Is Christianity based on older myths?

[SteveII]

I don't care if you believe the events of Jesus' life actually happened or not. But the consequences of rejecting the gospels is that a significant number of people intentionally lied. Then the question is to what end? This all goes toward the probability assessment of whether the first Christians believed in the actual key events in Jesus' life.

[pocaracas]

---

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 Do we assign this type of scrutiny to other historical documents? Can you give me an example of even a group of 5 historical documents that are attesting to something that are all thought to be intentionally false?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.

---

I find it amazing how the believer's mind can completely ignore a pre-existing event that later became incorporated into the tale of their religious figure-head... and argue as if what was written is completely trustworthy...
How does the Teacher of Righteousness fit with your tale?

[pocaracas]

You seem to think that Paul was a generation removed from the events. He was not. He would have been a child or young man when Jesus died. He didn't get his info from the telephone game. He knew, met with, and corresponded with actual disciples of Jesus. So for your theory to work, the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would have had to lie to Paul who passed it on in his letters. The eyewitnesses also wrote letters (at least John, Peter, and James' survived) where they lied.

You know?... if a guy is intent on lying, the fact that he never talked to any of those persons wouldn't keep him from making that detail up, in order to lend credence to his other more far-fetched tales.
But the thread's OP was not about how the gospels are lying, but about previous mythologies or events which may have been incorporated into the Jesus myth and which are demonstrably (up to a degree) not attributable to Jesus.
So the ol'Teacher... lived, at least, 100 years before the christ figure... and people believed that he did many of the things later attributed to Jesus. Explain that, please!

[SteveII]

I would argue that if premise 1 and 2 are true, it is far more probable that any similarity to myths is coincidence.

Coincidence? Are you saying god is a plagiarist?

You do realize that the people that could actually read and write back then were the elite that usually had access to libraries of material so the authors having access to previous myths is not only plausible but probable?

So you are saying Galilean fisherman probably had access to libraries (in their language) in order to tell Paul some lies. Or are you saying Paul was the mastermind and got the disciples to change their stories 20 years later to match something he concocted from these scrolls he may or may not have had access to?

[Cato]

He knew, met with, and corresponded with actual disciples of Jesus. So for your theory to work, the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would have had to lie to Paul who passed it on in his letters. The eyewitnesses also wrote letters (at least John, Peter, and James' survived) where they lied.

Paul disagrees with you:

Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV)
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

[abaris]

He knew, met with, and corresponded with actual disciples of Jesus. So for your theory to work, the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would have had to lie to Paul who passed it on in his letters. The eyewitnesses also wrote letters (at least John, Peter, and James' survived) where they lied.

OK, let's play this game for a second. How old do you think, the disciples were when Jesus died? How old is Paul supposed to have been when he corresponded with disciples?

How do you make ends meet, given that the average life expectancy at that time and region was about 30?

I'm willing to give you all that. Maybe Paul met a real old fart, who claimed to have walked with Jesus. What level of education do you think, the average jew under roman rule had at that time? Do you think, that someone like Peter, being a fisherman, could even write his own name, let alone enter into correspondence with Paul?

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't care if you believe the events of Jesus' life actually happened or not. But the consequences of rejecting the gospels is that a significant number of people intentionally lied. Then the question is to what end? This all goes toward the probability assessment of whether the first Christians believed in the actual key events in Jesus' life.

You...do know that people can honestly and genuinely believe something, and simply be wrong about it, right? We're not saying that early Christians were consciously spreading and dying for something that they were lying about, we're saying that they were wrong.

Can you please acknowledge at least this point?

[SteveII]

He knew, met with, and corresponded with actual disciples of Jesus. So for your theory to work, the actual eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would have had to lie to Paul who passed it on in his letters. The eyewitnesses also wrote letters (at least John, Peter, and James' survived) where they lied.

Paul disagrees with you:

Galatians 1:11-12 (NIV)
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

It is funny you skipped verse 18: Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.

Cephas is Peter.

Galatians 1 is a chronological series of events Paul is relaying. In Gal 2:9 he talks about meeting Peter and John at another time.

---

I don't care if you believe the events of Jesus' life actually happened or not. But the consequences of rejecting the gospels is that a significant number of people intentionally lied. Then the question is to what end? This all goes toward the probability assessment of whether the first Christians believed in the actual key events in Jesus' life.

You...do know that people can honestly and genuinely believe something, and simply be wrong about it, right? We're not saying that early Christians were consciously spreading and dying for something that they were lying about, we're saying that they were wrong.

Can you please acknowledge at least this point?

Sure I understand that. But at some point in the causal chain of belief, someone had to start the lie. After reading the epistles you would have to assume the lie started with the actual disciples (with or without Paul's involvement). Relevant to this thread, that would mean the Galilean fisherman borrowed from ancient myths (with or without Paul's help) to concoct the story they would tell as true.

[Chas]

I don't care if you believe the events of Jesus' life actually happened or not. But the consequences of rejecting the gospels is that a significant number of people intentionally lied. Then the question is to what end? This all goes toward the probability assessment of whether the first Christians believed in the actual key events in Jesus' life.

"Lied' is the wrong word. "Wove tales" would be more apt.

---

Coincidence? Are you saying god is a plagiarist?

You do realize that the people that could actually read and write back then were the elite that usually had access to libraries of material so the authors having access to previous myths is not only plausible but probable?

So you are saying Galilean fisherman probably had access to libraries (in their language) in order to tell Paul some lies. Or are you saying Paul was the mastermind and got the disciples to change their stories 20 years later to match something he concocted from these scrolls he may or may not have had access to?

Or how about:
that there weren't any Galilean fisherman;
or that Paul never spoke with them;
or the Galilean fisherman exaggerated;
or Paul misunderstood the Galilean fisherman;
or Paul exaggerated?

You are a tad too credulous.

[Faith No More]

So you are saying Galilean fisherman probably had access to libraries (in their language) in order to tell Paul some lies. Or are you saying Paul was the mastermind and got the disciples to change their stories 20 years later to match something he concocted from these scrolls he may or may not have had access to?

No, because Galilean fisherman couldn't read and write, but I don't think any serious scholar actually thinks they did, which is just another one of the problems with your story.

Look, it is highly plausible that the authors had access to these earlier writings, but that isn't even your real problem. The real problem is why god would behave in a very similar manner to previous man-made myths. Perhaps he just wasn't feeling creative that day?