Upon What Basis Do Atheists Claim that Jesus is a Myth?

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

You might like this Thread and Video made by Chris White :

Secular Non Biblical Sources For The Existence Of The Lord Jesus Christ in History

 

[Occams Barber]

Hello Quid. Where've you been hiding?

This is solely an a priori position. The very fact that it is called 'emergent' means we can't pinpoint where it comes from, but that it must be there somewhere, because we assume it is

Since we can measure brain activity in response to stimuli and even perform remote control via specific thoughts by monitoring particular brain activity it is reasonable to make an assumption that the brain is the seat of consciousness. If we then go further and look for alternative places where consciousness might reside within the body no other candidates can be identified. Of course if we assume, a priori, a potential supernatural source for consciousness then all bets are off. I don't make that particular assumption since there is no evidence for the supernatural.

If consciousness is emergent from the electro-chemical function of the brain, then far more complex electro-chemical systems like the Sun may be just as conscious; essentially, you are just resurrecting ideas like Pagan Helios.

Rubbish. I can't watch TV on my toaster and they are both electrical appliances. The fact that the brain and the sun are both complex electro-chemical systems doesn't mean they are physically the same and capable of the same functions. (I rather like the idea of being a Pagan Helios with the sun shining out of my ……..)

Fact is, there is no empiric proof that consciousness is an emergent property, nor even an agreed definition of what consciousness entails, or whether or not it is present. There is only no Problem of Consciousness if you abandon Scientific Method, Empiricism and curiosity, and merely assume on blind faith that that non-specific and untestable hypothesis is correct; or deny Consciousness exists at all.

I suspect that there is only a Problem of Consciousness when you insert a mythological Sky Father into the equation.

(I'm about to depart to dine with my neighbour so it might be a while before I can offer the insults appropriate to any response you might make )
OB

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

To accept the full Biblical version of Jesus you must first accept the proposition that God exists, since Jesus is portrayed as the Son of God. If God does not exist He cannot, logically have a Son.

Having said this, it's still possible, perhaps even probable, that a character resembling Jesus actually existed and did some of the less miraculous things attributed to Him.
OB

Even if you accepted that a God or gods exist, the next question would be which God or gods? Which religious text on what basis? Unfortunately it's quite a leap from the natural to the supernatural, huh? At this point, I would preach the Gospel, but considering the comfortableness of posting on CF, suspect you have read at least most of the NT at least once. So, I'll not spin any tires here. I do hope and pray for a miracle you cannot deny, but not the kind you would be looking for. All the best. - AW

 

[friend of]

Just their contempt and rejection of Him, for the most part.

 

[Justified112]

I might not fall directly into the category of "Atheists" that you ask here: I just believe that it is possible that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was a mythological figure.

The problem behind this is to seperate a "historical person" from the "stories about a historical person"... which may or may not be correct.

For example: George Washington and the chopped down cherry tree. This story is a myth. It did not happen. But does the existence of a myth involving George Washington make him a mythological figure?
How much "true" stories about a person do you need before you declare them "real historical person"? How much false stories do you need to declare them "mythological"?

Another example: Robin Hood. He didn't go on crusade with Richard the Lionhart. He didn't have a coterie of Merry Men including Little John, Alan a Dale and Friar Tuck. He didn't have a lover named Marion. He didn't fight evil Prince John or the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Yet there were reports of outlaws, some even called something like "Robin Hood", at various times in various areas in the English history.

Is Robin Hood a "historical person"? Is he based on an historical person? Is he based on multiple historical persons?
Where does the "historical person" end and the myth start?

So it is, in my view, with Jesus. There are stories about him. The Christians assert that these stories are all completely accurate and true.
I find that doubtful.

The difference between the Gospels and the tales about Robin Hood is that the story of Robin Hood started off as a ballad. The Gospels present themselves as literal, historical, eye witness accounts.

 

[Freodin]

The difference between the Gospels and the tales about Robin Hood is that the story of Robin Hood started off as a ballad. The Gospels present themselves as literal, historical, eye witness accounts.

That's not quite correct. The figure of Robin Hood is based on a number of sources, ranging from ballads to chronicals... and than not even considers that "ballads" were not necessarily considered unhistorical.
And neither means that the "Gospels present[ing] themselves as literal, historical, eye witness accounts" (which they don't) that they were completely factual.

That's why I specifically mentioned the problems of "quantifying" the ratio of "true" vs "false" in establishing the "mythological" status of a person.

I am aware that a lot of Christians need to believe that everything presented in the Gospels is the whole absolute truth without fail, but this leads to a problem in the methodical approach to such a topic.

You might also have noticed that I did not draw any direct connections between Robin Hood and Jesus, nor did I draw any conclusions from one to the other.
I presented my reasoning for allowing the mythological status of Jesus, nothing else.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Since we can measure brain activity in response to stimuli and even perform remote control via specific thoughts by monitoring particular brain activity it is reasonable to make an assumption that the brain is the seat of consciousness. If we then go further and look for alternative places where consciousness might reside within the body no other candidates can be identified. Of course if we assume, a priori, a potential supernatural source for consciousness then all bets are off. I don't make that particular assumption since there is no evidence for the supernatural.

Perception is not the same thing necessarily as consciousness firstly, and placing consciousness in relation to brain activity is not the same as assuming causation thereof. We cannot point to specific brain activity and say "that is consciousness". Why do you think getting someone labelled 'brain-dead' is so complex an undertaking? We mostly do so by measuring reflexes and the ilk, things with no actual relation to Consciousness as is.

Recent studies (in Australia even), have shown EEG and fMRI of people placed under muscle relaxation, without inducing unconsciousness with Anaesthetic agents, appeared fully sedated and/or Anaesthetised as we understood it. They remained fully conscious, recalled everything afterwards, and with isolated forearm technique could even respond during it. So so far, medicine has only demonstrated a very poor correlation, if any, between consciousness and measured brain activity.

Rubbish. I can't watch TV on my toaster and they are both electrical appliances. The fact that the brain and the sun are both complex electro-chemical systems doesn't mean they are physically the same and capable of the same functions. (I rather like the idea of being a Pagan Helios with the sun shining out of my ……..)

Different though, as you can demonstrate how a toaster toasts or a TV receives images. We can see where the brain activity for respiration or control of thyroid function or reading and language comprehension lies, but not for consciousness. So it is tantamount to assuming the Toaster can also create dark matter particles, because it adds weight to the bread by toasting (At least for warm toast), while we can't see the dark matter.

If you are assigning a function you can't demonstrate, and ascribing it to a specific thing which you have seen, then if you see that same type of thing elsewhere, you have no grounds for disregarding that the undemonstrated function might not be present there also.

I suspect that there is only a Problem of Consciousness when you insert a mythological Sky Father into the equation.

Please explain that to all the Neurologists and other Neuroscientists hard at work on this supposed non-existent problem:

What Can Neuroscience Tell Us about the Hard Problem of Consciousness?

 

[Justified112]

There are two basic varieties of atheist:

1. Strong Atheist: "I know God does not exist"
2. Weak Atheist: "In the absence of evidence I see no reason to accept that God exists"​

Along with most atheists, I fall into the second category. I don't need "compelling evidence for the non-existence of God". I need evidence for the 'existence' of God before I'm prepared to accept it.

I assume you have a similar attitude when it comes to accepting the existence of other, non-Christian, gods.
OB

What would you accept as evidence?

As for how we look at other gods, when you consider the milieu out of which the Bible emerged, it is not possible that man, on his own, would have imagined the God of the Bible. The gods of the polytheistic religions at that time were limited to imaginations of man, and did not possess the divine qualities that the Bible ascribes to God. The gods of the ancients were flawed, and possessed all of the moral failings of humanity. In many cases, they resented humanity.

In fact, the Bible as a whole is very offensive to human nature. God's holiness as depicted in the Bible, is one of those offensive qualities. The mind of man would never have conceived of the God of the Bible at the time that the Bible was being written.

It's kind of like not expecting someone in the 14th century to mention a cell phone. It would never have entered into their mind, as it was not part of their experience. In a similar way, the God of the Bible was not part of the human experience, and that includes the Person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Justified112]

That's not quite correct. The figure of Robin Hood is based on a number of sources, ranging from ballads to chronicals... and than not even considers that "ballads" were not necessarily considered unhistorical.
And neither means that the "Gospels present[ing] themselves as literal, historical, eye witness accounts" (which they don't) that they were completely factual.

That's why I specifically mentioned the problems of "quantifying" the ratio of "true" vs "false" in establishing the "mythological" status of a person.

I am aware that a lot of Christians need to believe that everything presented in the Gospels is the whole absolute truth without fail, but this leads to a problem in the methodical approach to such a topic.

You might also have noticed that I did not draw any direct connections between Robin Hood and Jesus, nor did I draw any conclusions from one to the other.
I presented my reasoning for allowing the mythological status of Jesus, nothing else.

Again, though, the Gospels do present themselves as historical, eyewitness accounts or at least based on the testimony of eye witnesses in the case of Luke and Mark, and the earliest copies we have date to within 50 years of when they would have lived.

Why would any part of the account of Jesus be mythological?

 

[Freodin]

Again, though, the Gospels do present themselves as historical, eyewitness accounts or at least based on the testimony of eye witnesses in the case of Luke and Mark, and the earliest copies we have date to within 50 years of when they would have lived.

Why would any part of the account of Jesus be mythological?

Again, "presenting" themselves as historical or eyewitness accounts does not mean that they were. On top of that you have to consider that ancient historiographies did not work in the same way as modern "reports" would.

But let's see. An example. From Luke, which you claimed was based on eye witness testimony, and you cannot see why any part of that might be "mythological".

Luke 4:1-13 The temptation of Jesus.

Nowhere does the author of Luke's gospel claim to have spoken with Jesus directly. In that story, Jesus was in the desert for fourty days. No companion is mentioned anywhere... and a companion wouldn't fit within the narrative.
No other potential source for this story is mentioned or implied. No source exists or is ever mentioned from people having seen Jesus conversing with Satan on top of the temple or on some high hills.
If you don't want to claim that Luke interviewed the devil himself, there is no space left for any kind of "eyewitness accounts".

This story fits well within the scope of such narrative... but it cannot be construed as an eye witness report.

Now if you also consider the supernatural character of that story, you would have to at least admit the possibility of that story being a myth.

 

[Monk Brendan]

What evidence do Atheists believe exists to demonstrate that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was/is a mythological figure?

Most atheists do not deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, but they all DO reject the Gospels as trustworthy.

 

[Freodin]

Most atheists do not deny the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, but they all DO reject the Gospels as trustworthy.

Most Christians do not deny the historicity of Muhammed, but they all DO reject the Qu'ran as trustworthy.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Justified112]

Again, "presenting" themselves as historical or eyewitness accounts does not mean that they were. On top of that you have to consider that ancient historiographies did not work in the same way as modern "reports" would.

But let's see. An example. From Luke, which you claimed was based on eye witness testimony, and you cannot see why any part of that might be "mythological".

Luke 4:1-13 The temptation of Jesus.

Nowhere does the author of Luke's gospel claim to have spoken with Jesus directly. In that story, Jesus was in the desert for fourty days. No companion is mentioned anywhere... and a companion wouldn't fit within the narrative.
No other potential source for this story is mentioned or implied. No source exists or is ever mentioned from people having seen Jesus conversing with Satan on top of the temple or on some high hills.
If you don't want to claim that Luke interviewed the devil himself, there is no space left for any kind of "eyewitness accounts".

This story fits well within the scope of such narrative... but it cannot be construed as an eye witness report.

Now if you also consider the supernatural character of that story, you would have to at least admit the possibility of that story being a myth.

There were lots of things that Jesus is recorded as saying or doing when the disciples were not around, or when no one was around. When I say the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. I am not saying that someone was there, in the moment, journaling everything that was happening. It is quite likely that Jesus related what happened to him in the wilderness as a teaching to his disciples about dealing with temptation.

It is not farfetched at all that Jesus recalled to them events that happened to him or that someone else did the same.

So the Bible's inclusion of things Jesus said and done when others were not present is not problematic, nor does it serve as an adequate claim for mythology of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

 

[Justified112]

Most Christians do not deny the historicity of Muhammed, but they all DO reject the Qu'ran as trustworthy.

I wonder why that is.

That's not a very good comparison. No one is claiming that Mohammed was a mythological person.

 

[DamianWarS]

For love to exist, there must be at least two entities interacting. Perhaps one is Jesus Christ. Not just a historical person, but risen.

the love between 2 is incomplete, one is the superordinate the other the subordinate but there is no contrast of relationship. between 2 the relations are only 1-2 but between 3 there is 1-2, 1-3, 2-3 and 1-2-3. 4 uniquely defined relationships wholly contrasted and this is where love can perfectly exist.

 

[Freodin]

There were lots of things that Jesus is recorded as saying or doing when the disciples were not around, or when no one was around. When I say the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. I am not saying that someone was there, in the moment, journaling everything that was happening. It is quite likely that Jesus related what happened to him in the wilderness as a teaching to his disciples about dealing with temptation.

It is not farfetched at all that Jesus recalled to them events that happened to him or that someone else did the same.

So the Bible's inclusion of things Jesus said and done when others were not present is not problematic, nor does it serve as an adequate claim for mythology of Jesus as depicted in the Bible.

It seems we have slightly different definitions of "far fetched" when it comes to stories about people being teleported around by the devil himself.

But I fear we have an even more basic misunderstanding here:
I am not in any way claiming that such stories are in any way a proof or "adequate claim" for mythology of Jesus... all I am saying is that such stories allow for the option of the myth variant.

The main argument that many Christian apologets present for the "historic" Jesus is "the authors wouldn't have made it up".
It is quite easy to see - even without direct examples where even Christians would claim that the authors made it up - that this is a claim beyond human nature.

That's not a very good comparison. No one is claiming that Mohammed was a mythological person.

Again, you do not seem to have understood the specific distinction that I made regarding the - let's say: levels - of "mythology" in a person.

I try again: what does it mean for a "person" to be historic or mythological? How much of what is told about him can be false or must be true to be "historic" or "mythological"?

Another example: Socrates. (Hey, Monk Brendan: you wanted to know what I thought about the historicity of Socrates: look here!)
We know, from different sources, quite a lot about Socrates. When he was born, when he died, how he died, what family he came from, what he taught... ... but all of that is based on stories that other people told about him. Stories that other people used as back-up for their claims.
It is very well possible that there wasn't a historical Socrates. Everything socratic can be explained - and isn't even "far fetched" - without the existence of a historic Socrates.
There might have been a historic basis for this figure. There might have been more than one. He might have been a pure fiction.
We cannot be sure... but it is very well possible, and wouldn't change basically anything about the history or developement of philosophy since.

With different persons, this is not quite the same. With Caesar or Augustus or Alexander for example. Here, the known historical facts demand the existence of a historical figure as a basis for the stories... even if not all, not even most, of what is told about them is "true".

Could the macedonic expansion and conquest of the eastern world have happened without some sort of personal driving force behind it? No. Could it have happened without this force being divine, slashing through knots and having all kinds of omens predicting his greatness? Yes.

Could the islamic rise and expansion have happened without a personal figurehead establishing and leading this new movement? No. Could it have happened without this figure talking to angels and riding into heaven? Yes.

And here's why I think the in contrast to Alexander or Muhammed, Jesus is more like Socrates.
The socratic school could have happened without there ever having been a real Socrates. And Christianity could have happened without there ever having been a real Jesus.

 

[Justified112]

It seems we have slightly different definitions of "far fetched" when it comes to stories about people being teleported around by the devil himself.

Why is Jesus being tempted by Satan farfetched?

But I fear we have an even more basic misunderstanding here:
I am not in any way claiming that such stories are in any way a proof or "adequate claim" for mythology of Jesus... all I am saying is that such stories allow for the option of the myth variant.

The historical accuracy of the Gospels make it less likely that Jesus was a mythical person.

The main argument that many Christian apologets present for the "historic" Jesus is "the authors wouldn't have made it up".
It is quite easy to see - even without direct examples where even Christians would claim that the authors made it up - that this is a claim beyond human nature.

The nature of the Gospels themselves defy a made up story, as does the rest of the Bible.

Again, you do not seem to have understood the specific distinction that I made regarding the - let's say: levels - of "mythology" in a person.

Levels of mythology?

I try again: what does it mean for a "person" to be historic or mythological? How much of what is told about him can be false or must be true to be "historic" or "mythological"?

Another example: Socrates. (Hey, Monk Brendan: you wanted to know what I thought about the historicity of Socrates: look here!)
We know, from different sources, quite a lot about Socrates. When he was born, when he died, how he died, what family he came from, what he taught... ... but all of that is based on stories that other people told about him. Stories that other people used as back-up for their claims.
It is very well possible that there wasn't a historical Socrates. Everything socratic can be explained - and isn't even "far fetched" - without the existence of a historic Socrates.
There might have been a historic basis for this figure. There might have been more than one. He might have been a pure fiction.
We cannot be sure... but it is very well possible, and wouldn't change basically anything about the history or developement of philosophy since.

With different persons, this is not quite the same. With Caesar or Augustus or Alexander for example. Here, the known historical facts demand the existence of a historical figure as a basis for the stories... even if not all, not even most, of what is told about them is "true".

Could the macedonic expansion and conquest of the eastern world have happened without some sort of personal driving force behind it? No. Could it have happened without this force being divine, slashing through knots and having all kinds of omens predicting his greatness? Yes.

Could the islamic rise and expansion have happened without a personal figurehead establishing and leading this new movement? No. Could it have happened without this figure talking to angels and riding into heaven? Yes.

And here's why I think the in contrast to Alexander or Muhammed, Jesus is more like Socrates.
The socratic school could have happened without there ever having been a real Socrates. And Christianity could have happened without there ever having been a real Jesus.

That is false. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could have never existed; it is the lynch pin of Christian faith. Christianity is different than Islam or other ideologies because it is based on having a personal relationship with the founder, in this case, Jesus. Christianity does not rest upon a set of propositional claims, but on the actual, fact of the Person of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead.

 

[Freodin]

Why is Jesus being tempted by Satan farfetched?

Oh, it is not. I just discussed this question with my invisible pink pet unicorn, and she assured me that there was absolutely nothing far fetched about Satan teleporting people all over the place. Happens all the time. /snark

Look, I understand that you believe in all that stuff. But I'd say even you have stuff that people claim is completely accurate and true, and that you think is a bunch of made up stories.

The historical accuracy of the Gospels make it less likely that Jesus was a mythical person.

No, it doesn't. The historical accuracy of the Illiad still doesn't mean that Poseidon and Athene were real and that godesses get into beauty contests.

The nature of the Gospels themselves defy a made up story, as does the rest of the Bible.

The nature of the Qu'ran defies a made up story... so I guess you should convert to Islam? Or not.

Levels of mythology?

I don't know how to phrase it better. The George Washington who chops down cherry trees is a mythological figure. The George Washington who is a tactical genius who lead the Continental Army to victory is somewhat less of a mythological figure. The George Washington who was the First President of the USA is a historical person.

That is false. Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could have never existed; it is the lynch pin of Christian faith.

Sorry, but that also is not true. Christianity is based, partially, on the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
Consider that there are indeed variants of Christianity that don't hold to a bodily
resurrection, or to the divinity of Jesus, or, or, or... and they all exist.

Christianity is different than Islam or other ideologies because it is based on having a personal relationship with the founder, in this case, Jesus. Christianity does not rest upon a set of propositional claims, but on the actual, fact of the Person of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead.

Yes, I am aware that Christians claim that. They just have a very hard time to demonstrate that or distinguish the "reality" of such a relationship with the claim of such a relationship.

I really don't want to go into an apologetic discussion about the truth of Christianity here.
I just want to make you see that the scepticism and disbelief in the claims that Christians make is justified and is not based in nefarious reasons, selfishness, pride, delusion or whatever motives Christians like to ascribe to unbelievers.

 

[chilehed]

That's the problem...it can't be proven...!

Nonsense.

How would YOU prove Jesus really existed?

By evaluating the historical evidence. There's so much historical evidence for his existence that if you say it's not enough to prove it, you also need to say there's not enough evidence to prove the existence of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle ,Confucius, or Buddha (to start with). There are very few people of the ancient world for whom there is more historical evidence than Jesus of Nazareth - it has little do do with faith.

 

[Justified112]

Oh, it is not. I just discussed this question with my invisible pink pet unicorn, and she assured me that there was absolutely nothing far fetched about Satan teleporting people all over the place. Happens all the time. /snark

Which is the typical, immature, anti-intellectual mockery that I expect from Atheists. It always goes there for some reason.

Look, I understand that you believe in all that stuff. But I'd say even you have stuff that people claim is completely accurate and true, and that you think is a bunch of made up stories.

The problem with that is the impeccable historical accuracy of the Bible.

No, it doesn't. The historical accuracy of the Illiad still doesn't mean that Poseidon and Athene were real and that godesses get into beauty contests.

The Illiad isn't history.

The nature of the Qu'ran defies a made up story... so I guess you should convert to Islam? Or not.

The Koran and the Bible defy any kind of meaningful comparison.

I don't know how to phrase it better. The George Washington who chops down cherry trees is a mythological figure. The George Washington who is a tactical genius who lead the Continental Army to victory is somewhat less of a mythological figure. The George Washington who was the First President of the USA is a historical person.

Either someone is a myth or they are not a myth.

Sorry, but that also is not true. Christianity is based, partially, on the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Jesus is the central focus of the Bible. The resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of not only Jesus' teachings but of the entire OT that looked forward to His coming and his death on the cross and resurrection. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, nothing about the Bible matters because it would mean that everything prophesied about Him was a lie and that He lied about his own resurrection. If Jesus is still dead, there is no Christianity.

Consider that there are indeed variants of Christianity that don't hold to a bodily
resurrection, or to the divinity of Jesus, or, or, or... and they all exist.

But they are not authentic Christians. Authentic Christianity is based on Jesus' resurrection. There are all kinds of people who consider themselves "christians" for reasons that have nothing to do with Jesus. There is a cultural "christianity" out there, but I am not talking about those charlatans and misled people. Authentic, biblical Christianity is solely based on resurrection of Jesus.

Yes, I am aware that Christians claim that. They just have a very hard time to demonstrate that or distinguish the "reality" of such a relationship with the claim of such a relationship.

Which is not true at all.

I really don't want to go into an apologetic discussion about the truth of Christianity here.
I just want to make you see that the scepticism and disbelief in the claims that Christians make is justified and is not based in nefarious reasons, selfishness, pride, delusion or whatever motives Christians like to ascribe to unbelievers.

So far, not a single skeptic has been able to demonstrate anything compelling that would demonstrate that Jesus is a mythological figure.