I'd like to ask a question on Jesus Mythicism...
Offline
As someone who has no set of structured beliefs, is uncertain but ambivalent as to the existence of a god, and has spent extensive amounts of time studying history, religion, and mythology (same thing, the both of them, I know- for all purposes of this discussion I refer to religion as an archaic belief system still in practice and mythology as those that are no longer practiced,) I have ultimately come to the logical conclusion that there was never a man, Jesus Christ, who lived the life described in the New Testament upon which the Christian religion was founded. While I do not claim to have any knowledge at all on the existence of a god, I am quite confident in my knowledge of the non-existence of Jesus Christ, and for many reasons. While I am very clear on this issue, I have frequently wondered how some can attest that such a man did live the life described in their religious texts when mythological precedents for Jesus, as well as many other factors, need to be ignored in order to regard fiction as fact.
At the advent of Christianity, the Jesus story was already common knowledge. The story of the virgin conception and birth as well as eventual crucifixion and resurrection has been recycled since ancient Egypt, perhaps even longer. It follows that the Roman Empire, upon deciding to unite under a single belief structure, would follow this age-old formula when conceiving their superstition. Pagan converts would be comfortable with the new religion and pagan holy days could be absorbed into Christianity, as they were.
I have also noticed that there are very few, if any, objective theologians in practice. It seems that no one enters the field of theology without the intention of using this degree to promote their own faith. What bothers me is that these people, in pursuit of a degree in theology, must have encountered earlier mythology that features the cycle of virgin birth, crucifixion, and resurrection. I mean, if I am aware that this story has been finding its way into religious cultures since the dawn of civilization, then a person with a PhD in theology must also be aware. It seems to me that the logical conclusion would be that exposure to this information would cause the person in question to rethink his position on an historical Jesus, and research into this new position would ultimately lead to the same conclusions I have reached after looking into this matter.
So, how can a person, when confronted with the wealth of information contrary to the existence of a historical Christ, maintain the position that this man existed and lived the life described in the bible?
(Side note- I once explained the evidence for Jesus Mythicism to a Born Again who was harassing me in the mall. His response: "There is more evidence for the historical existence of Jesus than there is for Abe Lincoln." Inquired as to the evidence and received a blank stare.)
- Login to post comments
Theists frequently make statements they're completely unable to back up. Even if you explain how they're wrong they'll ignore your explanation and make the same fallacious statement to the next person to pass by.
Well, it certainly is an interesting question. Did he exist or not? Put that way, there really can't be any doubt that at least certain parts of the story are just not possible. Take any of the miracles as the example here. Walking on water? NO. Healing the soldier's servant from across town? NO. Raising people from the dead? NO.
However, if we do not take the question as binary, then there is at least some possibility that there was some basis to the stories.
Perhaps there was some preacher dude/wanna be prophet running around and his story was convenient to hang all the crap on. If that happened to be the case, then he would have had to be a small time player that did not draw the notice of any of the people who were alive and writing on what was then current events (Pliny the Younger for example). Perhaps there were even several people on whom the stories were based and that is why the matter escaped the notice of those writers.
As far as scholars becoming skeptical, actually that does happen. It just fails to make the major news outlets when it does. After all, what any given scholar writes is usually not fodder for the nine o'clock news.
You may be right about theologians on the overall picture though. Many of them become even more deeply committed to what they already had going on once they have access to better information. That being said, you might want to look more at textual critics as it is their job to deconstruct the source material and figure out what might actually be original works or later additions.
One of my favorites in Professor Bart Ehrman. You would do well to check out some of his work.
=
There are some "rebel" theologians out there, Hans Kung comes to mind firstly. He was given a very uncerimonious slap in the wrist and is no longer allowed to teach theology because of his very different ideas on certain christian topics. Hell being the primary one I believe.
Others are rebels as well, he is not alone by any means.
I've seen the christian defenses to this matter and I think it takes a bit more to deconstruct their arguments than this, IMHO.
After all, even though no one knows the actual date of the supposed birth of Jesus they still have a one in 350 chance (let's not pick hairs here) that they could be correct on the date they picked even though they picked it out of what appears to be a sycretism motive.
I agree with the sentiment of your position, but never would use this kind of argument because I think it is a bit weak. There are better ways to skin a cat.
After posting this, I was thinking on it again this morning and remembered reading an article a long time ago in which an atheist named Luigi Cascioli challenged a priest to prove Christ existed. I've researched and found the article so that others can read it as well.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182341,00.html
The defendant in question, Father Righy, makes an interesting statement: "If Cascioli doesn't see the sun at midday, he can't denounce me just because I do."
His comparison of Christ to the midday sun may just be coincidence, but, upon a more thorough study of theology we learn that the mythical lives of Horus, Mithra, Zoroaster, Jesus, and others are allegory for the sun's path through the twelve houses of the zodiac and such mythology was fairly important to ancient peoples not because it meant their salvation but because it taught them when to plant and when to harvest, and how to divine certain simple things such as time and place from the position of the sun and stars in the sky.
Although his assertion may be coincidental, it makes me feel that those who study theology may know more than they let on about religion yet choose for whatever reason to keep this knowledge to themselves and make sure that their followers never doubt their claim that the bible is historical fact and not allegorical fiction.
While I have noticed this in debating theists, I find that we're more prone to hearing these statements from fundamentalist sects. I can have friendly conversation with certain theists on the subject of faith- such as neo-pagans or Unitarians and the like- and never be attacked for my skepticism regarding their belief system. Such theists will concede when I have made a valid point in debate, as I will concede when I feel their point is valid, and we agree to disagree. In addition, it seems to me that they don't really pose a question in their minds as to whether or not my "soul" is at stake for not believing the way they do. I think the whole issue of condemnation presents a source of discomfort in certain fundamentalist sects as well; as in when a zealot meets a non-believer that they genuinely like. They know the individual in question is a good person, but their belief system also dictates that this person must spend eternity in "hell" (or whatever their equivalent) for failure to accept what is "true" to them. It's good that these discrepancies pose problems for them, but usually they ultimately choose to hate the non-believer they initially liked, rather than question the justness of their god.
Personally, I think faith is a form of addiction, and I think most mental health professionals know this. This explanation makes a great deal of sense when someone you have been close to has gone through the process of substance abuse rehabilitation. Anyone is free to disagree with me on this one, but I did watch one of my good friends come back from rehab and enter a 12 step program- she eventually ended up at the craziest church in town (also the one where the Abe Lincoln Born Again came from.) She was underage at the time and I agreed to take her to her meetings and to church every now and again. I noticed that I recognized a lot of the faces from my friend's NA group in the church- that tells me this church is very strategic in its efforts to recruit potential zealots. My friend's stint with the church and NA didn't last, however. Neither did her sobriety. Within a month, she was using heroin again and a few months after that she got clean on her own terms. It was only after she really took power for herself that she was able to maintain sobriety, and I'm sure it takes a substantial amount of willpower. I think the mentality in teaching a person that addiction is a lifetime affliction is in order to channel the addiction itself- to create these overzealous fundamentalists we find harassing us in shopping malls and on the streets. My friend was not very susceptible to zealous Christianity, since many friends within her circle were atheists, agnostics, and other assorted "heathens." Although the anonymous programs encourage you to disassociate yourself from all your former friends, she could not, since most of us were trying to get her help for the entire time she was using, as well as encouraging her sobriety after rehabilitation. Her loyalties to us didn't allow her to accept the religion as a replacement for the drug and, as a result, the brainwashing couldn't stick. She had to find a healthier way to come to terms with and alleviate her problem.
This brings me back to the Born Again at the mall. What I hadn't brought up in my brief mention of him was that I had known him some years before his 'epiphany,' which is the only reason I stayed and talked to him as long as I did. The man is gay in every sense of the word, yet has chosen this new life of lying to himself. His business, but I felt a deep sense of pity for him, so I stood there and listened to his nonsense for almost 45 minutes and gently interjected with facts. He gave me his version of "facts," one about Abe Lincoln being more fictional than Jesus, and another being, "I had AIDS and Jesus cured me." In our discussion, he admitted he couldn't provide paperwork that he ever tested positive for HIV, but he knows he had it. How? The church told him, I'm sure. He was then faith healed for an illness he never had. When I asked how he got into all of this, he proceeded to tell me about the drug problem he had several years ago. Shocking.
While I am on the subject I want to mention that many of the people at this church have a specific look to their eyes. It gives a new meaning to the words "blank stare," yet there's something terrifying about it, in a way that makes me think of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer- most serial killers I've seen pictures of have the same look in their eyes as that which you see at this church. I'm sure there are many more just like them all over the nation.
I guess I should also point out that I've spoken with a few people from that same church who seem pretty normal and are more than willing to coexist with any other sort of belief or even lack thereof, which creates somewhat of a conundrum. I've gone on enough of a tangent about this, though. You've got to excuse me here, as everything I've observed about these people is just rushing back at the moment. I guess I just had to get it all out.
As for whether there was some random guy or guys who inspired this religion, I do not know. What I do know is that there is no way possible that this person (or persons) lived the same mythological life as Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Zoroaster, what-have-you. The logical conclusion to me is that since the person or persons that may have inspired Christianity could not have possibly lived the life described in the gospels, the biblical Jesus did not exist historically. I am fairly open to the idea that someone, possibly a man called Jesus, did once exist and possibly founded a cult which in turn was enhanced with very traditional mythology, but the fact remains that all we know of this person (or persons) is the mythology which was bestowed upon the cult. To me, this means that the life and works of such individuals is inconsequential in all but the foundation of one obnoxious cult.