Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Oberon]

So, the author of Mark has his fictional account take place a few decades prior to his writing of the story. That makes it an historical account? Brilliant.

You're right. Its far more plausible that Mark invented a new genre, religious historical fiction, which was then believed by people all around, who never bothered to ask around to see whether or not it was based on anything historical.

The only thing which accounts for the the many texts which testify to a following of Jesus by people near to his life (both chronologically and geographically) is that he was a historical person who inspired a following, and mythic aspects of the story grew around historical accounts and teachings.

Your explanation of the story requires not only an entirely new genre of literature, which then died out after the gospels, it also requires a religious tradition entirely different from any other. You compare the "godman" Jesus to other gods of pagan traditions, but none of those pagans believed that their "gods" lived only a few decades ago. What kept their myths believable was that they occured in "olden times" long ago, whereas Jesus story was being told when people alive could contradict it.

 

[Tristesse]

You're right. Its far more plausible that Mark invented a new genre, religious historical fiction, which was then believed by people all around, who never bothered to ask around to see whether or not it was based on anything historical.

The only thing which accounts for the the many texts which testify to a following of Jesus by people near to his life (both chronologically and geographically) is that he was a historical person who inspired a following, and mythic aspects of the story grew around historical accounts and teachings.

Your explanation of the story requires not only an entirely new genre of literature, which then died out after the gospels, it also requires a religious tradition entirely different from any other. You compare the "godman" Jesus to other gods of pagan traditions, but none of those pagans believed that their "gods" lived only a few decades ago. What kept their myths believable was that they occured in "olden times" long ago, whereas Jesus story was being told when people alive could contradict it.

well, if you want to see how quickly a religion can spread, look no further than mormonism.

 

[Smoke]

well, if you want to see how quickly a religion can spread, look no further than mormonism.

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith never existed?

 

[Oberon]

well, if you want to see how quickly a religion can spread, look no further than mormonism.

I think you missed my point entirely. Any explanation of the historicity (or lack thereof) of the gospels and jesus has to account for the genre (or at least motivation) for the gospels, and for the numerous followers of Chritianity.

Mormonism spread because the founder was a historical person who lived and convinced others to follow him, and he used an established religion as a backbone for his own.

Poeple (like dogsgod) who argue that Jesus was a mythic godman, and that the gospels are pure myths, fail to account for numerous problems in their theory.

1. Myths in ancient times were never given a historical and geographical setting near the times they were told. Mythic accounts did grow up fairly quickly around historical people, but always retained a basis of history, as opposed to the myths of Herakles et al. The gospels and letters of the NT were all written fairly close to the time of the events recorded, and all reference historical people who are independently attested to.

2. The "cults" that early christainity is compared with did not worship a "godman" who was supposed to have lived and operated only a few decades earlier.

3. If Jesus was pure myth, it is next to impossible to explain the spread of Christianity.

 

[dogsgod]

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith never existed?

Are you suggesting the angel Moroni was historical and really visited him, or did he make it up? Do you believe there really was golden plates that he read from?

 

[dogsgod]

You're right. Its far more plausible that Mark invented a new genre, religious historical fiction, which was then believed by people all around, who never bothered to ask around to see whether or not it was based on anything historical.

The only thing which accounts for the the many texts which testify to a following of Jesus by people near to his life (both chronologically and geographically) is that he was a historical person who inspired a following, and mythic aspects of the story grew around historical accounts and teachings.

Your explanation of the story requires not only an entirely new genre of literature, which then died out after the gospels, it also requires a religious tradition entirely different from any other. You compare the "godman" Jesus to other gods of pagan traditions, but none of those pagans believed that their "gods" lived only a few decades ago. What kept their myths believable was that they occured in "olden times" long ago, whereas Jesus story was being told when people alive could contradict it.

What's new about the gospel genre? Do you think all those other books that make up The Bible are of historical accounts? Do snakes talk, did the seas part? Did Samson lose his strength? So Jesus walked on water, what's new?

Read the gospels, many did reject them. By the time the fourth gospel is written there obviously were those that rejected them because The Gospel of John claims of many disbelievers. The believers didn't take kindly to rejection, they wished harsh punishment upon those that disbelieved.

 

[dogsgod]

I think you missed my point entirely. Any explanation of the historicity (or lack thereof) of the gospels and jesus has to account for the genre (or at least motivation) for the gospels, and for the numerous followers of Chritianity.

Mormonism spread because the founder was a historical person who lived and convinced others to follow him, and he used an established religion as a backbone for his own.

Poeple (like dogsgod) who argue that Jesus was a mythic godman, and that the gospels are pure myths, fail to account for numerous problems in their theory.

1. Myths in ancient times were never given a historical and geographical setting near the times they were told. Mythic accounts did grow up fairly quickly around historical people, but always retained a basis of history, as opposed to the myths of Herakles et al. The gospels and letters of the NT were all written fairly close to the time of the events recorded, and all reference historical people who are independently attested to.

2. The "cults" that early christainity is compared with did not worship a "godman" who was supposed to have lived and operated only a few decades earlier.

3. If Jesus was pure myth, it is next to impossible to explain the spread of Christianity.

People believe anything, just read about Joe Smith and the golden plates that the angel Moroni told him of. You're no different than those that believe every word of The Bible is true. Believers like you alone account for the growth of Christianity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

haha as funny as that sounds, I've actually had a theologian try and debate that jesus is in history text books. My immediate response was, were you home schooled?

Stop embarrassing yourself. What history books have you read?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religious naturalist. As in clearly confused?

Do you ever tire of bellowing your ignorance?

 

[Tristesse]

I think you missed my point entirely. Any explanation of the historicity (or lack thereof) of the gospels and jesus has to account for the genre (or at least motivation) for the gospels, and for the numerous followers of Chritianity.

Mormonism spread because the founder was a historical person who lived and convinced others to follow him, and he used an established religion as a backbone for his own.

Poeple (like dogsgod) who argue that Jesus was a mythic godman, and that the gospels are pure myths, fail to account for numerous problems in their theory.

1. Myths in ancient times were never given a historical and geographical setting near the times they were told. Mythic accounts did grow up fairly quickly around historical people, but always retained a basis of history, as opposed to the myths of Herakles et al. The gospels and letters of the NT were all written fairly close to the time of the events recorded, and all reference historical people who are independently attested to.

2. The "cults" that early christainity is compared with did not worship a "godman" who was supposed to have lived and operated only a few decades earlier.

3. If Jesus was pure myth, it is next to impossible to explain the spread of Christianity.

No, I got your point. I just felt like throwing that out there. Sounded like fun at the time We're debating the historicity of a man who, if the miracles are fables, is no more special than the guy who mows my lawn.

 

[Tristesse]

Stop embarrassing yourself. What history books have you read?

I can't believe I'm replying to your absurd post, mostly because I'm not sure if your joking. What history text books have I read? Not religious ones. If there is such a thing.

 

[logician]

"whereas Jesus story was being told when people alive could contradict it."

This is patently untrue.

 

[Oberon]

"whereas Jesus story was being told when people alive could contradict it."

This is patently untrue.

How would you know? You have read zero scholarship in this area. You claim to have read the gospels, but I am still waiting to hear where Jesus' parents are said to have visisted Maturea (or wherever). I am also waiting for citations of SPECIFIC texts. Basically, you haven't read enough relevent scholarship or primary sources to make this kind of judgement.

What history text books have I read? Not religious ones. If there is such a thing.

Here's a question. What ancient historical works have you read (such as the lives by Diogenes Laertius or Seutonius) with which to compare the gospels?

On the gospels as a falling into a genre of ancient history ("Lives") see

D. Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment
R. A. Burridge What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
D. Frickenschmidt Evangelium als Biographie. Der vier Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst (Gospels as Biography. The four gospels within the Framework of Narration)
Charles Talbert What is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels


On acts as a work of ancient history (remember that Luke and Acts were written by the same author)

J. Schröter "Lukas als Historiograph. Das lukanische Doppelwerk und die Entdeckung der christlichen Heilsgeschicte" in Die antike Historiographie und dei Anfänge der christlichen Geschictsschreibung
M. Hengel Acts and the History of Earliest Christianiyt
G.E. Sterling Historiagraphy and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and the Rhetoric of History
L. C. Alexander Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles

What's new about the gospel genre?

I'm not arguing they are new. You are.

The Bible are of historical accounts? Do snakes talk, did the seas part? Did Samson lose his strength? So Jesus walked on water, what's new?

There is a difference between ancient history (which usually contained myths and rumors) and myth. The gospels are not myths just because they contain mythic elements. Many parts of the OT are historical (and verified independently) and many are not. The same is true for the gospels.

Read the gospels, many did reject them.

The question is not whether people rejected them. It is that if Mark had written what was essentiall religious historical fiction (a new genre), no one in a primarily oral culture would have accepted it if it weren't for the fact that it was based on circulating oral traditions built upon a historical people, spread at first by those present during his mission.

You're no different than those that believe every word of The Bible is true. Believers like you alone account for the growth of Christianity.

Again, I am no different than EVERY OTHER HISTORIAN who studies that period. I have actually taken the time to read and study, and not get all my information from bad websites and then try to pawn it off as actual research.

And your putting all those who argue for a historical Jesus into the same category as literalist Christians (or any sort of Christians) is woefully ignorant.

 

[Tristesse]

How would you know? You have read zero scholarship in this area. You claim to have read the gospels, but I am still waiting to hear where Jesus' parents are said to have visisted Maturea (or wherever). I am also waiting for citations of SPECIFIC texts. Basically, you haven't read enough relevent scholarship or primary sources to make this kind of judgement.



Here's a question. What ancient historical works have you read (such as the lives by Diogenes Laertius or Seutonius) with which to compare the gospels?

On the gospels as a falling into a genre of ancient history ("Lives") see

D. Aune The New Testament in Its Literary Environment
R. A. Burridge What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
D. Frickenschmidt Evangelium als Biographie. Der vier Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst (Gospels as Biography. The four gospels within the Framework of Narration)
Charles Talbert What is a Gospel: the Genre of the Canonical Gospels


On acts as a work of ancient history (remember that Luke and Acts were written by the same author)

J. Schröter "Lukas als Historiograph. Das lukanische Doppelwerk und die Entdeckung der christlichen Heilsgeschicte" in Die antike Historiographie und dei Anfänge der christlichen Geschictsschreibung
M. Hengel Acts and the History of Earliest Christianiyt
G.E. Sterling Historiagraphy and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and the Rhetoric of History
L. C. Alexander Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles



I'm not arguing they are new. You are.


There is a difference between ancient history (which usually contained myths and rumors) and myth. The gospels are not myths just because they contain mythic elements. Many parts of the OT are historical (and verified independently) and many are not. The same is true for the gospels.


The question is not whether people rejected them. It is that if Mark had written what was essentiall religious historical fiction (a new genre), no one in a primarily oral culture would have accepted it if it weren't for the fact that it was based on circulating oral traditions built upon a historical people, spread at first by those present during his mission.



Again, I am no different than EVERY OTHER HISTORIAN who studies that period. I have actually taken the time to read and study, and not get all my information from bad websites and then try to pawn it off as actual research.

And your putting all those who argue for a historical Jesus into the same category as literalist Christians (or any sort of Christians) is woefully ignorant.

I think it's absolutely plausible that Jesus the man existed, his existence however is not on par with men like Julius Caesar. So when we look back in history and we have no contemporary eye witness of the man(outside the bible) his existence comes into question. Because eye witnesses make all the difference. I'm curious as to why he didn't write anything, that would have cleared up his historicity.

 

[dogsgod]

I think it's absolutely plausible that Jesus the man existed, his existence however is not on par with men like Julius Caesar. So when we look back in history and we have no contemporary eye witness of the man(outside the bible) his existence comes into question. Because eye witnesses make all the difference. I'm curious as to why he didn't write anything, that would have cleared up his historicity.

Philo wrote of Pontius Pilate. The probability of his existence needn't be in question because we actually have a contemporary of his describe him. He sounds nothing at all like the Pilate portrayed in the gospels, but we can know something about him. Also, some artifacts have survived.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for this Jesus character.

 

[Tristesse]

Philo wrote of Pontius Pilate. The probability of his existence needn't be in question because we actually have a contemporary of his describe him. He sounds nothing at all like the Pilate portrayed in the gospels, but we can know something about him. Also, some artifacts have survived.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for this Jesus character.

No, I was saying that julius Caesars existence is not in question. We have insurmountable evidence for julius Caesar. We actually have writings from him, his friends and family. He created a form of government that was used for hundreds of years, he created a calendar system. So, there's no question of his existence. I was saying you don't see that kind of stuff when you look into the character of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

I'm curious as to why he didn't write anything, that would have cleared up his historicity.

You think that Jesus' goal was in any sense to defend his own historicity? This seems a little absurd.

Jesus lived in a primarily oral culture. Like many of his contemporaries, he presented his teachings in a mode to make them more memorable (through parables, pithy sayings, etc). It is entirely plausible that he didn't know how to write.

 

[dogsgod]

No, I was saying that julius Caesars existence is not in question. We have insurmountable evidence for julius Caesar. We actually have writings from him, his friends and family. He created a form of government that was used for hundreds of years, he created a calendar system. So, there's no question of his existence. I was saying you don't see that kind of stuff when you look into the character of Jesus.

I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out that Pilate's existence is not in question.

 

[Oberon]

Philo wrote of Pontius Pilate. The probability of his existence needn't be in question because we actually have a contemporary of his describe him. He sounds nothing at all like the Pilate portrayed in the gospels, but we can know something about him. Also, some artifacts have survived.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for this Jesus character.

Philo's writings also contain historical mistakes, blatant untruths, and theology, yet you uncriticallyaccept his statements concerning Pilate as historical, and reject the gospels as entirely mythic. Perhaps your bias is making you blind (along with a lack of sufficient knowledge in this area).

 

[dogsgod]

Philo's writings also contain historical mistakes, blatant untruths, and theology, yet you uncriticallyaccept his statements concerning Pilate as historical, and reject the gospels as entirely mythic. Perhaps your bias is making you blind (along with a lack of sufficient knowledge in this area).

At least he wrote of Pontius Pilate, and he was a contemporary. It's a corroboration that we have outside religious texts themselves that at least confirms the name and the time that he was prelate. Most of what he writes of Pilate is opinion which we can take with a grain of salt. It allows for a probability, how much is debatable, but the probability is greater than that of this Jesus character. All that we have for Jesus is allegorical fiction in the form of gospels, and the epistle writers view Jesus Christ as a spiritual entity residing in a heavenly realm.

A real person such as Pilate gives the gospel of Mark a time setting. There was no calenders, people kept track of history by events taking place when so and so ruled or governed. Matthew 2.1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,