Jesus, the Christian Myth

[sayak83]

But archaeology does have the capacity to do the same thing. Whether someone wrote it on a pyramid wall, a stone etc. At some point one accepts what is written when it matches what one finds.


Surely this can happen and could happen.

But to throw out all of what is written (letters, epistles, books etc) on the basis of "they are just shoring up the credentials" is a biased position IMV.

That is why I enjoyed so much the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, an award winning Chicago Tribune reporter. Here is a man who was an atheist hell bent on disproving the Bible with all the reasons mentioned above and much more. Wanted to prove to his wife how wrong she was in deciding to become a believer in a myth.

After extensive research, trips, interviews to prove how wrong she was, he became a believer.

At some point one has to just accept what IS fact and let write the story without prejudice.

I obviously completely disbelieve that he (Strobel) was ever an atheist and is doing anything more than earning some quick buck through sophistry filled apologetic arguments. For him it's just defending God to sell books and get paid for debates is just good business. After attending his talk and hearing about 500 half truths, falsehoods and fallacies in the space of an hour, I simply do not believe a single word he says. Craig and NT Wright and Keller are far better, even Zacharias is good. They each have their strong biases, but they seemed sincere.

Regarding archeology, one obviously does not believe the written propaganda in pyramids or tablets. It highlights the general ideological beliefs of the rulers and how they liked to project themselves. Nothing more. In history or archeology one simply does not take the claims at face value at all. It's more like interrogating a criminal, one pieces out parts of the truth by sifting through the half truths and denials. But other things help as well. For example the burial artifacts show trade links, the bones show common diseases, nutritional info, the rubbish heaps show what food was the diet of upper and lower class and hence estimate the relative status. If local governors were making elaborate burials compared to the king, it indicates a decay of Central authority no matter what the king proclaims. Etc.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I was asking do you think the gospel narratives were significantly tampered with after the Nicea Council.?

I don't think the actual writings were altered, not that that isn't entirely possible. I do think the interpretations of said material changed, at least officially. And in a time where the literate were very very rare, the official line would have made the product, and it's interpretations, proprietary. Not much changed there until the printing press came about and made the writings available to those that would interpret it differently.

 

[sayak83]

I don't think the actual writings were altered, not that that isn't entirely possible. I do think the interpretations of said material changed, at least officially. And in a time where the literate were very very rare, the official line would have made the product, and it's interpretations, proprietary. Not much changed there until the printing press came about and made the writings available to those that would interpret it differently.

Okay. Yes that is obviously true.

 

[arthra]

The "Jesus seminar" has been primarily focused on the historicity of Jesus for some time now
The Jesus Seminar comprised three phases:

• Phase 1, Sayings of Jesus (1985-1991)
• Phase 2, Deeds of Jesus (1991-1996)
• Phase 3, Profiles of Jesus (1996-1998)

and I'd recommend that it be offered here as a resource...

https://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/

 

[Augustus]

I do think the interpretations of said material changed, at least officially.

What changed though? The most popular Christological formulation changed in no way. Arianism, while still popular, remained 'heretical' just slightly more so.

Even the Arians saw Jesus as Divine and the Messiah though, just subordinate to God. If Nicaea had decided the Arians had it correct, Jesus would still have needed to fit the Messianic OT Prophecies.

Nicaea has the sinister reputation in some circles but it is mostly just myth based on much later fabrications.

It didn't even mark the end or decline of Arianism, which even had support from Constantine II. Theodosius is more significant than Constantine as regards the decline of Arianism.

What became the official formula obviously was relevant to the long term direction of Christianity, but it was not 'new' in any way and didn't necessitate any reinterpretation of the Bible among its proponents.

 

[Kenny]

I obviously completely disbelieve that he (Strobel) was ever an atheist and is doing anything more than earning some quick buck through sophistry filled apologetic arguments. For him it's just defending God to sell books and get paid for debates is just good business. After attending his talk and hearing about 500 half truths, falsehoods and fallacies in the space of an hour, I simply do not believe a single word he says. Craig and NT Wright and Keller are far better, even Zacharias is good. They each have their strong biases, but they seemed sincere.

OK... It always is interesting to me how people classify the defense of believers as "strong biases" while they would classify themselves as logical thinkers without bias.

Regarding archeology, one obviously does not believe the written propaganda in pyramids or tablets. It highlights the general ideological beliefs of the rulers and how they liked to project themselves. Nothing more. In history or archeology one simply does not take the claims at face value at all. It's more like interrogating a criminal, one pieces out parts of the truth by sifting through the half truths and denials. But other things help as well. For example the burial artifacts show trade links, the bones show common diseases, nutritional info, the rubbish heaps show what food was the diet of upper and lower class and hence estimate the relative status. If local governors were making elaborate burials compared to the king, it indicates a decay of Central authority no matter what the king proclaims. Etc.

That sure limits information. I don't believe most archaeologists would subscribe to your position. Written words have value too.

 

[Kenny]

What changed though? The most popular Christological formulation changed in no way. Arianism, while still popular, remained 'heretical' just slightly more so.

Even the Arians saw Jesus as Divine and the Messiah though, just subordinate to God. If Nicaea had decided the Arians had it correct, Jesus would still have needed to fit the Messianic OT Prophecies.

Nicaea has the sinister reputation in some circles but it is mostly just myth based on much later fabrications.

It didn't even mark the end or decline of Arianism, which even had support from Constantine II. Theodosius is more significant than Constantine as regards the decline of Arianism.

What became the official formula obviously was relevant to the long term direction of Christianity, but it was not 'new' in any way and didn't necessitate any reinterpretation of the Bible among its proponents.

I think it is Arminianism and not Arianism. (just a note)

 

[Augustus]

I think it is Arminianism and not Arianism. (just a note)

Arminianism is a 16th Century Dutch theology (I'd never actually heard of it so had to look it up)

 

[Kenny]

Arminianism is a 16th Century Dutch theology (I'd never actually heard of it so had to look it up)

Oh... I thought that was what you were talking about. Sorry.

I guess it is my turn to look up Arianism.

 

[sayak83]

OK... It always is interesting to me how people classify the defense of believers as "strong biases" while they would classify themselves as logical thinkers without bias.

I have biases. My personal opinion on this may be wrong. We can discuss this if you wish. I do have very high standards for non fiction writers. Debates and stuff are OK, but if you are writing a book I really need to see that some reflection of substance has occurred.

That sure limits information. I don't believe most archaeologists would subscribe to your position. Written words have value too.

It does limit information but it only filters out the information that was unreliable anyways. Written words have more value in understanding the worldviews and beliefs of the people writing it, which is also very important. There are certain realities, and the written word tells historians what kind of cultural and belief constructs were used by the people to impose meaning and value to it. Thus the history of Peloponessian war tells less about the war and more about what significance was attached to it by the Greeks in telling their own story about who they are. It's a form of myth-making which is critical to the human enterprise and continues apace. For example the idea of brave colonists coming to US in search of freedom, the concept of American dream, or the idea of the promised land, greatest nation etc. are powerful myths that are communally believed in and is the lens from which US civilization sees and interacts with reality. Another example is the communally believed idea of inherent specialness of one legal document made by a committee (the constitution) over all previous and subsequent others etc. These are all important drivers of history, but if you are asking what is true independent of human beliefs, then all of these things go out of the window. But this latter question is actually not a historical question. History is about what people believe and how they act and witness based on such beliefs. It's irrelevant to history if the beliefs are true or not.

 

[Kenny]

I have biases. My personal opinion on this may be wrong. We can discuss this if you wish. I do have very high standards for non fiction writers. Debates and stuff are OK, but if you are writing a book I really need to see that some reflection of substance has occurred.


It does limit information but it only filters out the information that was unreliable anyways. Written words have more value in understanding the worldviews and beliefs of the people writing it, which is also very important. There are certain realities, and the written word tells historians what kind of cultural and belief constructs were used by the people to impose meaning and value to it. Thus the history of Peloponessian war tells less about the war and more about what significance was attached to it by the Greeks in telling their own story about who they are. It's a form of myth-making which is critical to the human enterprise and continues apace. For example the idea of brave colonists coming to US in search of freedom, the concept of American dream, or the idea of the promised land, greatest nation etc. are powerful myths that are communally believed in and is the lens from which US civilization sees and interacts with reality. Another example is the communally believed idea of inherent specialness of one legal document made by a committee (the constitution) over all previous and subsequent others etc. These are all important drivers of history, but if you are asking what is true independent of human beliefs, then all of these things go out of the window. But this latter question is actually not a historical question. History is about what people believe and how they act and witness based on such beliefs. It's irrelevant to history if the beliefs are true or not.

OK...

I am, though, writing a book on marriage. Hope to publish it this year. It is based on a Christian perspective of covenant.

 

[sayak83]

OK...

I am, though, writing a book on marriage. Hope to publish it this year. It is based on a Christian perspective of covenant.

Best of luck

 

[sayak83]

OK...

I am, though, writing a book on marriage. Hope to publish it this year. It is based on a Christian perspective of covenant.

There is one perspective that always works. Wife is always right.

 

[Kenny]

There is one perspective that always works. Wife is always right.

ROFL!!

As they say "The man is the head and the wife is the neck and she can turn the head wherever she want it to go".

 

[MJFlores]

I rather take my chances. Going to hold on to it.

They say being sorry is always said much much later.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I rather take my chances. Going to hold on to it.
View attachment 16972

They say being sorry is always said much much later.

Seriously? The fake tickets to get into Wrigley Field or a Hamilton performance are of much higher quality.

 

[MJFlores]

Seriously? The fake tickets to get into Wrigley Field or a Hamilton performance are of much higher quality.

The ticket lets you in if its time.

No ticket no entry.

Beware of scalpers and fake tickets too.

Its a fact of life, people want to get rich from selling fake things.

 

[Callisto]

FYI Josephus was born in 37 CE and died in 100 CE which makes him a contemporary of Christ and recorded the historical fact of Christ's existence as a pagan not predisposed to fabricate the facts.

Josephus was a Jew and the extent of authenticity of his works is debated.

 

[Muffled]

No, there's not a single eyewitness account of Jesus. The whole mythology is based on hearsay.

I believe you think you are clairvoyant and can tell when witnesses that say they are witnesses are telling the truth or not?

 

[Muffled]

I daresay the majority of Norse, Pagan scholars believed in Odin's existence, as well.

I believe Norse myth was written thousands of years after the fact and the writers only had folklore to go by.

the Prose Edda, composed in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson Wikipedia- Norse mythology.