Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Tristesse]

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?

Sorry to butt-in here, jesus may have existed, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man, not to mention the proposed miracles he did. Those are not the kinds of odds you would expect from someone who actually existed. Especially someone of that kind of veracity. Plus, we have known forgeries of jesus accounts, to me that sounds like men who have an agenda. So, I'm willing to say that a man named jesus living in the 1st century may have existed, because it's not all that important to me, If you strip away the miracles your left with just a man. The miracles are what made jesus, if those are just myth than he's not too important. It's like the stories of Alexander the great, a king named Alexander may have existed, but if you take way the myths surrounding the story, your left with just another king. It's of no real importance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Read The Lost Gospel, The Book of Q.

I have. I fully suspect that you have not.

I've also read (and own) Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament, in which you'll find:

During the Hellenistic period, Galilee was introduced to Greek language, philosophy, art, and culture through the founding of cities on the Greek model in strategic locations up and down the Jordan river valley (Caesarea Philippi, Philoteria, Scythopolis), on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee (Bethsaida, Hippos, Gadara). along the seacoast to the west (Ptolemais, Dora, Caesarea), and eventually within Galilee itself (Sepphoris, Tiberius, Agrippina). With them came Greek learning. Greek schools with their gymnasia, theatres, forums, and political institutions. During the time of Jesus there were twelve Greek cities within a twenty-five miles of his hometown, Nazareth.

Jesus grew up in Galilee and apparently had some education. He was certainly bright enough, judging from the movements [note the plural - JS] that remembered him as their founder. But as we are now coming to see, it is all but impossible to say anything more about him as a person, much less write a biography about his life. The "memories" of him differ. and they are so obviously mythic that the best we can do is to draw a conclusion or two from the earliest strata of the teachings attributed to him. These teachings belonged to the movements that started in his name. We have to infer what kind of a teacher he was from the teachings that developed in these movements. He must have been something of an intellectual, for the teaching of the movements stemming from him are highly charged with penetrating insights and ideas. He also must have been capable of suggesting ways to live with purpose in the midst of complex social circumstances. But he was not a constructive, systematic thinker of the kind who formulate philosophies or theologies. He did not create a social program for others to follow or a religion that invited others to see him as a god. He simply saw things more clearly than most, made sense when he talked about life in his world, and must have attracted others to join him in looking at the world a certain way. What we have as evidence for this is the way his followers learned to talk about living in the world. They said that Jesus had talked that way too. (pg. 39)

These are the words of a scholar who could write of the "Christian Myth" without childishly insisting on a mythical Jesus. It was nice of you to bring him up. It would be nicer still if you actually took the trouble to read and understand him.

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?

To paraphrase what I said above, it would be nice if you took the trouble to read and understand ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to butt-in here, jesus may have existed, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man, not to mention the proposed miracles he did. Those are not the kinds of odds you would expect from someone who actually existed.

Nonsense. Do you have any idea of how many people are single sourced by Josephus? No, I thought not ...

 

[dogsgod]

I have. I fully suspect that you have not.

I've also read (and own) Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament, in which you'll find:These are the words of a scholar who could write of the "Christian Myth" without childishly insisting on a mythical Jesus. It was nice of you to bring him up. It would be nicer still if you actually took the trouble to read and understand him.

I own both books and read them both, twice. By your insults it's clear you have personal issues. Perhaps you should take care of those elsewhere.

 

[logician]

"The miracles are what made jesus, if those are just myth than he's not too important"

Of course, which is why there was no "historical" Jesus who resembled the biblical one, because miracles are the MAINSTAY of the gospels, w/o the miracles, there is no historical Jesus, just an ordinary man at best, and much more likely a work of fiction entirely.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I own both books and read them both, twice.

Then perhaps a third time is required ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"The miracles are what made jesus, if those are just myth than he's not too important" ...

:biglaugh:

 

[Tristesse]

Nonsense. Do you have any idea of how many people are single sourced by Josephus? No, I thought not ...

Well, Josephus actually wrote stuff. And Josephus wasn't a contemporary to jesus by any account. He was born after jesus' death.

 

[Tristesse]

"The miracles are what made jesus, if those are just myth than he's not too important"

Of course, which is why there was no "historical" Jesus who resembled the biblical one, because miracles are the MAINSTAY of the gospels, w/o the miracles, there is no historical Jesus, just an ordinary man at best, and much more likely a work of fiction entirely.

I absolutely agree with you, and that was kind of my point. But most theologians like to argue whether or not he even existed, and I'm fine with saying he may have existed, but if they want to attribute miracles to the man, Than they have more evidence to provide, other than this flimsy *** biblical reports and hearsay.

 

[darkendless]

"The miracles are what made jesus, if those are just myth than he's not too important"

Of course, which is why there was no "historical" Jesus who resembled the biblical one, because miracles are the MAINSTAY of the gospels, w/o the miracles, there is no historical Jesus, just an ordinary man at best, and much more likely a work of fiction entirely.

The worlds most famous carpenter

 

[Oberon]

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.

An obvious work of fiction. Have you actually read any work of ancient history with which to compare acts? Obviously not, or you wouldn't have said what you did.

supposed Paul, who believed only in a spiritual Christ,

You keep saying this, but you are wrong. And when your source for information is a bunch of websites and no actual scholarship, it is only natural you would have such ill-formed opinions. You say you have read the gospels. But you have yet to point out where they state that Jesus' parents stayed it Maturea (or whatever), as you claim, nor have you referenced ANY SPECIFIC texts from which the Jesus tradition might have borrowed.

Paul believed in a human Jesus, who was crucified, and who had specific teaching from which he (Paul) differentiated his own.

Sorry to butt-in here, jesus may have existed, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man, not to mention the proposed miracles he did. Those are not the kinds of odds you would expect from someone who actually existed.

On what are you basing your expectations of what we SHOULD have as evidence of Jesus? I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the usual type of information available for ancient historical figures, which isn't much. And there is no reason to ignore the gospels when searching for the historical figure of Jesus. Although they obviously contain unhistorical data, that is true of ALL ancient historical texts, from Herodotus to Plutarch.

I own both books and read them both, twice.

And yet so seem to have absorbed so little. Because he by no means argues that Jesus never existed.

Of course, which is why there was no "historical" Jesus who resembled the biblical one, because miracles are the MAINSTAY of the gospels, w/o the miracles, there is no historical Jesus, just an ordinary man at best, and much more likely a work of fiction entirely.

Nonsense. We have far more of his sayings and teachings than of miracles. Furthermore, he was hardly the only historical figure who performed healings, cast out demons, and was thought to perform miracles. We can write off these miracles as unhistorical, but that does not mean that the event which was interpreted as miraculous did not occur (nor that it did).

 

[dogsgod]

When some read of a star that leads to a future leader of men born of a virgin, they're inclined to believe they're reading a work of fiction. And then there's those that say they know history when they're reading it. What's more entertaining, the work of fiction or those that believe it to be true?

 

[Twilight Hue]

When some read of a star that leads to a future leader of men born of a virgin, they're inclined to believe they're reading a work of fiction. And then there's those that say they know history when they're reading it. What's more entertaining, the work of fiction or those that believe it to be true?

Hard to tell sometimes. Whoever heard of a star that can lead anyone anywhere to a specifically designated point on the earth? Pregnant virgins?
All of this, of course, is plain flat out impossible by it's very nature and definition...

It can't be helped but for some to be amused by the sheer absurdity of it all. Especially in regards with the "rationalisations" and "explanations" brought forth from Christianity's adamant supporters. By the same token, strangely enough, I remember being amused with non-believers when I was a Christian which means I can actually laugh at myself as well! -NM-

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When some read of a star that leads to a future leader of men born of a virgin, they're inclined to believe they're reading a work of fiction.

You persist in the most inane and dishonest strawman argument. Are you truly so simpleminded (or close-minded) that you can imagine nothing other than the extremes of pure fiction and 'pure' history? Pathetic non sequiturs of the form ...

1. they say Jesus performed miracles and led a Jerusalem sect
2. claims of miracles are the stuff of myth
3. therefore Jesus did not lead a Jerusalem sect

are stupid and insulting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry to butt-in here, jesus may have existed, I don't know. But the fact of the matter is, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man, not to mention the proposed miracles he did. Those are not the kinds of odds you would expect from someone who actually existed.

Nonsense. Do you have any idea of how many people are single sourced by Josephus? No, I thought not ...

Well, Josephus actually wrote stuff. And Josephus wasn't a contemporary to jesus by any account. He was born after jesus' death.

I'm unclear as to how or why you feel that was a relevant (or coherent) response. In fact:

• Most accepted history is written by people who "actually wrote stuff."
• Most accepted history is written by people who were born after the period under study.

And it is far from uncommon that the provisionally accepted history of a person or period rests upon a tapestry of single-sourced accounts and observations. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

 

[Tristesse]

I'm unclear as to how or why you feel that was a relevant (or coherent) response. In fact:

• Most accepted history is written by people who "actually wrote stuff."
• Most accepted history is written by people who were born after the period under study.

And it is far from uncommon that the provisionally accepted history of a person or period rests upon a tapestry of single-sourced accounts and observations. To believe otherwise is simply naive.

I guess I didn't understand why you were referencing josephus, I wasn't sure if you were doubting josephus' existence, or what. And like I said josephus wasn't a contemporary to jesus, He has two passages that talk about jesus, and the latter of the two is thought to be a forgery. So, I stand by my original comment, which was, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man.

 

[dogsgod]

I guess I didn't understand why you were referencing josephus, I wasn't sure if you were doubting josephus' existence, or what. And like I said josephus wasn't a contemporary to jesus, He has two passages that talk about jesus, and the latter of the two is thought to be a forgery. So, I stand by my original comment, which was, outside of the bible we have no contemporary eye witness account of the man.

True enough. Actually, both Josephus' references to Jesus is suspect. Philo wrote of Pilate so there's a probability for him existing. Philo was a contemporary and didn't write narratives, he simply reported facts about Pilate and offered his opinion of him. He describes a very different Pilate than the one portrayed in the gospels. Philo did not write of Jesus. Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. Philo of Alexandria [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[dogsgod]

Stories of godmen walking on water, healing the sick, calming the seas, defying death, this is the stuff of epic heroes, not historical events and real people. Jesus was the Hollywood attraction of the day. Believers, gottaluvem.

 

[Tristesse]

True enough. Actually, both Josephus' references to Jesus is suspect. Philo wrote of Pilate so there's a probability for him existing. Philo was a contemporary and didn't write narratives, he simply reported facts about Pilate and offered his opinion of him. He describes a very different Pilate than the one portrayed in the gospels. Philo did not write of Jesus. Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. Philo of Alexandria [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Yeah, I like to be fair though, I'll give them one reference, but the second is almost an obvious forgery. And the first passage that mentions him looks almost as if it was just thrown in there, I mean if you take out the reference to jesus, the passage flows perfectly.

 

[dogsgod]

What we're dealing with here is people with a strong psychological need to believe that Jesus existed. Some people will never accept that a mythical Christ could well be at the root of Christianity. It's more than some people can bear for some reason, maybe too many firmly held beliefs at stake. I don't completely understand the need to believe a two thousand year old story has to be true, no matter how unbelievable it is.