doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Right. It's not a distortion at all. Is English a second language to you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus a Mythical Character?
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
LOL.
Did I say they were "historians"? They intended what they wrote to be treated like we would "history" - even if it wasn't always as factual as it could be. There's no indication of that with the Gospels. Though the Gospels themselves are an important part of history as the artifacts that they are, the extent to which any of the authors (who are largely unknown) intended them to be an historical or biographical account of an actual person, is unknown. And even if based upon or inspired by an actual person, it's likewise almost impossible to determine which details can be treated as historical "facts" and which ones are a product of an alternative literary purpose for the works - though for many of the would-be "facts," it is reasonable to assume fall into the latter category, such as raising the dead, multiplying bread and fishes, cursing fig trees, etc.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Well thank you because from our long winded debates on those tiny little passeges of Josephus, one clearly had been tampered with, I was starting to get the sense that the case for the historical Jesus hinged on this supposed outside ("outside of the bible and later "historians") source.
Now what I'm trying to do is research to see if any contemporary to the biblical Jesus wrote of him at the time. I suspect if there were it would have been offered as evidence.....but I'm still looking.....
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You're going to be looking a long time.
logician
Well-Known Member
I think the fact that there are no writings from the supposed Jesus quite important. What better way to make sure his own message was not distorted than to make sure it was written down in black and white? A supposed god could not fail to realiize this fact. Depending on hearsay evidence many years down the line would not be a great way to insure his real message got thru. It is almost impossible to believe he would not have had a few writings to relate his real message to the world.
Yeah, their not necessarily arguing his divinity, but his historicity. Whether or not he lived, which is actually a different case. But I agree with you, if he is the supposed "son of god" you would think only he could convey the message best. But we have no writings from him. He might not have been literate, as most people weren't literate in his day. Eh who knows.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
You're right. That's one reason I said if there were they would have been listed by now or others would be using them instead of the infamous Josephus quotes as some sort of proof.
Last edited:
Tell me, dogsgod, on what grounds do you insist that the Jerusalem church is a Pauline/Lucan fabrication?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
At this point who cares...?
He just wasn't that important enough for Roman contemporaries to write about. At best he was one more of the activist speaking out against Roman oppression. It's not that Romans just let loose the Hebrews into the cities to do what they wanted without supervision so there must have been guards patrolling 24/7. Do we have anything about how this Jesus was a trouble maker and the reports got back to the commanders? Whether it be Herod or Pontius Pilate do we have any thing from them as to how they dealt with this trouble maker? Speaking of Herod...according to the christian NT he is reported to have ordered a hit so other than the bible can this story be verified extrabiblically?
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I don't recall insisting that the church in Jerusalem is a Pauline/Lucan fabrication, why, what's your point?
My apologies. What is your view of the Jerusalem church?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
It's not mentioned in any of the epistles.
You reject the Epistle to the Galatians as a reference to a Jerusalem church. Why is that? And what is your opinion of the church discussed in Acts?
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I can't find the Galatians reference. Why don't you quote it with chapter and verse instead of playing around with your leading questions and silly accusations?
Get back to me when you're done with your childish game ...
Given your lack of any knowledge, you would hardly be in a position to judge the merits of the website. And in fact, you have judged very poorly.
Not really. For well over a century it has been clear to scholars that Mark weaved various sayings, teachings, and a few more complete narratives into a more whole/comple narrative/life of Jesus. This reworking, especially given the fact that Mark is not a particularly skilled writer, naturally has problems.
Hardly.
Seriously, have you read ANY work by scholars, or all we going to be subjected to a never-ending list of crackpot websites?
The two passages have virtually nothing in common. They have different themes, different structure, different points, different plots, different syntax, different terminology, etc. The idiot you are quoting makes comparisons on nothing more than the fact that a few words or a phrase or two are shared between the two passages.
I already have. Having read a great deal of ancient history, I understand that the gospels and acts fit into this genre. Certainly the gospels are completely different from myth, and the fact that they contain mythic elements in no way disqualifies them from the genre of ancient history, as ancient history frequently contained such elements. The fact that much information recorded in the gospels is substantiated independently means that the gospels do record history. Your solution would have them be some new genre of "historical religious fiction," but such a genre did not exist.
In short, my reason for accepting the gospels as a valid source for history (albeit with many unhistorical parts) is that they look like other works of ancient history (worse than many, better than some). The best explanation for this is that the gospels were an attempt to record the life of Jesus as he was remembered by followers. How much of it is accurate beyond the barest sketch that Jesus was a 1st century Jew who was crucified is debatable.
In addition, any rejection of the gospels a complete fabrications has to be able to explain Christianity (i.e. how Jews began to differentiate themselves from Judaism, following a founder whose information is recorded near the time of his life). None of the theories offered explain this (mythic godman, the gospel of Mark as allegory, etc) because they all fail to account for
1) the indication in the earliest sources written less than 20 years after Jesus died that traditions concerning his life and teachings were passed along by those who knew him while he was alive
2) how christianity would have grown and spread the way it did if the foundation story was myth (this is why actual myth places the mythic events in the distant past, because that way it is unverifiable)
3) the genre of the gospels
Yes there is. I have already pointed to numerous scholarly works comparing the gospels with the graeco-roman historical genre "life." The gospels took pains to record information even if it was embarrassaing, and much of the information in them (e.g. references to historical people) is independently attested to.
To determine absolutely? Of course. But there are no absolutes within history, especially ancient history. How do you suppose we go about seperating myth and rumor from fact in the "lives" or "histories" of other greek or roman historians? Especially given that many of them are seperated by well over a century from the people whose lives they are discussing, and contain obviously fantastic elements?
So if he wasn't a supposed god he wasn't historical? Your analytical skills amaze.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
And then there is Robert M. Price who provides us with this essay entitled Christ a Fiction. The following is a small excerpt from that essay.
-------------
"In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was."
Christ a Fiction
------------
Robert M. Price makes too much sense to ignore.
.
-------------
"In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was."
Christ a Fiction
------------
Robert M. Price makes too much sense to ignore.
.
So I guess the answers to my questions are that a) you haven't actually read any scholarship and b) we are going to be subjected to a bunch of references to websites you've visisted.
Robert M. Price makes no sense. He fails to address a century of scholarship which should have banished the "Jesus is pure myth" theory for all those who have cared to read it.
I think it may be important to examine some serious problems with dogsgod's various posts throughout this thread. And I am not talking about spelling or grammar errors, which everyone has (including me, and quite often). Rather I am referring to serious errors which demonstrate a lack of relevent knowledge with which to make informed opinions. This is important because, as dogsgod insists on referencing various websites he claims should be taken authoratively, it is worthwhile to examine to what extent dogsgod has the requisite knowledge to make such a judgement.
There are several problems with this post. The first is that Albert Schweitzer never said that Jesus was a mythical character. The second is that there are many expert historians who aren't christian and who nonetheless acknowledge that Jesus was a historical person. And finally, most is a good argument, when it comes to the opinions of the people who have studied the issues the most.
Here again we have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the gospels and of midrash. Dogsgod obviously hasn't read enough midrash with which to compare, nor any requisite scholarship on the composition of the gospels. Mark used oral traditions to compose his gospel (in fact, scholars have pointed to various parts of mark's narrative which were composed before mark, probably in an oral form). Q likewise is a record of oral traditions, which either remained in oral form until used by Matthew and Luke, or was recorded before them. In any case the fact the Jesus tradition was at first circulated orally and that the gospel authors (as well as Paul) were aware of these traditions and wrote them down is not doubted by any one who works in the field.
Here again we have evidence for a basic lack of familiarity with relevent issues. Acts and Luke were written by the same author, as two volumes of the same work. This is a very basic part of NT research, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with NT scholarship should know this. Acts was written in roughly the same time as Luke, probably in the 80s, but certainly in the first century.
This is interesting, because it is one of the few direct citations from a primary source that dogsgod uses, and it shows either an inability to understand them or that dogsgod simply doesn't read them carefully enough, or again a lack of relevent knowledge (how title, names, nicknames, etc were used to differentiate between people in ancient times). The Jesus' here are clearly different, one being "Jesus being called Christ" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus."
This error is similar to the above, in that it displays an inability to capably access the texts, only here the mistake is more understandable because it results from an inability to read greek. The Jesus idea is not paramount in the text. He is used only as an identifier for James (i.e. to distinguish this James from other James's).
To be fair, it is always possible that dogsgod was only posting the above to show that the comparison between John the Baptist and Elijah is a reference to scriptures, and not that John the Baptist was invented by Mark. But in this case, what is the point? We know that John the Baptist was real, because he is independently attested to by Josephus (apart from John's gospel). So Mark isn't just making things up, nor he he depending entirely on scripture.
Here again is a basic in ability to read the text, only again it is understandable because it results from a lack of knowledge of greek. The condition in Hebrews is a PRESENT contrary to fact (also called unreal) condition, and therefore should be translated "if Jesus were here now, he would not be a priest."
Actually, this tract (although less theological than others) is still filled with theology throughout.
These are a representative sample of the serious types of errors which indicate a lack of an relevent knowledge with which to judge the usefullness of various internet sources. For this reason, I will again ask for citations from actual scholarship (i.e. written by historians of that period) which dogsgod has read and which back up his view that Jesus is pure myth.
There are several problems with this post. The first is that Albert Schweitzer never said that Jesus was a mythical character. The second is that there are many expert historians who aren't christian and who nonetheless acknowledge that Jesus was a historical person. And finally, most is a good argument, when it comes to the opinions of the people who have studied the issues the most.
Here again we have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the gospels and of midrash. Dogsgod obviously hasn't read enough midrash with which to compare, nor any requisite scholarship on the composition of the gospels. Mark used oral traditions to compose his gospel (in fact, scholars have pointed to various parts of mark's narrative which were composed before mark, probably in an oral form). Q likewise is a record of oral traditions, which either remained in oral form until used by Matthew and Luke, or was recorded before them. In any case the fact the Jesus tradition was at first circulated orally and that the gospel authors (as well as Paul) were aware of these traditions and wrote them down is not doubted by any one who works in the field.
Here again we have evidence for a basic lack of familiarity with relevent issues. Acts and Luke were written by the same author, as two volumes of the same work. This is a very basic part of NT research, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with NT scholarship should know this. Acts was written in roughly the same time as Luke, probably in the 80s, but certainly in the first century.
This is interesting, because it is one of the few direct citations from a primary source that dogsgod uses, and it shows either an inability to understand them or that dogsgod simply doesn't read them carefully enough, or again a lack of relevent knowledge (how title, names, nicknames, etc were used to differentiate between people in ancient times). The Jesus' here are clearly different, one being "Jesus being called Christ" and the other "Jesus son of Damneus."
This error is similar to the above, in that it displays an inability to capably access the texts, only here the mistake is more understandable because it results from an inability to read greek. The Jesus idea is not paramount in the text. He is used only as an identifier for James (i.e. to distinguish this James from other James's).
To be fair, it is always possible that dogsgod was only posting the above to show that the comparison between John the Baptist and Elijah is a reference to scriptures, and not that John the Baptist was invented by Mark. But in this case, what is the point? We know that John the Baptist was real, because he is independently attested to by Josephus (apart from John's gospel). So Mark isn't just making things up, nor he he depending entirely on scripture.
Here again is a basic in ability to read the text, only again it is understandable because it results from a lack of knowledge of greek. The condition in Hebrews is a PRESENT contrary to fact (also called unreal) condition, and therefore should be translated "if Jesus were here now, he would not be a priest."
This is a small mistake, but it reveals such an utter lack of knowledge concerning the culture in discussion that it is worth mentioning. Of course they had calendars.
Actually, this tract (although less theological than others) is still filled with theology throughout.
This is important, because one of dogsgod's claims is that the gospels are clearly distinguishable from ancient history. Yet here we have a statement which shows a complete lack of understanding of the methods utilized by ancient historians, who ALL used, and usually preferred, oral acounts.
This reveals the same problem as above: a lack of understanding concerning the nature of ancient historical texts. Plaigarism was common, and would not only have been no issue, it would have been expected. The use of the word as a criticism of Luke and Matthew is an anachronism.
These are a representative sample of the serious types of errors which indicate a lack of an relevent knowledge with which to judge the usefullness of various internet sources. For this reason, I will again ask for citations from actual scholarship (i.e. written by historians of that period) which dogsgod has read and which back up his view that Jesus is pure myth.
Last edited: