Is Christianity mythology?

[Raastee]

I have been reading that Christianity is nothing more then a mimicry of mythology. Do you think this is true? Why?

[Diogenes]

This question is barely worth a response...but...take virtually any book, fact or fiction, and there will be truth, falsehoods, theories, opinions, and myths...

is Christian scripture the truth...no...a lie...no...a theory...no...an opinion...no...a myth...no...

it is all of the above.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Diogenes This question is barely worth a response...

Same with the poll, at least the way it's worded. It's not a mimickry of myths. It is a myth.

Grandpa h.

[LOGAN]

A myth is not demonstrated with historical accuracy, as Jesus is proven to be a real, physical existing person of historical example....not a product of imagination. Such as does Science and History confirm the writings contained in the Holy Scriptures. Such as is not exampled in the parroted MYTHS which had their basis of imagination parroted from the true example of the Judeo/Christian faith.

[Jack]

Jesus is proven to be a real, physical existing person of historical example

Sorry, I can't accept that as it based on one source (the Bible) of questionable authenticity. More was written about the Greek and Roman gods in far many more books and yet we find it reasonable to dismiss the idea they existed. Jesus is as much a myth as Zeus or Apollo.

[Raastee]

I have heard the position that post option three is true, but for that to be true option two would also have to be true.

[Raastee]

Quote by: Diogenes This question is barely worth a response...but...take virtually any book, fact or fiction, and there will be truth, falsehoods, theories, opinions, and myths... is Christian scripture the truth...no...a lie...no...a theory...no...an opinion...no...a myth...no... it is all of the above.

Is this a statement that it is all subjective?

[Diogenes]

Is this a statement that it is all subjective?

No...it is a statement that scripture contains elements of all items in question. It contains elements of truth, elements of untruths, elements of myth, elements of opinion, etc...

the ' old testament ' should be read as it was intentionally written...as a history of the Hebrews...what they thought, their genealogy, what they believed, where they lived, how they perceived others around them, etc...

the ' new testament ' should be read as it was intended...the history of one man, his disciples, his beliefs, the objects he found in the way of his beliefs, etc...

then it's up to the individual to decide what applies to them or their beliefs.

[stardust]

Bible isn't in its original form. It has so many contradictions, and stuff. But ofcourse there are some sections which can be considered authentic still. But that is no reason to assert that Jesus himself was a myth. Trinity however, is a product of human imagination with twistful logic.

[brisbane buddy]

The funny thing about myths is the fact that they are myths to people who believe they are myths. So in essence it is persons own intelligence or imagination which tells them something is a myth, legend or fact.

If it stopped raining now and never rained again on the face of the earth, within a few generations rain would turn from fact to legend. Within a few hundred years, rain would turn from legend to myth in the minds of some people irrespective of how many books or video data were there to suggest otherwise. Over time evidence would be lost and destroyed, conspiracy theories would be devised by human intelligence, scientists would argue with themselves as new power of suggestions came into play and the God Delusion would be repeated.

Cheers.

[samsara15]

There are not any fully dependable sources historically that attest to the life of Jesus. The sources that do exist are all questionable. Which is not to say that Jesus may not have existed,,only that the evidence supporting that Jesus existed is not unassailable.

The accuracy of the history of the Jewish people as presented by the Bible also is very dubious. The Old Testament originated as political propaganda.

Reams of books have been written questioning or defending the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Deciding who to believe is a matter of opinion.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: samsara15 There are not any fully dependable sources historically that attest to the life of Jesus. The sources that do exist are all questionable. Which is not to say that Jesus may not have existed,,only that the evidence supporting that Jesus existed is not unassailable.

The two main sources which highly suggest the probability of Lord Jesus are the Bible and the Qur'an. Two opposing factions who are far from being best friends. Who was Jesus though in his life and times, a person of importance? I think not, he wasn't a Roman so the Romans wouldn't have written about him, He was opposed to the Jew so the Jew wouldn't have written about him to give him credit, the majority of Lord Jesus's followers were peasants meaning most would have been illiterate so they couldn't write about him. Makes one wonder doesn't it, would anybody be able to say that anybody who is deemed as unimportant ever existed without having a question mark over it? Did Abdul the camel driver exist?

Quote by: samsara15 The accuracy of the history of the Jewish people as presented by the Bible also is very dubious. The Old Testament originated as political propaganda.

Is it the accuracy of the Bible or the accuracy of the interpretation placed on the Bible which is dubious? The old testament started out word of mouth, nothing to do with political propaganda.

Quote by: samsara15 Reams of books have been written questioning or defending the historical accuracy of the Bible.

I have always wondered about people who question historical facts when in fact most can't even tell me what the historical events spoken about even mean or refer to, though most will give me their opinion of what they think it means and base their conclusion from it.

Quote by: samsara15 Deciding who to believe is a matter of opinion.

Opinions are based on perception, they (opinions) should never be trusted for accuracy.

Cheers.

[RavenFlame]

Quote by: brisbane buddy The two main sources which highly suggest the probability of Lord Jesus are the Bible and the Qur'an. Two opposing factions who are far from being best friends. Who was Jesus though in his life and times, a person of importance? I think not, he wasn't a Roman so the Romans wouldn't have written about him, He was opposed to the Jew so the Jew wouldn't have written about him to give him credit, the majority of Lord Jesus's followers were peasants meaning most would have been illiterate so they couldn't write about him. Makes one wonder doesn't it, would anybody be able to say that anybody who is deemed as unimportant ever existed without having a question mark over it? Did Abdul the camel driver exist? Is it the accuracy of the Bible or the accuracy of the interpretation placed on the Bible which is dubious? The old testament started out word of mouth, nothing to do with political propaganda. I have always wondered about people who question historical facts when in fact most can't even tell me what the historical events spoken about even mean or refer to, though most will give me their opinion of what they think it means and base their conclusion from it. Opinions are based on perception, they (opinions) should never be trusted for accuracy. Cheers.

You are the former and the latter apropos of my signature.

[littlebear]

Josephus, a jewish historian spoke of Jesus.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

There is one other quote of Josephus concerning Jesus, but scholars generally agree it has been corrupted by theists. This one, however, most scholars agree is genuine.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: littlebear Josephus, a jewish historian spoke of Jesus.

Nope. You're wrong.

Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

3. The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on.

Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:

'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...'

Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

4. The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:


'... as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him."

This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

Source.

There is one other quote of Josephus concerning Jesus, but scholars generally agree it has been corrupted by theists. This one, however, most scholars agree is genuine.

Nope. You're wrong. They're both bogus. Both suffer from all the problems listed above. You're just making an appeal to authority fallacy. The "scholars" that you're referring to are Christian biblical scholars who have a clear agenda / doctrinal ax to grind.

[Raastee]

Quote by: littlebear Josephus, a jewish historian spoke of Jesus. There is one other quote of Josephus concerning Jesus, but scholars generally agree it has been corrupted by theists. This one, however, most scholars agree is genuine.

But is it not also true that a lot of people were going by the name Jesus (Greek)? We simply do not know what Jesus Josephus was writing about here.
I translated Jonah in Grad school, Hebrew was an interesting language.
We often called it the pregnant language, because some words and terms and word order could have many meanings.

[littlebear]

Quote by: Raastee But is it not also true that a lot of people were going by the name Jesus (Greek)? We simply do not know what Jesus Josephus was writing about here. I translated Jonah in Grad school, Hebrew was an interesting language. We often called it the pregnant language, because some words and terms and word order could have many meanings.

Here is the quote.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htmp

[littlebear]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong.

Nope, you're wrong. Read the previous post.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: Jack Sorry, I can't accept that as it based on one source (the Bible) of questionable authenticity. More was written about the Greek and Roman gods in far many more books and yet we find it reasonable to dismiss the idea they existed. Jesus is as much a myth as Zeus or Apollo.

Not according to recorded writings of actual historical figures which are readily accepted by Academia.

Tacitus (A.D. 56-117) "Nero fabricated scapegoats -- and punished with every notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius' reign......." {The Annals of Tacitus 115 A.D.}

Suetonius is another reliable source of historical evidence. Twice in his history he specifically addresses Christ and his followers. "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of "Chrestus"......." Chrestus is a misspelling of the word "Christos" (as stated by Sanders the editor of the reprint 1993..pg 49-50) The Greek Word that means Hebrew Messiah...{Claudius 25:4}

Pliny...directly mentions the Christ 3 times to refer to the originator of the "sect" known as Christians. {True Discourse A.D. 178}

The Jewish Historian Josephus mentions the Christ at least twice....only one of which is in dispute, with the other unquestioned, in his work {Antiquities 93 A.D.}.....there are more, but this establishes the historical fact that Jesus was more than just a MYTH.

[Derach]

If you could only find 4 references to Socrates, or Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar ... and all of those sources were of dubious origin ... you would not accept their existence as 'factual'. There are more references in antiquity to King Arthur than there are to Jesus Christ ... yet he is almost completely accepted to be a mythical figure based loosely on folklore and legend. Same holds true for Jesus.