Logical errors in Christ Myth Theory
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:20 am
Been reading Jesus from Outer Space. Great read but thinking there's some logical errors. Im not an academic so please correct me if wrong
The myth theory has Peter having a hallucination then bunch of others, and the invention of Jesus much later, pushed into late 1st C or early 2nd C. But Dr Richard Carrier correctly points out people lived 40ish years back then.
In the synoptics says " some who are not standing here will not die before they see the kingdom of God"
It's in Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke. So on that I'd argue the synoptics probably written shortly after 70 ce, which would tie in with fall of Jerusalem. They'd have to be writing fairly close to the gospel events.
Why would these writers make Jesus a failed prophet? Surely if they were making it up they'd paint him in a good light?
The obvious answer to me is they were close to the time, and we've got our timeline wrong. If they were late 1st C all the witnesses would be dead, and the imminent end of world stuff would be simply ridiculous to write down.
Also the silence of Paul and other epistle writers on various matters is not proof of non existence. It could just be ignorance. If they're living in Asia Minor decades later they're details will be sketchy except for a few sayings passed down. Also Paul might be a gnostic but that doesnt mean jack, he could just be making it up as he goes along. There's no reason to place extra reliance on him.
Another point, the gospels aren't necessarily wholesale invention. They could be a mixture of oral stories passed down and retelling of old testament stories, ie a mix of fact and fiction. The difficulties do not in my view prove non existence.
There could be a number of explanations for the origins. I think it'd be better if Dr Carrier and Mr Fitzgerald had set out the other possibilities, the case for and against. Do you agree? Thanks, Adam
The myth theory has Peter having a hallucination then bunch of others, and the invention of Jesus much later, pushed into late 1st C or early 2nd C. But Dr Richard Carrier correctly points out people lived 40ish years back then.
In the synoptics says " some who are not standing here will not die before they see the kingdom of God"
It's in Mark and copied by Matthew and Luke. So on that I'd argue the synoptics probably written shortly after 70 ce, which would tie in with fall of Jerusalem. They'd have to be writing fairly close to the gospel events.
Why would these writers make Jesus a failed prophet? Surely if they were making it up they'd paint him in a good light?
The obvious answer to me is they were close to the time, and we've got our timeline wrong. If they were late 1st C all the witnesses would be dead, and the imminent end of world stuff would be simply ridiculous to write down.
Also the silence of Paul and other epistle writers on various matters is not proof of non existence. It could just be ignorance. If they're living in Asia Minor decades later they're details will be sketchy except for a few sayings passed down. Also Paul might be a gnostic but that doesnt mean jack, he could just be making it up as he goes along. There's no reason to place extra reliance on him.
Another point, the gospels aren't necessarily wholesale invention. They could be a mixture of oral stories passed down and retelling of old testament stories, ie a mix of fact and fiction. The difficulties do not in my view prove non existence.
There could be a number of explanations for the origins. I think it'd be better if Dr Carrier and Mr Fitzgerald had set out the other possibilities, the case for and against. Do you agree? Thanks, Adam