Is Christianity based on older myths?

[SteveII]

If you believe there was a vast conspiracy, and we, for argument's sake, say that the early church had a library of world religions in which to copy its myths, do you have a reasons why someone would go through all that trouble?

That's really an easy one, since the jews took their holy books from regional myths. Gilgamesh, the culture of Ugarit, Babylon and Egypt. Early christians on the other hand were dominated by Greece and Rome and took their myths accordingly.

Add to the mix campfire tales that have been collected and embellished and you have the story. Regardless if a person named Jesus existed, he draws heavily from the Greek and Roman Pantheon. Even Bart Ehrman writes, whom you quoted earlier, writes about the fallacies entering the story. And he totally leaves out the political element, which was one of the main driving forces behind early christianity.

And then there's politics. When christianity became the state religion of what was left of the Roman empire, they tried to appeal to the masses. So Jesus' supposed birth date coincides with the Saturnalia, churches were built on pagan sites. The list of borrowed tidbits from other cults could be continued at nauseum.

So all that to say it was politics that caused Paul (or whomever was part of the conspiracy) to come up with a fairly complicated system. I guess the early Christians were playing the long game since it didn't become a political force for over 300 years. I am amazed at how clever these people were who, at best looked down on and at worst persecuted, for over 7 generations with that long game in mind--what dedication.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, jumping from jesus to conspiracy, I suppose the same type of person is attracted to both.

[Cato]

No it is not. I thought since you have strong opinions that you think are well-founded, you would has some theory to put forward. But it is nice to know know that you are only about "prove it" and not about the why of anything.

Steve,
Here's what will happen if I hazard a guess regarding Paul's motivation for fabricating his story. After my guess you will claim that I couldn't possibly know with certainty what I claimed while ignoring its plausibility. You will simultaneously conflate this with Paul having no motivation while ignoring that you cannot be at all certain of this position either. This poorly reasoned 'fact' that Paul had no motivation to create a work of fiction results in you claiming that the stories are fact. So, instead of typing all this out previously I cut to the chase with my previous comment that you are claiming the truth of the Jesus shit because I can't claim definitive knowledge of the mind of Paul. Piss poor reasoning.

Here's plausible motivation: Anyone who has read the NT knows that Paul's mission was to establish and grow a church. Making shit up to increase participation seems like reasonable motivation to stretch the truth. Simply consider Paul's change of heart regarding circumcision; he ran into a crowd that told him circumcision was a deal killer. By fiat Paul changed God's mind on the matter in order to build his church.

Add to it the fact that we have two relatively recent examples of charlatans making shit up to create a religion: L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith. Hubbard is on record claiming that to really get rich one should start a religion. What possible assurance can you provide that Paul wasn't pulling the same stunt? What do you think of Muhammad? What makes Paul right and Muhammad wrong?

[Mudhammam]

I'm sorry. There was several posts in a row that more than suggested I back up my position that believing Jesus never existed is a minority view.

Back to that. You dismissed my entire post by saying that whomever dreamed all this up had plenty of time since Jesus was "not a historical figure". If you believe there was a vast conspiracy, and we, for argument's sake, say that the early church had a library of world religions in which to copy its myths, do you have a reasons why someone would go through all that trouble?

Isn't it substantially more probably that the early church just believed what they said?

No problem, Steve. I did not actually dismiss your entire post "by saying that whomever dreamed all this up had plenty of time since Jesus was 'not a historical figure'." Rather, and I quoted exactly what I was responding to, you said:

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.

I was pointing out the obvious solution to the "problem" you posed. You granted (hypothetically) that Christianity was a recycling of old myths, but then appeared to assume that time would still be an issue. But if we're allowing that the Gospels are not history, then there is no issue because no time has passed between mythic Jesus' death and Paul's writing; nobody has even attempted to transport the mythical Christ into a historical figure yet (if the first Gospel was written in the 60s), so your question was misguided.

I don't believe there was a vast conspiracy. Mystery cults were common in the first century. Christianity was just that, though with enough plagiarism and adaptation of many key ingredients in other popular beliefs and philosophies to branch out and become a successful religion within a few hundred years. It would be no different than Mormonism today. Do you believe that requires a vast conspiracy to be explained or a few nut jobs, loads of gullible people, and some enthusiastic salesmen? The evidence for Christianity suggests it differs little from the pattern.

And what makes you think I don't believe the communities of churches (there was no "Church") believed in a historical Jesus? Obviously, some did, some didn't, and those that did eventually came to dominate. It's not really that complicated, and certainly not mysterious. Everything, on the mythicist view, falls into place with the behavior that human beings regularly exhibit, which frankly, is beyond me, but hey, people are generally pretty dumb, and these people for the most part couldn't even read or write (who knows if they could even count past four).

---

So all that to say it was politics that caused Paul (or whomever was part of the conspiracy) to come up with a fairly complicated system. I guess the early Christians were playing the long game since it didn't become a political force for over 300 years. I am amazed at how clever these people were who, at best looked down on and at worst persecuted, for over 7 generations with that long game in mind--what dedication.

I know you think you're criticizing some of our ideas here, but a free tip: study a position before you try to dismantle it, because none of your points are really very good, or accurate.

[robvalue]

When there's not even consensus and decent enough evidence to conclude that some generic "guy" jesus existed, how can you possibly pile on top of that all the ridiculous supernatural cut and paste nonsense?

At best, you have accounts of what people at the time of the events believed. And that is being really generous to even say that much. Even then, you've got nothing. Belief does not imply truth. Of course christians believed their own shit, it's kind of how religions work. It's just amazing it is still working.

The bible is a massive book of claims.

The only evidence outside it is a few suspicious references that don't even conclusively show jesus to be a real person at all, yet alone all the insane shit in the bible.

This is all clearly a case of "my religion is special". Go talk to a Muslim and see how you can decide between you which one is the "real" religion. They will protest as much as you, and with just as little actual evidence. This is the problem with unfalsifiable claims and arguments from ignorance. They are all as good as each other.

I also proved conclusively that the devil wrote the bible in another thread. It was barely challenged.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Jesus myth makes clear use of memes circulating in the time a place of its concoction, which are so numerous that asserting that "no, this time it was different, for reals" amounts to special pleading.

The order of operations is as follows:

1) Demonstrate that Jesus existed.

2) Demonstrate that he was some sort of deity, rather than a mere mortal.

3) Demonstrate that his principles are worth following slavishly.

I think you've got some heavy sledding to do on the first two points, and even the third is going to give you toothaches trying to jawbone your way around some of the shit attributed to him.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

If we use contemporary accounts of someone's existence as a benchmark, then the evidence for Jesus existing at all is 0. Nothing.

In answer to your question, Steve, as to why this 'Paul' (who we really know absolutely nothing about either) 'invented' Christianity, I never claimed he did. However, you have to also recognise that there's no reason to doubt that someone invented it in light of the fact that there's is nothing else to go on. Nothing. The constant flipping and switching in Paul's stories is also very suspect don't you think? There were no mentions of Jesus until around 60+ years after he died. 60 years! In those times that's almost 2 generations later!

That would be like us today only just starting to talk about Woodrow Wilson or something.

The only reference to Jesus is the bible. A book in which the references to Jesus were written anonymously and are uncited, and which clearly has a vested interest in supporting the idea that this Jesus guy existed. It's not evidence, it's a claim, and as such citing the bible as to why the bible is right is fallicious and immediately ignored.

And again, as already iterated, even if Jesus' existence was proven and everyone believed in his existence, that doesn't even begin to chip away at the overwhelming skepticism over his supposed divinity, to which there is just as little evidence (ie, 0).

[robvalue]

In my opinion, no amount of text can ever be enough evidence to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that someone is "God". I don't care if everyone in the world wrote about it as it happened and continued to all follow the same religion. It's just not something you can establish with text, or perhaps at all, as we have nothing to test now. Especially since no one has the first clue what a "God" is anyway and wouldn't be able to distinguish it from an imposter.

It's always going to be more likely that people are deluded, lying or making up explanations.

Nothing to test, and we don't know what we'd be testing for. Experiment shut down due to lack of funds and sanity.

---

OK, here's the thing. Let's pretend that there really was some "being" that did all the stuff in the bible, it said it was "God" and they wrote down what actually happened.

So are we now to define God as whatever that being was? Even if it was a super advanced alien capable if immense acts of time and space manipulation? What else can we define God to be? If it's not as described in the bible, then we're not even testing for the same thing to compare jesus to.

All we could do is try and prove jesus is also the same entity as that being, whatever it was. We have no physical evidence for the being, or for jesus. So it's over. It's impossible to confirm.

[pocaracas]

So it's over. It's impossible to confirm.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The only reference to Jesus is the bible. A book in which the references to Jesus were written anonymously and are uncited, and which clearly has a vested interest in supporting the idea that this Jesus guy existed. It's not evidence, it's a claim, and as such citing the bible as to why the bible is right is fallicious and immediately ignored. ed divinity, to which there is just as little evidence (ie, 0).

Citing the Bible to give evidence for Jesus is like citing the murderer's protestations of innocence when finding him not guilty. The source is inherently biased.