https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36651840)

there was zero self-interested reason for multiple dudes to start some new-fangled religion that threatened both Jews and Romans, putting themselves at great personal risk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36651881)

Graves, often citing Anacalypsis and other works by Godfrey Higgins (1772–1833) as his source, asserts in the book that many messiah-like "saviors" were crucified on a cross or tree before ascending into heaven.

"One thing is clear — the mythos of the Hindus, the mythos of the Jews and the mythos of the Greeks are all at bottom the same; and what are called their early histories are not histories of humankind, but are contrivances under the appearance of histories to perpetuate doctrines." (Higgins, Anacalypsis)

Here is Graves' main list, arranged chronologically:

Thulis of Egypt, 1700 B. C.[5]

Krishna of India, 1200 B.C.

Crite of Chaldea, 1200 B.C.[6][7]

Atys of Phrygia, 1170 B.C.

Thammuz or Tammuz of Syria, 1160 B.C.

Hesus or Eros 834 B.C.

Bali of Orissa, 725 B.C.[8]

Indra of Thibet (Tibet), 725 B.C.

Iao of Nepaul (Nepal), 622 B.C.[9][10]

Buddha Sakia (Muni) of India, 600 B.C.[11]

Mitra (Mithra) of Persia, 600 B.C.

Alcestos of Euripides, 600 B.C.

Quezalcoatl of Mexico, 587 B.C.

Wittoba of the Bilingonese, 552 B.C.[12]

Prometheus or Æschylus of Caucasus, 547 B.C.

Quirinus of Rome, 506 B.C.

He also lists a number of other holy figures who took the form of men and then ascended into heaven, including:

Salivahana of Bermuda

Zulis or Zhule of Egypt[13]

Osiris of Egypt

Oru of Egypt

Odin of the Scandinavians

Zoroaster of Persia

Baal of Phoenicia

Taut, "the only Begotten of God" of Phoenicia, inventor of letters[14]

Bali of Afghanistan

Xamolxis (Zalmoxis) of Thrace

Zoar of the Bonzes

Adad of Assyria

Deva Tat of Siam (Thailand)

Sammonocadam (Sommona-Codom) of Siam (Thailand)[15]

Alcides of Thebes

Mikado of the Sintoos

Beddru of Japan

Bremrillah of the Druids[16]

Thor son of Odin of the Gauls/Norse

Cadmus of Greece

Hil/Feta of the Mandaites[17]

Gentaut of Mexico[18]

Universal Monarch of the Sibyls

Ischy of Formosa (Taiwan)[19]

Divine Teacher of Plato

Holy One of Xaca[20]

(Fohi) of China

Tien of China

Adonis son of the virgin Io of Greece

Ixion of Rome

Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia.

The book claims that a number of these deities or god-men shared at least some traits of Jesus as described in the New Testament, drawing the strongest similarities with Krishna. For example, some figures had miraculous or virgin births, were sons of supreme gods, were born on December 25, had stars point to their birthplaces, were visited by shepherds and magi as infants, fled from death as children, exhibited traits of divinity in childhood, spent time in the desert, traveled as they taught, had disciples, performed miracles, were persecuted, were crucified, descended into hell after death, appeared as resurrections or apparitions, or ascended into heaven. Graves also devotes chapters to the pagan roots of baptism and the eucharist, and concludes that Jesus was not a real person.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654274)

this reveals the author as full of shit, though, because everyone knows jesus wasn't born on dec 25 and the religion has literally never claimed so - christmas celebrates christ's birth but was chosen because it fell on a pagan holiday, not because of a belif that jesus was born dec 25

how does someone with good arguments fuck up that badly?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654470)

notably, I'd say, no early critics of Christianity claimed that Jesus did not actually exist

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36651890)

your thoughts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654170)

Why would a bunch of churches spring up out of nowhere in that area at that time and in that political and religious climate? Why would many men of those early churches willingly become prisoners and martyrs for the cause? It's not like Islam where there were clear political/military reasons for its explosion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654201)

again, these churches were springing up mere decades after Christ's life, so there would literally still be eyewitnesses around to confirm his physical existence, which is what this thread is about. You can question whether he performed miracles, rose from the dead, etc. since the gospels themselves were written later, but it is really dumb to assume that all these people just decided one day that they believed in a made-up guy from their own time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654294)

Yeah bro, sure, a guy named Moses led all the Jewish slaves (of which zero historical evidence exists) out of Egypt, parted the Red Sea, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654181)

and the gospels depart strongly from themes in other myths before them. jesus, god incarnate, being tortured and executed would be a very strange place to start for constructing a religion out of thin air.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654228)

that's because it wasn't constructed out of thin air. things have to be PRIMED already. and they were.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36656172)

Another indicator is the way the early churches were apparently established and run. The most compelling explanation for that is that there really was a religious community organized around one guy, close enough in time to that guy's lifetime that we really don't have a better explanation for how they popped up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654256)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654841)

address my points above about how ill-advised this would be

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654278)

the point is you have to address when and where it was "created" and what would motivate someone (in this case, Paul) to do such a thing. The fact is that you can find no self-interest in it. You have to believe they were all just fucking nuts (which is what someone above stated)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654326)

poasters ITT like to compare the Jesus myth to other myths, and say that the Gospels are legends. That may be true. But if it's not, and the real Jesus said the things He's purported to say (not even talking about actions/miracles, just statements), then He stands alone in history, claiming in the middle of a bunch of Jews and Romans that he was the literal Son of God, refusing to recant in the face of excruciating torture and death. He created thousands of loyal, believing followers in the span of a few years, despite the audacity of His claims.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654419)

Have you read the book of Acts? is that all legends too or what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654461)

acts was written by whoever wrote luke

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654500)

my point is that the Church started spreading before those later authors wrote anything down, so clearly a lot of people really believed they were onto something

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654542)

Now see my point downthread about how hard it would be to convert a bunch of Muslims that fast today

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&mc=71&forum_id=2#36654555

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654565)

you're moving the goal posts, though. the question was whether the claimed revelation of a prophet can quickly give rise to a religious movement with a number of adherents professing similar beliefs, even if the revelation never occurred, and the answer is obviously yes.

nobody is arguing that the history of mormonism and the early Christian church are identical

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654648)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654802)

also I don't see the hoops. it's a little fuzzy who had the original idea, but it was 2000 years ago, so that's unsurprising. the notion of a religious movement arising out of claimed revelations has been observed occurring. the only hoop, if there is one, is to suggest that not only are the implausible parts of the gospels fabricated, but so are many of the superficially plausible parts

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654887)

Okay, if you wanna make the "it was so long ago" argument, consider Buddhism. Virtually everyone accepts Buddha was a real guy, and that it was his revelatory preaching that started Buddhism as a religion. Many early Buddhist texts ascribe physical miracles to him, which you could discount as legends, but you'd still accept it was him who started it all. Why do you think the story of Jesus would be any different? Why this mystery man of whom there is no documentation? Some illiterate Jew who ran and told Peter, who ran and told Paul, and all of a sudden, there's a whole movement of people who believe the true source is a man of their time and place, but who never actually existed? You don't see how that's jumping through hoops?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654942)

if you accept that, now you have to deal with the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument. Based solely on his own words as described in the gospels, you cannot argue that he was just some smart and charismatic guy with nice things to say, nor can you argue that he was some Mohammed-like prophet exploiting his claims for political gain, since he rejected all the political ambitions that his followers tried to associate him with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654317)

A frequent criticism is that Lewis's trilemma depends on the veracity of the scriptural accounts of Jesus's statements and actions. This omits the possibility of those accounts instead being an invention of the early Christian movement, seeking to glorify Jesus.[26] The trilemma rests on the interpretation of New Testament authors' depiction of Jesus: a widespread objection is that the statements by Jesus recorded in the Gospels are being misinterpreted, and do not constitute claims to divinity.[27]

According to Bart D. Ehrman, "there could be a fourth option — legend".[28] According to Ehrman, it is historically inaccurate that Jesus called himself God, so Lewis's premise of accepting that very claim is problematic. N. T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, has commented that Lewis's argument, based on a simplistic understanding of incarnation in Judaism, "doesn't work as history, and it backfires dangerously when historical critics question his reading of the Gospels."[29]

Another criticism raised is that Lewis is creating a false trilemma by insisting that only three options are possible.[36] Philosopher John Beversluis comments that "he deprives his readers of numerous alternate interpretations of Jesus that carry with them no such odious implications".[37] For example, it is logically possible for Jesus's claims (if any) as to his divinity to have been merely good-faith mistakes resulting from his sincere efforts at reasoning, as well as for Jesus to have been deluded with respect to the specific issue of his divinity vel non while his faculties of moral reasoning remained intact. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig cites this as a reason why he believes it is an unsound argument for Christianity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654369)

now address my points above about the early church, which predate the gospels. All these people simultaneously believed these legends/claims to divinity before they were ever formally written down?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654385)

"Willing to be crucified to keep up the charade" depends on the veracity of the gospels-- did he actually have the option of repudiating to not be crucified or were the Roman authorities going to crucify him no matter what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654524)

actually, it's exactly the opposite. You assume that because they were dumber, they would more easily believe a cult-leader-like psychopath literally claiming to be God. In fact, because they were dumber, they already believed strongly in other things, and everything around them was constricting their beliefs as such.

Imagine if one of these modern cult leaders you're referring to was airdropped into the Middle East right now and had to successfully convince thousands of devout Muslims that he's divine. How well do you think that would go?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654555)

To me that is probably what actually happened.

The whole trinity or living god stuff I think is extremely unlikely to have come out of his mouth (and the gospels are weird in how that stuff only comes up here and there).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654601)

Based on His preaching alone (again, even disregarding claims of divinity), He didn't really follow in the footsteps of any prophet before Him. The stuff He was saying in His parables, Sermon on the Mount, etc. was all very revolutionary

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654662)

i'm saying why would Jesus not appreciate that part of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654632)

Poasting so I can find this later for scholarship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654416)

No need to create convoluted shit like that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654508)

Yeah remember that guy grandpa talked about who healed the sick people. That was probably Jesus too!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654625)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36654693)

https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt-ebook/dp/B00QSO2S5C/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

TLDR probably no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36655334)

Keep in mind that a lot of early documentation--anything OPPOSED to the existence of jesus--would have been expurgated fairly early on.

You can see some interesting tension even in the catholic nicene creed about whether he was resurrected or not--"according to the Gospel"--why say "according to the Gospel" at all?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36656160)

Lord help us if the gods are evil.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4056610&forum_id=2#36719911)