Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Oberon]

Even with the latter translation, [your translation oberon]however, there is an awkward silence. The writer offers no qualification for an idea which could be misconstrued as covering past times. He shows no cognizance of the fact that Jesus had been on earth, and that an important part of his sacrifice had taken place there, the shedding of his blood on Calvary. The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth, since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had had very much to do on earth. Ellingworth goes on to say that, "The argument presupposes, rather than states, that God cannot establish two priestly institutions in competition." This is indeed the case, yet with Christ the High Priest on earth, performing an important part his sacrifice on Calvary, such a competition would in fact be present, and the writer should have felt obligated to deal with it. jesuspuzzle.com

I don't know why we should listen to this guy from jesuspuzzle.com when he doesn't know enough basic greek grammar to get his facts straight. Also, his reading of the passage is wrong. He says "The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth,since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had very much to do on earth" runs against what comes next in Hebrews: "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is much more excellent than the old as the covenent he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises."

And he also seems to miss Hebrews 5:7 "in the days of his flesh, Jesus..." In other words, the author of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus lived. Read the text before you quote junk.

This guy you are quoting simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[logician]

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

The shizophrenic Paul, he never really seemed to know of an earthly Jesus, and historians never really seemed to have heard of him, even though, we are told, he mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors.

St Paul the Apostle – Up Close and Personal

 

[dogsgod]

I don't know why we should listen to this guy from jesuspuzzle.com when he doesn't know enough basic greek grammar to get his facts straight. Also, his reading of the passage is wrong. He says "The implication that he would have had nothing to do on earth,since there were already high priests there, goes against the obvious fact that he had very much to do on earth" runs against what comes next in Hebrews: "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is much more excellent than the old as the covenent he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises."

And he also seems to miss Hebrews 5:7 "in the days of his flesh, Jesus..." In other words, the author of Hebrews clearly states that Jesus lived. Read the text before you quote junk.

This guy you are quoting simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

And what of the phrase "in the days of his flesh"? This is perhaps the most graphic of all the references in the epistles which employ the stereotyped phrase "in flesh" (kata sarka, en sarki, etc.). My fullest and most recent discussion of this term is found in my Response to Pete in Reader Feedback file 14. "Flesh" seems to be, in the minds of the early Christian epistle writers, a shorthand way of referring to that state which Jesus (and other savior gods) assumed during their mythical activities, when they approached the world of matter and took on a "likeness" to material characteristics. In early Christian thought, that realm within the lower levels of the spiritual world, and Christ's activities within it, are discernible through scripture, and this passage illustrates that very thing. What is it that Christ is said to have done "in the days of his flesh"? Not the prayer in the Gethesemane garden, nor any other Gospel-based piece of historical data, but actions lifted out of scripture itself. Scholars such as Ellingworth, Montefiore and Buchanan have pointed out that the words refer to two passages in the Psalms, 116:1 and 22:24 (LXX). Like Ephesians 2:17 (#74), an epistle writer, at first glance, seems to bring Jesus to earth, and what does he offer as his activities in that sphere? The words and content of scripture.
This is the sole source of 'information' about what Jesus had done "in the days of his flesh." The total absence of any historical traditions from which writers like that of Hebrews could draw, whether as an example of Jesus' obedience to God, or of his humility and suffering (as in 1 Peter 2:22, 1 Clement 16, or Barnabas 5, all of whom can only quote from Isaiah 53), is strong indication that no oral traditions about an historical Jesus existed in the early Christian communities, and that their Christ lived only in scripture-revealed myth.jesuspuzzle


He makes a lot more sense than you, Oberon. You take every word or phrase out of context and apply it one literal meaning. Honestly, are you a creationist?

 

[Oberon]

He makes a lot more sense than you, Oberon. You take every word or phrase out of context and apply it one literal meaning. Honestly, are a creationist?

Interesting that you would accuse me of doing that, when it is exactly what your only source for information does. Why are we listening to this guys exegesis of greek when he doesn't know the language? And no, as I've said before, I am not christian

 

[dogsgod]

Interesting that you would accuse me of doing that, when it is exactly what your only source for information does. Why are we listening to this guys exegesis of greek when he doesn't know the language?

He responds to the various arguments as to how the Greek is to be translated, and what follows from the various translations, unlike you.

 

[Oberon]

Let's break down this awful exegesis of Hebrews from the guy who apparently can't even read it:

And what of the phrase "in the days of his flesh"? This is perhaps the most graphic of all the references in the epistles which employ the stereotyped phrase "in flesh" (kata sarka, en sarki, etc.). My fullest and most recent discussion of this term is found in my Response to Pete in Reader Feedback file 14. "Flesh" seems to be, in the minds of the early Christian epistle writers, a shorthand way of referring to that state which Jesus (and other savior gods) assumed during their mythical activities

First, he gives no reference which talks about "other savior gods" being referred to as "in the flesh." In fact, there really weren't any savior gods in paganism until after christianity (e.g. Mithras). This is not to say that gods did not come back to life, but the idea of a savior god wasn't around then. More imporantly, the mythic pagan texts did not distinguish between their gods "in the flesh" and any post-easter type of existence, as the Christians did. So this statement is completely without basis.

This is the sole source of 'information' about what Jesus had done "in the days of his flesh." The total absence of any historical traditions from which writers like that of Hebrews could draw, whether as an example of Jesus' obedience to God, or of his humility and suffering (as in 1 Peter 2:22, 1 Clement 16, or Barnabas 5, all of whom can only quote from Isaiah 53), is strong indication that no oral traditions about an historical Jesus existed in the early Christian communities, and that their Christ lived only in scripture-revealed myth.

Almost as bad as anything you have quoted yet. First, this guy misses the point of the epistle. IT IS NOT A "LIFE," or biography, in the way the gospels are, IT IS A LETTER. It was written to Christians already acquainted with the tradition, in the hopes of winning them back. As such, there was no need for the authors to reference historical information about Jesus. That wasn't the point. The mere fact that he refers to Jesus days in the flesh is all he needs to make the reader aware that he is discussing a point prior to the resurrection.

Again, instead of quoting from people who can't actually read the texts themselves, why don't you cite real scholarship? Is it that you haven't read any, or that they just don't agree with you, or both?

He responds to the various arguments as to how the Greek is to be translated, and what follows from the various translations, unlike you.

However, he apparently can't recognize simple syntactical structures, which means he probably doesn't actually know greek. And I have no need for translations, because I do.

 

[dogsgod]

Regardless of you claiming not to be a Christian, you take a literalistic view of Christian mythology.

 

[Oberon]

Regardless of you claiming not to be a Christian, you take a literalistic view of Christian mythology.

No I don't. I take a historical point of view. Jesus was a man who lived in first century palestine, who had followers, and who performed faith-type healings and other "wonders," and a tradition grew up around him that added a whole lot of other things.

The fact that I claim that Jesus actually lived as a historical person makes me no different from EVERY OTHER HISTORIAN who studies that period, regardless of religious background. Somehow they all see something you miss. Could it be that perhaps they are better acquainted with the primary sources than you are? Or that they aren't dependent on various crackpot websites for all their info?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, a vast array of Jesus and Christ traditions with communities spread out all over Asia Minor even as early as Paul wrote.

How would you explain this in the absence of a historical Jesus?

It's a thing called religion. Do you believe invisible gods are real and actual historical entities residing in the heavens?

When you have a coherent and reasoned answer instead of some brain-dead non sequitur get back to me.

To quote 'mythicist' G. A. Wells:

In the gospels, the two Jesus figures -- the human preacher of Q and the supernatural personage of the early epistles who sojourned briefly on Earth as a man, and then, rejected, returned to heaven -- have been fused into one. The Galilean preacher of Q has been given a salvivic death and resurrection, and these have been set not in an unspecified past (as in the Pauline and other early letters), but in a historical context consonant with the date of the Galilean preaching.

Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved "such a ... complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels" (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.

- source

Note, also,

George Albert Wells (born May 22, 1926), usually known as G. A. Wells, is an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He is best known as an advocate of the theory that Jesus is a largely mythical rather than a historical figure.

Wells is a former Chairman of the Rationalist Press Association. He is married and lives in St. Albans, near London. He studied at the University of London and Bern, and holds degrees in German, philosophy, and natural science. He has taught German at London University since 1949, and has been Professor of German at Birkbeck College since 1968.

< -- snip -- >

Wells' latest book, 'The Jesus Myth' (1999), departs from his earlier insistence that there was no historical figure at the basis the Jesus of the gospels, acknowledging the Q document as early historical evidence. However, Wells still argues that Paul's Jesus was "a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time." and was called a Christ Myth theorist by Price in "Of Myth and Men A: closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/2000 Volume 20, Number 1 and was said to be an "eminently worthy successor to extreme Christ Myth theorists" by Price on the back cover of Can We Trust the new Testament?"

- source

The dogsgod excuse for an argument: 'Christianity is a religion; therefore, Jesus is a myth.' is a preposterous fallacy masquerading as skepticism. In place of the Jesus of a Crossan, Maccoby, Meier, Vermes, or, as we have now seen, even Wells, in which legend and myth are wrapped in layers around an historical (Jerusalem) core, we are asked to believe in a conspiracy of 1 century liars and fools cleverly and successfully fabricating everything from the Sayings Tradition to the tensions between the Jerusalem church and Paul's mission to the gentiles.

The intellectual acumen and integrity of Wells stands in sharp contrast to such shallow nonsense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, instead of quoting from people who can't actually read the texts themselves, why don't you cite real scholarship?

Perhaps there's a willful inability to recognize it. It's a lot easier to secure ones prejudices that way ... :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No I don't. I take a historical point of view. Jesus was a man who lived in first century palestine, who had followers, and who performed faith-type healings and other "wonders," and a tradition grew up around him that added a whole lot of other things.

The fact that I claim that Jesus actually lived as a historical person makes me no different from EVERY OTHER HISTORIAN who studies that period, regardless of religious background. Somehow they all see something you miss. Could it be that perhaps they are better acquainted with the primary sources than you are? Or that they aren't dependent on various crackpot websites for all their info?

Excellent.

 

[dogsgod]

When you have a coherent and reasoned answer instead of some brain-dead non sequitur get back to me.

To quote 'mythicist' G. A. Wells:Note, also,The dogsgod excuse for an argument: 'Christianity is a religion; therefore, Jesus is a myth.' is a preposterous fallacy masquerading as skepticism. In place of the Jesus of a Crossan, Maccoby, Meier, Vermes, or, as we have now seen, even Wells, in which legend and myth are wrapped in layers around an historical (Jerusalem) core, we are asked to believe in a conspiracy of 1 century liars and fools cleverly and successfully fabricating everything from the Sayings Tradition to the tensions between the Jerusalem church and Paul's mission to the gentiles.

The intellectual acumen and integrity of Wells stands in sharp contrast to such shallow nonsense.

So what is Wells saying? That an earliest form of Q can be traced to 40CE. ( Q is a collection of teachings and sayings thought to have been compiled over a number of decades. see Burton Mack. Wells is referring to some of the earliest ones.) Last time I checked that would be about ten years after the Jesus in question died, but during the time of Paul and some other epistle writers. He's also saying that there is no connection between these sayings attributed to a Jesus and the Jesus Christ of the epistle writers.

So explain to us how, "The intellectual acumen and integrity of Wells stands in sharp contrast to such shallow nonsense." What shallow nonsense would that be? That the sayings attributed to a Jesus only date back to 40CE? That there is no connection between the Jesus of Q and the Jesus Christ of the epistles?

You seem to be making my case for me. Thank you. And thank you for Wells' reply to J.P. Holding link.

 

[DallasApple]

Friends,
Surely he never wrote the Bible?
Who ever did, surely exxagerated it.
Otherwise surely there is no smoke without fire and so Jesus not only walked but was an enlightened person.
Only point remains, is that few have attained enlightenment by following his way/steps.
Love & rgds

I agree..Jesus never wrote anything..

He tried to teach people something..It was lost on most..and some turned Him into a business..Which I think would makek His stomach turn(IMHO)

Love

Dallas

 

[Oberon]

So what is Wells saying? That an earliest form of Q can be traced to 40CE. ( Q is a collection of teachings and sayings thought to have been compiled over a number of decades. see Burton Mack. Wells is referring to some of the earliest ones.)

Question. Have you actually read Burton Mack? And exactly which of his numerous publications are you suggesting we see?

Last time I checked that would be about ten years after the Jesus in question died, but during the time of Paul and some other epistle writers. He's also saying that there is no connection between these sayings attributed to a Jesus and the Jesus Christ of the epistle writers.

Wells, although a scholar (who I have no doubt is well thought of in his own field) is not by any means a historian of the times in question.

So explain to us how, "The intellectual acumen and integrity of Wells stands in sharp contrast to such shallow nonsense." What shallow nonsense would that be?

I think the point is that even Wells seems to acknowledge the existence of a historical Jesus now.

 

[dogsgod]

Question. Have you actually read Burton Mack? And exactly which of his numerous publications are you suggesting we see?

Read The Lost Gospel, The Book of Q.

Wells, although a scholar (who I have no doubt is well thought of in his own field) is not by any means a historian of the times in question.



I think the point is that even Wells seems to acknowledge the existence of a historical Jesus now.

According to whom?

 

[logician]

I agree..Jesus never wrote anything..

He tried to teach people something..It was lost on most..and some turned Him into a business..Which I think would makek His stomach turn(IMHO)

Love

Dallas

Except every one of his "teachings" already existed in other religions and philosophies, there was absolutely nothing new in Chirstianity except "you have to believe in me to be saved".

 

[logician]

Somebody please define "historical Jesus". I have not seen a good definition of it.

Can anyone "prove" any of the the "apostles" existed outside of the NT?

 

[dogsgod]

Somebody please define "historical Jesus". I have not seen a good definition of it.

Can anyone "prove" any of the the "apostles" existed outside of the NT?

I think Paul was a self appointed apostle, or as Paul puts it, "appointed by God." I think the other apostles that he refers to, Opollos of Alexandria, James, Peter, and John were self appointed apostles as well. However, an apostles is one that spreads the word, and not to be confused with disciples. Jesus made apostles of his disciples when he sent them out to spread the word. On the other hand, Paul and the epistle writers never mention disciples.

 

[Oberon]

Except every one of his "teachings" already existed in other religions and philosophies, there was absolutely nothing new in Chirstianity except "you have to believe in me to be saved".

Not true. For example, Jesus' teachings on divorce were a radical departure from all other earlier traditions. So was his admonition to love your enemies.

Can anyone "prove" any of the the "apostles" existed outside of the NT?

You can't "prove" anything in history. All you can do is speculate about what most likely happened.

 

[logician]

I think Paul was a self appointed apostle, or as Paul puts it, "appointed by God." I think the other apostles that he refers to, Opollos of Alexandria, James, Peter, and John were self appointed apostles as well. However, an apostles is one that spreads the word, and not to be confused with disciples. Jesus made apostles of his disciples when he sent them out to spread the word. On the other hand, Paul and the epistle writers never mention disciples.

Aside from Acts , though, which in the end is an obvious work of fiction, and the gospels, there really is no evidence that the disciples of Jeus ever existed. They certainly didn't write the gospels, and seem to disappear into the woodwork, playing relatively minor roles in the scriptures from there on out, with the supposed Paul, who believed only in a spiritual Christ, taking center stage.