Mythical Christ vs Historical Jesus

[dogsgod]

I would say the Jesus mythology is meant to be allegorical.
Plus it makes it more appealing to pagan converts as they can read similarities with their own deities - Horus, Osiris, Mithras - into the texts.

Earlychristianwritings.com suggests though, that the earliest christian document would have been Q, a sayings gospel - several scholars also give Thomas, also a sayings gospel, an early date - 50CE. Having a wandering teacher whose sayings are recorded in such a manner, later to be exaggerated upon isn't too wild a possibility is it?

Perhaps, however Burton Mack has shown that these Q sayings can be placed into three groups, he calls them Q1, Q2, and Q3. Q1 being the oldest, of a Greek cynic type, almost secular in nature, and mild in tone. Q2 is of a Jewish type and much harsher in tone with punishment for those that reject their beliefs. Q3 is the smallest group, is apocalyptic, probably written about the year 70 and it is these that Doherty finds a consistency in that these ones could possibly have been the preaching of a single person whereas Q1 and Q2 are not thought of as coming from a single individual, but perhaps the collective teachings of a community. Neither Q nor Thomas mentions a Christ, a crucifixion, or a resurrection, so it's difficult to connect a Q communtiy or a Thomas group with the Jerusalem church.

 

[McBell]

Yes, the accusations, and a good point about not saying that Jesus did not exist, I will have to keep that in mind.

Now, are the scriptures documentations of his existence or are they mythologies that should not be read as historical events, but rather as allegorical stories and such?

Interesting question.
Personally I have to wonder why it is that the most important person to ever walk the face of the Earth is not even mentioned anywhere other than the scriptures.

There are several possibilities that come to mind:

1. That he never actually existed other than in the scriptures, like Fodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings.
2. That he did exist but was a mere mortal man who did good things but not the miracles as described within the scriptures.
3. That no one other than the authors of the scriptures thought him to be important enough to even mention.
​

Obviously this list does not even come close to every possible scenario.
The thing is, at least for me, is that there is really no way to verify any of them.

Now to take my uncles POV, it falls upon those making the claim that he exists to provide proof, or at the very least enough evidence, to show that he did exist and not upon him to show that he did not exist.

One problem we run into here, and has been demonstrated in numerous threads here on RF, is that what person A considers proof, person B considers nonsense.

 

[astarath]

Christ corporeal entity is really neither here nor there rather his lessons are the key to the story. If it be myth than it be a God breathed myth.

 

[McBell]

Christ corporeal entity is really neither here nor there rather his lessons are the key to the story. If it be myth than it be a God breathed myth.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate upon this.

 

[astarath]

Not overly....I dont really agree with it I was just throwing it out there. I believe his corporeal sacrifice is neccessary for salvation.

 

[love]

The Words of Christ speak for them self. I believe if you are truly interested in the life of Jesus Christ you would study His Words for the wisdom they convey instead of distracting yourself with such things. If you see the Gospel as a work of fiction by a single author then you must see this author as one of the most brilliant minds of any time in history.
You can search all the libraries of the world but until you realize that Christianity is based on faith you will never find the answer that is right in front of you.

 

[Ozzie]

Having always assumed an historical Jesus behind the legend I was rather surprised to come across some books and websites that present a case for a mythical Christ at the beginnings of Christianity. I must admit that they are more convincing than those that claim an historical Jesus. For example, google Jesus Myth the Case Against Historical Christ. Would it make a difference to your faith to learn that Christ was mythical? It did not make a difference to Christian missionary Albert Schweitzer, but how about you? And what are your thoughts on this topic?

Im not Christian. But if a mythical conception of Jesus makes more sense well and good. Whether the mythical conception is an ancient or modern one makes no difference either. As for a modern historical conception, whether or not it is held as historical, it remains a mythical conception, for the believer having not known the man personally. Historical evidence can be considered, but not known in its historical context devoid of myth. All this boils down to justifying whatever conception of Jesus makes sense to each believer (a caveat on justification is the assumption that believers consider both mythical and mytho-historical conceptions).

 

[McBell]

The Words of Christ speak for them self. I believe if you are truly interested in the life of Jesus Christ you would study His Words for the wisdom they convey instead of distracting yourself with such things. If you see the Gospel as a work of fiction by a single author then you must see this author as one of the most brilliant minds of any time in history.
You can search all the libraries of the world but until you realize that Christianity is based on faith you will never find the answer that is right in front of you.

And which answer is that?
Pentecostal, Baptist, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Calvin, Missionary, Salvationist, Ruckmanite.....the list goes on and on and on and on.

 

[love]

Take your pick. The Word is like a seed and your heart is like the soil in which the seed is planted. If your heart is fertile soil something supernatural will occur. You will be reborn of the spirit of God and the spirit will grow within your heart and guide you. Until this happens the Word might as well be science fiction. You must be born again.

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I find it interesting that people set out to prove the non-existance of Jesus. Where does this desire root from? No one really questions the existance of Moses, or Muhammad, or Caeser. The great leaders of the world that lived more than a few thousand years ago are only found in a history book. Any physical manifestation of their having been real could have been forged, or only attributed to them. Understand that I believe that famous historical figures existed, but in truth I have no reason to beleive it other than it was taught to me.

I guess I can just re-ask the question above because that's what I want answered; Why do people wish to disprove Jesus' existance?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The purpose of this thread is to understand early writings.

That certainly wasn't apparent in your OP.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Christ corporeal entity is really neither here nor there rather his lessons are the key to the story. If it be myth than it be a God breathed myth.

This is completely ignorant of scriptural doctrine as is the idea of Christ not being an actual man. The concept of atonement and Christ taking on the sin of mankind and being areplacement in payment for our sins is entirely dependant on The humanity of Christ. It makes no sense that the writers of the gospel accounts and the following New Testament books would write them based on Christ being a myth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, that was more or less my view until I read the mythicist view.

You know, my uncle died in Nigeria and left a LARGE sum of money. You might be JUST the person to help me get it past customs. First you need to send me a $1000 so I can get your travel papers in order. You can trust this because you read it on the Internet.

Ephesians 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. NIV

 

[dogsgod]

I find it interesting that people set out to prove the non-existance of Jesus. Where does this desire root from? No one really questions the existance of Moses, or Muhammad, or Caeser. The great leaders of the world that lived more than a few thousand years ago are only found in a history book. Any physical manifestation of their having been real could have been forged, or only attributed to them. Understand that I believe that famous historical figures existed, but in truth I have no reason to beleive it other than it was taught to me.

I guess I can just re-ask the question above because that's what I want answered; Why do people wish to disprove Jesus' existance?

No one is setting out to disprove Jesus' existence. The point is that a careful reading of the early Christian writings suggests that Christ was a spiritual entity. What are you suggesting people that read the earliest writings do, pretend and go along with what we are originally taught even though a closer examination reveals otherwise? Should we just ignore new information that disagrees with the information we already have?

 

[dogsgod]

This is completely ignorant of scriptural doctrine as is the idea of Christ not being an actual man. The concept of atonement and Christ taking on the sin of mankind and being areplacement in payment for our sins is entirely dependant on The humanity of Christ. It makes no sense that the writers of the gospel accounts and the following New Testament books would write them based on Christ being a myth.

The Epistles, which were written before the Gospels, were not written based on Christ being a myth, they were based on Christ being a spiritual entity living in a spiritual realm where he sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary. Later Christians might be believing a myth that Christ was a man.

 

[Scuba Pete]

they were based on Christ being a spiritual entity living in a spiritual realm

Almost, but not quite there. A spiritual being in a physical world.

As Sting so aptly put it:

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
If its something we cant buy
There must be another way

We are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world
Are spirits in the material world

 

[logician]

Having always assumed an historical Jesus behind the legend I was rather surprised to come across some books and websites that present a case for a mythical Christ at the beginnings of Christianity. I must admit that they are more convincing than those that claim an historical Jesus. For example, google Jesus Myth the Case Against Historical Christ. Would it make a difference to your faith to learn that Christ was mythical? It did not make a difference to Christian missionary Albert Schweitzer, but how about you? And what are your thoughts on this topic?

Since Xians supposedly live by faith it should not make any difference to them, althought w/o a real Christ, Xianity is an empty facade.

 

[des]

Well I don't think you would find this activity too popular among Christians , but it seems somewhat popular to nontheists. I don't know if they find the idea of a historical Jesus uncomfortable or something like this. But, afaik, only his only "proof" is in the Bible. So maybe if they don't believe things in the Bible then Jesus would be suspect. Just some guesses. Although I am not traditionally Christian, I do believe Jesus was a real historical figure. To what extent he did what he was supposed to have done is another question entirely. I am personally very comfortable with the idea that some aspects of Jesus exist in mythos.(Not a lie or falsehood, but in the area beyond time and space and day to day reality.) But I also think that that would be heresy in some versions of Christianity as the actual death and resurrection of Jesus is such a preeminent idea to them.


--des

I find it interesting that people set out to prove the non-existance of Jesus. Where does this desire root from? No one really questions the existance of Moses, or Muhammad, or Caeser. The great leaders of the world that lived more than a few thousand years ago are only found in a history book. Any physical manifestation of their having been real could have been forged, or only attributed to them. Understand that I believe that famous historical figures existed, but in truth I have no reason to beleive it other than it was taught to me.

I guess I can just re-ask the question above because that's what I want answered; Why do people wish to disprove Jesus' existance?

 

[Draka]

Well I don't think you would find this activity too popular among Christians , but it seems somewhat popular to nontheists. I don't know if they find the idea of a historical Jesus uncomfortable or something like this. But, afaik, only his only "proof" is in the Bible. So maybe if they don't believe things in the Bible then Jesus would be suspect. Just some guesses. Although I am not traditionally Christian, I do believe Jesus was a real historical figure. To what extent he did what he was supposed to have done is another question entirely. I am personally very comfortable with the idea that some aspects of Jesus exist in mythos.(Not a lie or falsehood, but in the area beyond time and space and day to day reality.) But I also think that that would be heresy in some versions of Christianity as the actual death and resurrection of Jesus is such a preeminent idea to them.


--des

It's not just non-theists that seem to agree with this thought. I honestly don't know what the problem is. Just because something is mythical doesn't mean that the spiritual significance of it is any less diminished. What if someone were to claim that Hercules was indeed real? That he was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman? That he walked the Earth protecting the common people? Christians would think it nonsense...but the story is essentially the same as Jesus' origins. The truth is not in reality of the story, the truth lies in the message and the belief. The concept itself is what means the most, not that he actually lived to create the concept. Of all the near identical myths that religions are based on, why does the Christ myth HAVE to be the ONLY real one? Why does it HAVE to be real at all?

 

[McBell]

It's not just non-theists that seem to agree with this thought. I honestly don't know what the problem is. Just because something is mythical doesn't mean that the spiritual significance of it is any less diminished. What if someone were to claim that Hercules was indeed real? That he was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman? That he walked the Earth protecting the common people? Christians would think it nonsense...but the story is essentially the same as Jesus' origins. The truth is not in reality of the story, the truth lies in the message and the belief. The concept itself is what means the most, not that he actually lived to create the concept. Of all the near identical myths that religions are based on, why does the Christ myth HAVE to be the ONLY real one? Why does it HAVE to be real at all?

So you have truth from lies?