Do you believe in the mythist theory ?

[viocjit]

This theory say that Jesus never existed.
I suppose that this is possible why ?

1.Why we don't have the report about his judgement by "Pontius Pilate" ?
2.Why only a historian wrote about Jesus and the source is not very reliable ? (I spoke about Josephus who was a historian).
3.Why Jesus has similar things with others religious characters (Buddha , Horus , Krishna etc...) ? I have two explications this is Satan who inspirated the writers about stories of Horus , Krishna etc... or all these stories was wrote by humans.
4.In this decade there are a lot of cults like the Essenians , maybe that Christianity is the only sect of these movements who survived ?
5.Why all these contradictions (maybe that I don't know use the correlation) and mistakes with the official history in the four gospels ?

[Angrboda]

I think it's a reasonable assumption that some of the elements in the canonical Christ narrative are fictitious or embellishment. Given that tall tales of this sort are not unusual for the time and the culture, even if there was a historical Jesus, it would be impossible to reliably separate out those elements of the story that are likely factual from those parts which are distorted or completely fictional. As a result, even if there was a real person whom the Jesus narrative describes, it's close to impossible to have any real knowledge of who he was or what he actually did. So, even if there was a real Jesus, that Jesus is lost to the sands of time. What we have, for better or worse, is a myth which may or may not contain some truthful elements.

[Minimalist]

I don't "believe" in the jesus myth position. The evidence supports it.

BTW, your #2 is incorrect. Josephus is a 4th century forgery/interpolation by xtians who were embarrassed that their godboy did not make it into the historical record.

[Justtristo]

It is not a question whether or not I believe in the Christ Myth Hypothesis. It is more a matter in my opinion that the credible evidence supports the Christ Myth Hypothesis.

Note to self; I need to read Richard Carrier's latest book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.

[viocjit]

@ALL I like to know your opinion , I hope see others messages.

[Faith No More]

You left out the answer "It doesn't matter to me," which is where I stand. Regardless of whether or not the story was based on an actual person, that person didn't walk on water, turn water into wine, and rise from the dead. Since that basically sucks the entire point out of the narrative, all that is left is an inconsequential question.

[Love]

Even if there was a historical Jesus, it would be impossible to reliably separate out those elements of the story that are likely factual from those parts which are distorted or completely fictional.

It is not impossible and you are displaying a vast amount of ignorance. Perhaps you find it impossible because you do not understand the difference between history and theology.

Firstly, Jesus existed. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence and academic literature on the subject. For example, there is a peer reviewed academic historical journal entitled: "", which PhD historians often source when writing about the historical Jesus in an academic setting or, indeed, authors who write non-fiction books on the history of Jesus.

The Bible is a theological representation of the life and significance of Jesus; it is series of books written by people who perceived Jesus from a theological perspective. A PhD historian would not use The Bible as historical evidence because it not a historically accurate and reliable account of Jesus, hence it has no credibility from an academic perspective.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I would respond but I am skpetical of the fact that you're just spamming poll threads on different atheist forums with very little (if any) response to the replies you get.

[viocjit]

I saw the result

[Minimalist]

Firstly, Jesus existed. There is an overwhelming amount of historical evidence and academic literature on the subject

Horseshit. They begin with the assumption that this bullshit is true and that the gospels...no matter how fucked up they are... are relating some sort of historical material. When pressed to provide evidence it is the same pile of shit that average fundie morons trot out. "The bible says..."

Well the bible ain't worth shit, buddy.