6139 Shares

Question about the Christ myth theory?

Question about the Christ myth theory? Topic: Question about the Christ myth theory?
June 16, 2019 / By Bellinda
Question: I have read several books recently including THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE that dispute the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Most of the counter-arguments I have read, especially from catholic and evangelical perspectives, were written from a faith standpoint. Using str8 history only I can find no good refutation of the Christ myth idea. It seems that you either give the gospels total credence, some credence, or no credence, and one choice is as good as the other. Does anyone know of any decent counters to the Christ myth theory?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Question about the Christ myth theory?

Adriana Adriana | 8 days ago
All written accounts of that time were gathered together by the catholic church. The rest were ordered to be destroyed. So there cannot be any independent written accounts of Jesus The four canonical gospels did not begin their lives as the gospels of "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John." Different groups of early Christians maintained their own oral traditions of Jesus's wisdom, as writing was a specialized skill and not every fellowship enjoyed the services of a scribe. When written accounts of Jesus's teachings began to circulate (i.e., the theoretical "sayings" gospel Q and the Semeia or Signs source), the independent groups would supplement them with their OWN TRADITIONS about the savior, each believing their own versions to be "the Gospel." Eventually, as these expanded writings spread through other communities, some versions were viewed as having more authority than others. It was not until the pronouncement of Bishop Irenus (185 C.E.) that Christians began to accept only the four familiar gospels as authoritative, and to refer to them by their modern titles. For the next two centuries, the four gospels would be coupled with a myriad of different letters, epistles, stories and apocalypses, according to what a particular congregation judged as relevant to their understanding of Jesus Christ and his message. Catholicism was only one of the dozens of "denominations" within the early church—Gnosticism was prevalent throughout Egypt, Montanism in Asia Minor, Marcionism in Syria. Eventually, the Catholic church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, and all other systems of belief were branded as heresies. Following the Epistle of Athanasius in 367 C.E., the Church finally reached agreement upon which writings were truly authentic and representative of apostolic tradition, thus forming what we know today as the canonical New Testament. Although factions of the Church continued to debate the merits of various books for centuries, and many even used other writings in their liturgy, most uncanonical writings were ordered to be DESTROYED. In many cases, possession of heretical literature was punishable by death.
👍 244 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Question about the Christ myth theory? Share with your friends
Adriana Originally Answered: Why do people think that the Aryan theory is a myth?
Actually that theory was debunked. Here is a very long excerpt: "As can be expected, most of those who were great proponents of the Aryan invasion theory were often ardent English and German nationalists, or Christians, ready and willing to bring about the desecration of anything that was non-Christian or non-European. Even Max Muller believed in the Christian chronology, that the world was created at 9:00 AM on October 23, 4004 B.C. and the great flood occurred in 2500 B.C. Thus, it was impossible to give a date for the Aryan invasion earlier than 1500 B.C. After all, accepting the Christian time frame would force them to eliminate all other evidence and possibilities, so what else could they do? So, even this date for the Aryan invasion was based on speculation. In this way, the Aryan invasion theory was created to make it appear that Indian culture and philosophy was dependent on the previous developments in Europe, thereby justifying the need for colonial rule and Christian expansion in India. This was also the purpose of the study of Sanskrit, such as at Oxford University in England, as indicated by Colonel Boden who sponsored the program. He stated that they should Apromote Sanskrit learning among the English, so as >to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian [email protected] Unfortunately, this was also Max Muller=s ultimate goal. In a letter to his wife in 1866, he wrote about his translation of the Rig-veda: AThis edition of mine and the translation of the Veda, will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand [email protected] (The Life and Letters of Right Honorable Friedrich Max Muller, Vol. I. p.346) So, in essence, the British used the theory of the Aryan invasion to further their Adivide and [email protected] policy. With civil unrest and regional cultural tensions created by the British through designations and divisions among the Indian society, it gave a reason and purpose for the British to continue and increase their control over India. However, under scrutiny, the Aryan invasion theory lacks justification. For example, Sir John Marshall, one of the chief excavators at Mohenjo‑Daro, offers evidence that India may have been following the Vedic religion long before any so‑called [email protected] ever arrived. He points out that it is known that India possessed a highly advanced and organized urban civilization dating back to at least 2300 B.C., if not much earlier. In fact, some researchers suggest that evidence makes it clear that the Indus Valley civilization was quite developed by at least 3100 B.C. The known cities of this civilization cover an area along the Indus River and extend from the coast to Rajasthan and the Punjab over to the Yamuna and Upper Ganges. At its height, the Indus culture spread over 300,000 square miles, an area larger than Western Europe. Cities that were a part of the Indus culture include Mohenjo‑Daro, Kot Diji east of Mohenjo‑Daro, Amri on the lower Indus, Lothal south of Ahmedabad, Malwan farther south, Harappa 350 miles upstream from Mohenjo‑Daro, Kalibangan and Alamgirpur farther east, Rupar near the Himalayas, Sutkagen Dor to the west along the coast, Mehrgarh 150 miles north of Mohenjo‑Daro, and Mundigak much farther north. Evidence at Mehrgarh shows a civilization that dates back to 6500 B.C. It had been connected with the Indus culture but was deserted in the third millennium B.C. around the time the city of Mohenjo‑Daro became prominent. The arrangement of these cities and the knowledge of the residents were much superior to that of any immigrating nomads, except for military abilities at the time. A lack of weapons, except for thin spears, at these cities indicates they were not very well equipped militarily. Thus, one theory is that if there were invaders, whoever they may have been, rather than encouraging the advancement of Vedic society when they came into the Indus Valley region, they may have helped stifle it or even caused its demise in certain areas. The Indus Valley locations may have been one area where the Vedic society disappeared after the arrival of these invaders. Many of these cities seemed to have been abandoned quickly, while others were not. However, some geologists suggest that the cities were left because of environmental changes. Evidence of floods in the plains is seen in the thick layers of silt which are now thirty‑nine feet above the river in the upper strata of Mohenjo‑Daro. Others say that the ecological needs of the community forced the people to move on, since research shows there was a great reduction in rainfall from that period to the present.

Terrence Terrence
<> Jesus is neither myth nor theory. < Jesus of Nazareth.>> So you've read books. . . . so? < Christ myth idea.>> Well, Christ isn't a myth for one thing! < as the other.>> No. One choice in particular IS better than all the others. <> First of all, is it myth or is it theory. Why don't you go back to skepticism headquarters and decide BEFORE you come out here and try telling me Christ is something other than what I believe Him to be!!!!!!!!!!
👍 100 | 👎 1

Piper Piper
Jesus never existed, nothing was ever written about him until many years after his alleged death. Think about it logically, they maintain that a god came from the sky and impregnated a virgin women who gave birth to a half god but remained a virgin. He gave his life for all mankind but lives today as a zombie. It only takes a third grade education to see through the BS.
👍 93 | 👎 -6

Mahlah Mahlah
I don't know about Jesus, but for sure there was a giant logger named Paul Bunyan, who had a blue ox named Babe
👍 86 | 👎 -13

Jehu Jehu
There was a recent post : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... Here are some documents you may want to look through: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/index.htm... http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro... ↪http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/home.html Enjoy and Merry Christmas!
👍 79 | 👎 -20

Geffrey Geffrey
^ Daver is a child molester. There were many guys named Jesus at that time, in that part of the world. Many of them had parents named Mary & Joseph. All common names, even today. If there was a Jesus, he sure didn't walk on water or rise from the dead, etc.
👍 72 | 👎 -27

Dicky Dicky
None of the evidence to suggest he existed is reliable. He may have existed, but there's nothing to say it for sure. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity...
👍 65 | 👎 -34

Dicky Originally Answered: Is the general public's confusion over the religious studies term "myth" analogous to science term "theory"?
Yes! I have made this point myself many times ... although I've sometimes used the similar word 'allegory.' But I think a lot of people are not quite putting their finger on the problem. It's not so much that people have multiple meanings for these words, but that the words imply *diminishment of truth value*. The phrase "only a myth" is as misguided as the phrase "only a theory." Joseph Campbell made a centerpiece of his philosophy and career out of explaining that myths can be a way of conveying DEEP TRUTHS in a way that purely factual stories cannot. They reach into the *collective subconsciousness* of human beings, and have a FAR better chance of tapping into the truth of spirituality than merely recounting the mundane details of actual events. He lamented that people calling something a "myth" meant calling it "untrue" or a "lie", when in fact the opposite is true ... a myth that resonates with people is communicating deep, profound Truth with a capital-T. But yes, it comes out of the same childlike approach to truth where every statement is either "true" or "false." The statement "I took the trash out yesterday." is either true or false ... and we can always go out and verify if the trash was indeed taken out. But the problem is when people use that same approach with such mundane statements, and apply it to deeply complex questions ... the *important* questions. When people say that "evolution is only a theory", they are trying to say that evolution is "in doubt", and that therefore it is not in the category of "proven to be true" (that they think all of science is striving for ... which it is not), and therefore one is perfectly rational to conclude that "therefore it is false." Besides being a logical fallacy ... it fails to understand that calling something a 'theory' in science does NOT mean that it is in doubt! Scientists are not striving for "truth", they are striving for UNDERSTANDING! All that matters is: does evolution EXPLAIN things? That is the same standard scientists use when using the word "theory" with any other concept ...as in the 'theory of gravity', 'theory of relativity', 'atomic theory', 'cell theory', etc. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand SCIENCE. (This is why I battle Creationism ... not because it threatens to demolish evolution, which it most certainly does not ... but because it promotes nothing short of widespread scientific illiteracy ... completely mangling an appreciation for HOW SCIENCE WORKS, and replacing it with an open *contempt* bordering on *hatred* of science in general.) The same is true with the word "myth". The stories of Adam and Eve, or of Noah and the Ark, or of Abraham, Lot, or Job are MORE TRUE when they are understood as myths than when they are viewed as "literally true." To focus on mundane details of how many generations there were from Adam to Noah, or how many cubits of gopherwood did Noah use to build his boat ... is to focus on trivialities ... it is to turn the entire story into trivialities ... it misses the entire POINT of the story! But understand them as myths that have endured for centuries, in many cases myths that share important commonalities with the myths of other ancient traditions, and we catch a glimpse of DEEP TRUTHS that go back to the roots of human consciousness and the things that *unite* us spirituality. To fail to see that is to be content with *division* ... as in "my scripture is 'true' to the tiniest details, and anything including science, logic, or the scriptures of other faiths that differ in the details, or even different *interpretation* of my scripture, must be capital-F False!" It is to fail to see the ENTIRE POINT of scripture! So yes, I think you are absolutely right. -----

If you have your own answer to the question Question about the Christ myth theory?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.