Jesus:Real or myth?

[outhouse]

Jewish texts were redacted in favor of the interests of the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity as state religion around 4th century CE.

That simply is not true.

 

[outhouse]

I guess it depends what you mean by substantiated.



.

It means the man has no historicity. Nothing about, nothing at all, about him can be susbstantiated.


there is nothing that points to a historical character, and the exodus has been described soley as theology, not historical.

 

[steeltoes]

Of course He was real. That's not even a debate, It's just fact.

Whether or not He was God/Son of God, Is the real question.

I guess that is why we are into the throes of the third quest for the historical Jesus, yet another quest that is going nowhere fast. There are no facts as it concerns Jesus, unless of course you want to be the first to present any.

 

[Prophet]

That simply is not true.

You changed the meaning of what I said by truncating my quote. The sentence I said with what you left out in brackets:

[I can say that I believe it is likely that both Christian and ]Jewish texts were redacted in favor of the interests of the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity as state religion around 4th century CE.

I did not authoritatively state my theory like an imbecile who thinks feigned certainty will win rational arguments. I merely expressed a belief in a likelihood.

 

[outhouse]

You changed the meaning of what I said by truncating my quote. The sentence I said with what you left out in brackets:

[I can say that I believe it is likely that both Christian and ]Jewish texts were redacted in favor of the interests of the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity as state religion around 4th century CE.

I did not authoritatively state my theory like an imbecile who thinks feigned certainty will win rational arguments. I merely expressed a belief in a likelihood.

The problem is no Jewish text were redacted to meet Roman interest, not even chrsitian text.

 

[Prophet]

It means the man has no historicity. Nothing about, nothing at all, about him can be susbstantiated.


there is nothing that points to a historical character, and the exodus has been described soley as theology, not historical.

The Torah is a historical text in itself as it is meant to contain the law and history of a nation. I fully endorse that we must be skeptical of what it says. One who came to power would have both high motivation and the ability to legitimize their rise in the book that comprises the people's law and history.

Let's say Joshua or Caleb or David or whoever wanted to legitimize himself started getting a bit creative with history. Why would they invent a new past warrior-king with no legitimacy through name recognition? Why not draw upon a real dead person's reputation and known deeds?

Your continued assertion that the exodus story is fictional is "preaching to the choir" as I will fully acknowledge that the course of events reported before and including the parting of the Red Sea stressed supernatural impossibilities. I say this can easily be the result of legendary accretion and not the full fabrication of a character. What you are saying would be like Jesus could not have existed because we know through science today that his origin story was fabricated, he wasn't born of a virgin. This is simply another case of a later writer adding to the legend to legitimize his subject.

 

[Prophet]

The problem is no Jewish text were redacted to meet Roman interest, not even chrsitian text.

Your feigned certainty is getting more charming by the post. The canonized Bible clearly does all it can to excuse the Roman Empire for murdering the Christ, and places the blame squarely on the Jews, who are, to this day, slurred as "Christ-killers" in Italy. The canonized Bible also clearly does all it can to make Jesus Christ fit the mold of Israel's prophecied warrior-king, the messiah, when the messiah was actually supposed to be a warrior-king, not a suffering servant.

There is also the matter of Genesis being a clumsy amalgamation of two different creation stories. The Adam and Eve story is specifically there to legitimize the doctrine of Jesus Christ's murder as a blood sacrifice for the fall of man. It teaches a lesson of pure nonsense: God forbids us to seek out Knowledge of Good and Evil. I believe the reason why it is nonsense is that it was clumsily adapted from The Nature of the Rulers, which I believe to be an original Christian scripture that history has classified as gnostic. The lesson takes shape as one learns that rather than God standing between us and the Knowledge of Good and Evil, it is the beings of authority who use moral ignorance to their advantage.

 

[outhouse]

Let's say Joshua or Caleb or David or whoever wanted to legitimize himself started getting a bit creative with history. Why would they invent a new past warrior-king with no legitimacy through name recognition? Why not draw upon a real dead person's reputation and known deeds?

.

When were the books compiled?


Joshua doesn't have any historicity either.

David has very little but we think he existed.



They did not create any of the legends. They were collected and put together for over 400 years in the making. The books evolved into what you know.

The history goes like this.

after 1200 BC Semitic people settled the highlands of Israel and they slowly came to these highlands for the next few hundred years. By 1000 BC they were a multi cultural people who for the most part were displaced Canaanites because their civilization had crumbled some 50 years before 1200 BC.

This is when David shows up, and that is as far back as anyone has been able to trace. And he was not a powerful King. he was more like a bandit by their best guess.

Most of the past were literary creations by people that did not even know their own heritage, so they created one to match the much of the mythology while they were in exile in Mesopotamia. So the Babylonian influence on much of the OT is obvious, and it was only after being destroyed that we see these literary creation takes form from what was important to these multi cultural beat down people.

 

[outhouse]

Your feigned certainty is getting more charming by the post. The canonized Bible clearly does all it can to excuse the Roman Empire for murdering the Christ, and places the blame squarely on the Jews, who are, to this day, slurred as "Christ-killers" in Italy. .

That is correct.

But this took place from the very beginning, it was not redacted around 400 CE as you stated.

The canonized Bible also clearly does all it can to make Jesus Christ fit the mold of Israel's prophecied warrior-king, the messiah,

Correct.

The Hellenist loved monotheism and Judaism and wanted a separate religion not identified with the jews. But they wanted the one god concept.

They had to deify him because the movement was competing with the divinity of the living Emperor.

There is also the matter of Genesis being a clumsy amalgamation of two different creation stories.

Correct.

And each of those were collections that had been a compilation of two different cultural traditions from different geographic locations. Their Babylonian captures wanted them to unify, and unify they would if they were going to ever get their freedom back.

The Adam and Eve story is specifically there to legitimize the doctrine of Jesus Christ's murder as a blood sacrifice for the fall of man

The NT butchered up much of the OT to meet its cultural needs, and only the popular versions were written about, and canonized due to popularity of the theology.

What made Christianity so successful was it opened up and accepted many different cultural needs to meet the multi cultural people following it

 

[Prophet]

That is correct.

But this took place from the very beginning, it was not redacted around 400 CE as you stated.

Exactly, who, in orthodox Christianity was in favor of excusing the Roman Empire of murdering their chief prophet and many of their apostles before Christianty was adopted by Rome? Did the Roman Empire's mass executions of Christians in the generation after Jesus win them sympathy?

In spite of all the awful things Rome did to early Christianity, the only denouncement of Rome to make the Bible is coded into Revelation in a fashion a Roman would see as nonsense. I think it is clear (much more so than most of my ancient history guesses) that the canon was wiped clean by someone with Roman interests at heart.

P.S. 4th century CE begins 301 CE actually, but since ancient dates are estimations, I think historians would generally refer to 300 as 4th century.

 

[arcanum]

Um, I thought we were talking about Jesus, man or myth? Getting way off topic here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can say that I believe it is likely that both Christian and Jewish texts were redacted in favor of the interests of the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity as state religion around 4th century CE.

Um, I thought we were talking about Jesus, man or myth? Getting way off topic here.

True, but the methodology is the same: explanation by silly conspiracy theory. (So, for example, a 4th century CE redacted Jewish text would, by definition, be expected to differ substantially from the DSS manuscripts.) Oh well...

 

[Prophet]

I've actually searched the DSS for the opening of Genesis featuring both creation stories as they are today to no avail. Any help for me, J?

 

[outhouse]

Um, I thought we were talking about Jesus, man or myth? Getting way off topic here.

No big deal.


Its not like this topic has not been beat to death, in other threads currently running.

 

[outhouse]

I've actually searched the DSS for the opening of Genesis featuring both creation stories as they are today to no avail. Any help for me, J?

Heres a good article.

The Legends of Genesis: V. Jahvist, Elohist, Jehovist, the Later Collections

 

[Prophet]

Heres a good article.

The Legends of Genesis: V. Jahvist, Elohist, Jehovist, the Later Collections

I read but I'm not really seeing what I was looking for.

 

[Prophet]

Who was excusing Romans for atrocities against Christians in 180 CE, right in the middle of the Age of Martyrdom?

Age of Martyrdom—2nd to 4th centuries


Pope St Fabian and Saint Sebastian, Giovanni di Paolo


The martyrdom of St. Alban, from a 13th-century manuscript, now in the Trinity College Library, Dublin. Note the executioner's eyes falling out of his head.
According to early Christian tradition or with some historical attestation within a hundred years of the event[edit]
Polycarp of Smyrna
Justin Martyr
Scillitan Martyrs
Perpetua and Felicity
Ptolemaeus and Lucius
Pothinus, bishop of Lyon, with Blandina and several others, the "Martyrs of Lyon and Vienne"
Pope Fabian
Saint Sebastian
Saint Agnes
Felix and Adauctus
Marcellinus and Peter
Origen
Forty Martyrs of Sebaste
Perpetua
Felicity
Euphemia

According to late Christian tradition or with some historical attestation more than a hundred years after the event[edit]
Saint Alban
Ignatius of Antioch

 

[Prophet]

Polycarp - burned at the stake for refusing to burn incense to the Roman Emperor. ~165 CE
Justin Martyr - beheaded for disagreeing with a Roman philosopher ~165 CE
Scillitan Martyrs - executed for refusing to swear by the Roman emperor 17 July 180 CE
Perpetua and Felicity - murdered in the arena for refusing to recant faith according to Roman decree 203 CE

Must I go on? Where, exactly, is Rome making friends inside the Christian establishment before they took it over?

 

[outhouse]

Must I go on? Where, exactly, is Rome making friends inside the Christian establishment before they took it over?

Christianity evolved into a governement religion.

What is your point, your trying to make?

 

[Prophet]

Christianity evolved into a governement religion.

What is your point, your trying to make?

My point is that you have manufactured no plausible rationale for Christian writers to "evolve Christianity" by brushing aside Rome's blame in murdering Jesus and his apostles at the same time as Rome is administering the "Age of Martyrdom" upon the early Christians.