Jesus:Real or myth?

[Desert Snake]

Considering that it was acceptable at the time only proves to make the waters ever murkier.

Humphreys comments on that as well, the point is highlighted in bold:

"The fact is, we have absolutely no trace or mention of Jesus’ exploits anywhere until the gospels were written decades after the purported events. Desperate to penetrate the primordial fog, some scholars strive to identify an early "layer" of teaching said to derive from the mouth of an historical Jesus. But does a "sayings tradition" (as in the Gospel of Thomas) really point to a single author of wise words? The Bible itself provides an answer. We have a sayings collection in the Book of Proverbs (attributed to Solomon) and another in the Book of Psalms (attributed to David). Neither accreditation is historically valid; rather, we know it was standard practice in the ancient world to lend authority and prestige to new material by falsely accrediting a prestigious figure from the past (even, as in this case, to personages who are historically dubious!)

But even more fatal to the claim of a "sayings tradition" is the patent failure of anyone to record any of the supposed astounding new teachings at the time! If “great multitudes” throughout Syria, Galilee, the Decapolis, and Judea heard and believed, how odd that not one recorded those sparkling gems of wisdom! Not even Paul, the great proselytizer, quotes his Lord, but instead habitually turns to Jewish scripture for divine endorsement"

Dude you don't get a resurrection cult with Deity that quickly. Paul if anything seems to be humanizing a more Deific figure. The early church theorizers, at least knew they were dealing with a God, not merely a manifested human, so in order to maintain accuracy they made the trinity monotheistic in nature.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't forget to allow for the different conventions of ancient writing. Putting appropriate words into some-ones mouth was considered acceptable and not as only appropriate to fiction. Even a great historian like Thucydides did it, and the only objection ever raised was that all his generals and politicians sounded the same.

The strange thing is that all the Gospels are written that way, even the non-canonical ones. There are some letters found from that era from Romans and such, and those letters were written in first person about first hand experiences, so even if it was a form of higher literary prose to write in third person (and done so by uneducated fishermen), there should be something written, some accounts in first person, especially if this was the greatest events in human history (backed and sponsored by no other than The Creator of The Known Universe and Beyond(tm)). God could've appointed some better writers... like some skilled and educated scribes from start. An appointed "record keeper", or two, or three.

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok let's say everything is kosher with the timeline etc. Paul is still not 'Deifying' a figure, he was recording beliefs to an extent from other Christians. Really no matter how you view it, Paul and other early church writers were not advocating a more Deific Jesus, on the contrary, I almost note hesitance, that wasn't their bag, baby, in a way. Perhaps they were humanistic, or more Judaic oriented who knows.

 

[outhouse]

The strange thing is that all the Gospels are written that way, even the non-canonical ones.

They were all trained in rhetoric.

there should be something written

And there is. Just not by Galileans or eye witnesses.


Remember while alive he was no big deal, and not even famous.

especially if this was the greatest events in human history

But it was not.


It was a man who caused trouble in the temple over the crooked government and was put to death for it, fighting for the common man.

He was martyred after death, and the mythology did not grow in Judaism or its communities.

It grew in the Diaspora in Hellenistic communities who had long wanted to get away from Judaism. Once the temple fell and Jews looked at as rebels and trouble makers in the Empire, they really advanced the separation from Judaism.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dude you don't get a resurrection cult with Deity that quickly.

I'm curious. What support do you have for that claim? How do you know that it can't?

 

[fantome profane]

Dude you don't get a resurrection cult with Deity that quickly.

Why not? How long do you think it would take? I have no problem believing it could happen that quickly.

Paul if anything seems to be humanizing a more Deific figure. The early church theorizers, at least knew they were dealing with a God, not merely a manifested human..

That is interesting. How do you draw that conclusion? For example is the Jesus described in the Gospel of Mark more of a Deity than the Jesus described by Paul? Or more human? How about the same comparison with the epistle of James and Paul's writings.

As I read it the earlier non-Pauline describe Jesus as a human figure, but the later non-Pauline writings (like the Gospel of John) describe him as more divine. But Paul himself describes Jesus as "God in the form of a man".

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm curious. What support do you have for that claim? How do you know that it can't?

Yeah I wrote another post. That's not quite what I meant. Look, i'm Christian, but we have to deal with the pre-existing Son of God issues as well. Personally it doesn't 'rock my faith', I believe God manifested through Mary.

See, I don't think early Christianity was a 'resurrection cult', at all. The story of the crucifixion & resurrection was merely a part of the narrative, not the entire religion. I believe it is a cop-out to ascribe that idea to Christianity, too many other beliefs and traditions involved in the religion.

 

[outhouse]

I'm curious. What support do you have for that claim? How do you know that it can't?

Resurrection cult LOL


WE have Mark some 40 years later who writes nothing serious about a resurrection.

The ending was added later.


Saying his spirit went "UP" to heaven because he was one of gods children, would have been quite normal.

 

[Ouroboros]

They were all trained in rhetoric.

Which would exclude the fishermen, and point to other sources of the material.

And there is. Just not by Galileans or eye witnesses.

Remember while alive he was no big deal, and not even famous.

But it was not.


It was a man who caused trouble in the temple over the crooked government and was put to death for it, fighting for the common man.

He was martyred after death, and the mythology did not grow in Judaism or its communities.

It grew in the Diaspora in Hellenistic communities who had long wanted to get away from Judaism. Once the temple fell and Jews looked at as rebels and trouble makers in the Empire, they really advanced the separation from Judaism.

Totally agree, and that's my point. The style of writing, the content, etc, all points to either a fully made up story or myth/legend built around a minor character in history.

Now, if I would go on a small religious tangent here, let's say God was behind the story and the events. God would've known that it wouldn't be convincing enough to be historical documents (since God in his almighty power could've done much better, at least I think so ), it would then (under the thought experiment) suggest that God wasn't interested in the historical or literal understanding of the story, but the mystery of the story would be more in the focus. In other words, the underlying message and ideas would be the important part, not the historical/literal.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why not? How long do you think it would take? I have no problem believing it could happen that quickly.

Hmm Idk. Perhaps.

That is interesting. How do you draw that conclusion? For example is the Jesus described in the Gospel of Mark more of a Deity than the Jesus described by Paul? Or more human? How about the same comparison with the epistle of James and Paul's writings.

Yeah I don't have a list yet of verses. Mostly it's the metaphoric way Jesus is described. It's well, interesting, because at the same time Jesus is clearly supposed to be either God, or worshipped. I think Paul realized he had to quell the mistaken idea of a more simply "human" Jesus, so he emphasized, to an extent, the Deity aspect.

As I read it the earlier non-Pauline describe Jesus as a human figure, but the later non-Pauline writings (like the Gospel of John) describe him as more divine. But Paul himself describes Jesus as "God in the form of a man".

Yeah. It's confusing. I mean, with the trinity, Jesus is 'equal' to God, yet we know that a human isn't equal to God, so there's something afoot, catch my drift. It almost seems like some of the Scripture is hesitant to relate what I believe they were copying from notes etc. indicating a more Deific Jesus.

I need to formulate this, it's just ideas without presenting verse comparisons.

cheers

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah I wrote another post. That's not quite what I meant. Look, i'm Christian, but we have to deal with the pre-existing Son of God issues as well. Personally it doesn't 'rock my faith', I believe God manifested through Mary.

See, I don't think early Christianity was a 'resurrection cult', at all. The story of the crucifixion & resurrection was merely a part of the narrative, not the entire religion. I believe it is a cop-out to ascribe that idea to Christianity, too many other beliefs and traditions involved in the religion.

But the death and resurrection is the core message in modern (and ancient) Christianity though. It's the idea that not only is there life after death, but God can grant you this as a gift if you just believe that Jesus opened the door for it through salvation. If this was God's personal message to humanity, wouldn't that have been the main focus of the events and story?

 

[outhouse]

In other words, the underlying message and ideas would be the important part, not the historical/literal.

Which is exactly right! and in the proper context, or close to what the authors intended.

Hats off :clap

 

[Ouroboros]

Which is exactly right! and in the proper context, or close to what the authors intended.

Yup.

I believe the fundamentalist/literalist movement has hijacked the good message and made it to a fast-food, nutrition-less version of spirituality.

 

[fantome profane]

we have to deal with the pre-existing Son of God issues as well.

Could you describe a little more about what you think the "pre-existing Son of God issues" are?

Was King David a Son of God?

Yes Jesus was referred to as the "Son of God", but I don't believe that the Gospel writers intended that term to be interpreted in the way that modern Christians often interpret the term. Certainly Jews living at the time would have understood the term differently. Many people (including King David) were referred to as Son of God in the Jewish scriptures.

 

[outhouse]

Son of god.

But no one mentions just before Jesus was born Augustus was first "son of god"


And funny how the unknown Hellenistic authors, were competing with the Emperor for prospects with their "son of god"


One was given a choice. Worship the one all powerful god and son in heaven. or you could worship the "son of god" the corrupt politician.

 

[Desert Snake]

Could you describe a little more about what you think the "pre-existing Son of God issues" are?

Was King David a Son of God?

Yes Jesus was referred to as the "Son of God", but I don't believe that the Gospel writers intended that term to be interpreted in the way that modern Christians often interpret the term. Certainly Jews living at the time would have understood the term differently. Many people (including King David) were referred to as Son of God in the Jewish scriptures.

I'm not an expert. I would suggest reading member Clear's posts for more in depth historical attributes to these terms. Clear posted quite a bit in my "Man made in the image of God" thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

But the death and resurrection is the core message in modern (and ancient) Christianity though. It's the idea that not only is there life after death, but God can grant you this as a gift if you just believe that Jesus opened the door for it through salvation. If this was God's personal message to humanity, wouldn't that have been the main focus of the events and story?

Yes, I agree. However we are dealing with Deity concepts, as well. For instance the 'later' traditions are reflections of earlier ones, we have different deity concepts before a written/compiled New Testament. The Trinity idea, for example, is to me a rationalist approach to the tradition of Jesus as Deity.

 

[idav]

Yes, I agree. However we are dealing with Deity concepts, as well. For instance the 'later' traditions are reflections of earlier ones, we have different deity concepts before a written/compiled New Testament. The Trinity idea, for example, is to me a rationalist approach to the tradition of Jesus as Deity.

To me the trinity is a pharisee aporoach to what jesus meant when he said he was one with god. Clearly jesus disagreed with them and brought up their scripts that "we are all sons of the most high" and " ye are all gods" as it also sorta mentioned in genesis as well as the verse jesus referenced from psalm 82. I can easily rationalize it better including everyone to be sons and gods as a pantheist.

 

[Desert Snake]

To me the trinity is a pharisee aporoach to what jesus meant when he said he was one with god. Clearly jesus disagreed with them and brought up their scripts that "we are all sons of the most high" and " ye are all gods" as it also sorta mentioned in genesis as well as the verse jesus referenced from psalm 82. I can easily rationalize it better including everyone to be sons and gods as a pantheist.

what's the harm in analysis.

 

[outhouse]

To me the trinity is a pharisee aporoach .
.

No

Not in any sense.

Clearly jesus disagreed

How could he disagree with something that did not exist while he was alive?