fact is there is no proof of the miracles or events in the life of Jesus nor any attestations of it until at least decades after the supposed events from Christian sources and even these are hearsay and/or anonymous accounts.

The testimony relating to Jesus' life, death and resurrection began immediately, not decades later.

Jesus wasnt arrested, flogged and executed based on an absence of evidence of His ministry. An "imaginary" Jesus didnt have anonymous people running to the Roman/Jewish with unsubstantiated hearsay claims.

Anonymous, uncorroborated hearsay presented 70 years after an event that never happened - that is your fantasy. That is your wishful thinking.
And furthermore, you are presenting this fantasy as "fact" 2000 years too late. Sorry.

[FallentoReason]

The testimony relating to Jesus' life, death and resurrection began immediately, not decades later.

And where's your evidence showing that this belief was anything more than a spiritual occurence in heaven?

Jesus wasnt arrested, flogged and executed based on an absence of evidence of His ministry. An "imaginary" Jesus didnt have anonymous people running to the Roman/Jewish with unsubstantiated hearsay claims.

?

Anonymous, uncorroborated hearsay presented 70 years after an event that never happened - that is your fantasy. That is your wishful thinking.
And furthermore, you are presenting this fantasy as "fact" 2000 years too late. Sorry.

I know this post wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to say that I personally use the Bible itself to show that teachings today don't reflect what the early Christians believed. Irony at its best in my opinion.

[Atom]

My point, Atom, is that science and history don't have a predisposition against the supernatural. They have a preconception against what's not proven.

Scholars of Ancient history seek to determine probabilities by weighing data methodologically. For ancient history "what is not proven" is virtually everything, so if ancient historians actually operated from this preconception it would wipe out ancient history. What you said can't possibly be true.

As I thought you already pointed out, science by definition can't study the supernatural successfully. This doesn't disprove the supernatural. In fact there are a lot of things that science can't prove. Science can only draw conclusions about probability on a lot of subjects and many topics are inaccessible to science. Think a bit before asking.

I mention the Placebo Effect because, on the surface, it sounds like New Age woo. Your attitude can affect whether or not you recover from an illness? Really? Yes, really. Wow, OK then, let's study this further and factor this effect in to all our medical reviews of the effectiveness of medicine.

The reason your earlier argument made no sense to me is that I wouldn't consider the placebo effect a candidate supernatural occurrence. After death out of body experiences is a better example. There are some pretty well documented cases, but the subject can't be studied methodologically for a variety of reasons, such as rarity of the event.

If the Resurrection really were real, if there are multiple independent attestations of the dead coming back to life,

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true for very rare events.