Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, non-literate people tend to be fairly precise about remembering details of historical significance because they have nothing else to lean on to remember except their memories the way literate people do.
I do not know that the above is actually true, but even if it were, we are still talking about an immense chain of custody with each new teller embellishing or omitting details according to memory or personal agenda. These would also be people passing along stories for which they had no means of determining the veracity.
Finally, half the high school kids I taught were virtual illiterates and that didn't seem to help them keep the story straight.
Why does secular science dismiss the Christ myth theory when the onus really should be on proving Jesus did exist?
Putting aside for now the difficulty we can have in proving any negative have you considered that the period in which we are asked to accept as the lifetime of Christ may have been inhabited by any number of 'Christs'. The various forms of the name 'Christ' cover a number of ideas and myths that could have been manipulated by any number of followers of any number of charismatic religious and political revolutionaries abroad at the time. That may sound far fetched but recent biblical studies suggest something like this was happening during this period.
Chapter 11 titled "In the Name of 'IS' in Douglas Lockhart's The Dark Side of God: A Quest for the Lost Heart of Christianity sheds some light on this problem and gives an excellent relevant bibliography.
Actually, non-literate people tend to be fairly precise about remembering details of historical significance because they have nothing else to lean on to remember except their memories the way literate people do. Non-literate people tend to listen more attentively and remember what they've heard better than literate people. This is why many sagas or folk songs from oral history have poetic characteristics like rhythm and choruses. These are aids to remembering.
We, as literate people depend more upon written/printed words and so we don't always pay attention to the spoken word the way non-literate people do.
Recent academic research in forensic psychology tells us the reliability of eye witness reports is anything but reliable. Add to that the extensive alterations, distortions and omissions from the original testimonies that is the New Testament we now have and the scale of the problem becomes evident. I find it particularly odd that some Christian cults/offshoots who loathe the Roman Church still accept a document tampered with by Rome as 'The Word of God'. It's not just God who works in mysterious ways.
And yet we have the historically accepted figure of Gautama Buddah from the 5th century BC.
I was going to ask if the OP believes that Buddha existed. If not, then at least he/she is consistent. If so, then we are dealing with someone that has a specific problem with Christianity. I say this because accounts of Buddha were first written down hundreds of years after his death, so there is much less evidence for him than for Jesus (though I'm sure Buddha existed in some fashion).
Historians almost universally believe that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the Romans. Beyond that, they don't agree on much of anything. That's a small amount of agreement on arguably the most important man that ever lived but it seems reasonable given the small quantity of evidence that does exist compared with an overall lack of evidence.
I'm not saying that there's no way Jesus could have been loosely based on a real person, all I'm saying is that the evidence in favor of it is not so great we can dismiss the myth theory as being quackery. To be fair I think Buddha's existence is probably even more questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
And yet we have the historically accepted figure of Gautama Buddah from the 5th century BC.
Not by the OP. And by no means universally accepted. And, again, thanks for the example - care to compare the rate of historical acceptance of Buddha amongst Buddhists and non-Buddhists? Precisely my point - cultural bias at work. However, I will say that Buddhists seem less hung up on the historicity of Buddha than Christians regarding Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
I was going to ask if the OP believes that Buddha existed. If not, then at least he/she is consistent. If so, then we are dealing with someone that has a specific problem with Christianity. I say this because accounts of Buddha were first written down hundreds of years after his death, so there is much less evidence for him than for Jesus (though I'm sure Buddha existed in some fashion).
Historians almost universally believe that Jesus existed, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the Romans. Beyond that, they don't agree on much of anything. That's a small amount of agreement on arguably the most important man that ever lived but it seems reasonable given the small quantity of evidence that does exist compared with an overall lack of evidence.
The OP already addressed that point, as highlighted above.
Historians taking the position that there was no actual Jesus, would be doing so
in the absence of evidence for that position
And I'd suggest that since there really is no absolutely compelling evidence to contradict, a historian taking that position would be absolutely foolish to argue the position.
I think Jesus Christ is a fascinating personage for history. Things is he as well as other 'religious philosophers' who shall I say 'make good' in the world with their radical and revolutionary messages seemiongly have a tough time to get a fair shake when it comes to analysis. I mean that in the sense that anyone who does research on the man and the life is usually wrestling with his/her own political, social, cultural and religious biases when analyzing the role and effect of an individual like Jesus Christ. in the run of history.
I don't think he is an easy man to 'know' historically yet he can be studied regardless. And it helps to know a bit of Judaic and pagan and Christian theology, Roman and Jewish society in the first century, the Bible, the Gospels, the social and cultural milieu of the Middle East and Galille during Jesus' time, the role of aphorisms at the time, oral tradition, religious philosophies in the ancient world, the Roman Empire construct,etc etc etc etc I can see the 'myth' thing getting traction here: Jaysus there's so much to know!! We can't get to know all that to study him!
One thing for sure he was human. And I believe it's noted he's a 'carpenter'. Can you imagine what he'd say if he accidently bashed his finger with his mallet while making a table. He'd probably say something for sure. hmmmm...could it be a curse in.....Aramaic???? A point to ponder...;-)...
The Bible is the record of the Jews and it teaches of Jesus Christ. Yet many will say that the Bible is not true. It would be better if we had another testament of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Mormon is considered another testament of Jesus Christ from another people that lived here on the American continent. It also testifies of Jesus Christ.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are another testament of Jesus Christ. They teach of the savior as well.
Scholars have been looking at brass plates that have been found burried in a stone case that also have teaching about Jesus on them.
Faith is the not having a perfect knowledge of things. Faith is to believe in things that are not seen but that are true. I would rather have faith in Jesus Christ and have a testimoni that he lives, that he took upon him all of our sins, that he is the living Son of our Heavenly Father than to have a perfect knowledge. The scriptures talk about having great faith. So much more blessed are those with faith than those that have a perfect knowledge of things. In the Bible their is a story of a man possessed with a devil. When this man saw the Savior he knew him, or the Devil inside knew him. When Jesus asked what his name was the man said, we are legion for their are many of us, all these evil spirirts possessing this one man. Jesus rebuked these spirits and cast them out of the man and into a group of swine. The pigs ran off a cliff if I remember the story correctly. The point is that even the Devil and all his spirits know or have a perfect knowledge of who Jesus Christ is and it did nothing for them. Perfect knowledge does not save you, faith saves you.
I'm adding my one cent piece to all of this. I'll start with something close to my heart that Unset... mentioned on page 1 of this thread. I fell head over heels when Camelot came out in the 1960s. I read, "Le Morte de Artur," and other books on this topic. What I also learned is "myths" are often easier for people to comprehend and you can glorify things that aren't true.
For example: The knights existed. Arthur, based on years of reading, was a compilation of kings in the Arthurian time period. I decided to look for a source to back some of this: The Real King Arthur | HISTORY You can find sources that will deny this.
With regards to a historical Jesus. I look to Grandstander's response in part. What's really weird and questionable to me is Jesus is fairly consistently portrayed as being white (in my life). But he was from a region of the world where people were not white. But white with long blonde hair and an angelic face draw you in (it works and it's just not realistic). I have no doubt that persons with attributes of Jesus existed and the writings of the bible appear in similarity to a number of other religions. So, I see Jesus and Arthur as myths. It's a lot easier to sell to people this way. Both, I believe, are composites of other people and glorified to draw people in to believe.
Last edited by PeaceOut001; 02-24-2015 at 01:53 PM..
Reason: slight clarification
The Gospel of Matthew is almost contemporary to Jesus' life as it is believed to have been written down only about 30 years after his death, which meant that there was relatively little time for the "facts" of Jesus' life and death to be too distorted via generations of oral history. Matthew gives considerable outline to Jesus' life. Does it "prove" Jesus was born in a stable or performed miracles? Hardly. But it does give support to the likelihood that there was this Jewish man named Jesus of Nazareth who was apparently a religious teacher of some modest repute who ran afoul of the local authorities and was crucified for his trouble. It was his apostles (and their salesmanship) who spread his brand of religious throughout the Mediterranean and into Europe, though.
We know that some "facts" in the Gospels were changed/rearranged/embellished to better suit the needs of Christianity. For instance, there's strong evidence that Jesus was likely born in the spring, but that his birth was moved to December to better counter the pagan celebration of the winter solstice.
Actually, this is untrue. Mark is considered the earliest Gospel used dated around 65 -75 CE. Mathew and Luke are generally dated around 80-85 CE. John is believed to have been written closer to the turn of the century.
The letters of Paul, and other letters, were written much more closely to the time of Christ beginning in the early 50's CE.
My understanding (as a Religious Studies major from UNC) is that there is great consensus among scholars that Jesus the person did most certainly exist. Even secular and atheist scholars, such as UNC's Bart Erhman, are in agreement with this conclusion. As a matter of fact, Erhman wrote (one of many) "Did Jesus Exist?" examining the idea of Jesus as Myth vs historical fact. As an atheist, I would imagine Erhman would be delighted to be able to prove Jesus was a myth, but legitimate scholarship does not afford that luxury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
