Mythical Christ vs Historical Jesus

[dogsgod]

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?

 

[michel]

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?

I am not sure what point you are making; Jesus, to my way of thinking, was the incarnation of "Christ" - the third part of the Trinity; they are one and the same.

I guess I can understand the "Historical" Jesus, and your referencing "Christ" as mythical, Christ cnnot be eviced, and therefore can only be defined as mythical, whilst Jesus had a corporeal form here on Earth.

 

[Katzpur]

Would it make a difference to your faith to learn that Christ was mythical?

It would make a great deal of difference to my faith because it would mean that everything I believed about my own purpose for being here and my expectations for life after death would be mythical, too. I'm not particularly concerned that anybody is going to be able to convince me of that, though.

 

[dogsgod]

I am not sure what point you are making; Jesus, to my way of thinking, was the incarnation of "Christ" - the third part of the Trinity; they are one and the same.

I guess I can understand the "Historical" Jesus, and your referencing "Christ" as mythical, Christ cnnot be eviced, and therefore can only be defined as mythical, whilst Jesus had a corporeal form here on Earth.

Apparently there is no historical Jesus at the core of the Gospels. From what I have come to understand the Gospels appear to be fabricated, consisting of scripture, legends, bits of oral tradition, anecdotes, stories, and mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There also appears to be no evidence of a belief in an historical Jesus that effected Christianity as a wole until near the end of the second century. Apparently, until then, Christians expressed a belief in a spiritual Son of God, the Logos, or the Word, influenced more by the theological groundwork layed down by Philo which predated the supposed time of a Jesus ministry. The mythical view seems also to fit in well with the historical record, or rather the lack of historical record as the case may be since no one wrote of a Jesus of Nazareth during his supposed lifetime.

 

[dogsgod]

It would make a great deal of difference to my faith because it would mean that everything I believed about my own purpose for being here and my expectations for life after death would be mythical, too. I'm not particularly concerned that anybody is going to be able to convince me of that, though.

I think, if I understand correctly, Paul believed salvation could be achieved through a belief in a spiritual Christ that sacrificed his "flesh and blood" in a heavenly sanctuary.

From his writings it appears he knows nothing of a Jesus that lived on earth, at least he gives no details of such. The Gospels were written after his death and they are the first writings of a Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[pladecalvo]

Apparently there is no historical Jesus at the core of the Gospels. From what I have come to understand the Gospels appear to be fabricated, consisting of scripture, legends, bits of oral tradition, anecdotes, stories, and mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There also appears to be no evidence of a belief in an historical Jesus that effected Christianity as a wole until near the end of the second century. Apparently, until then, Christians expressed a belief in a spiritual Son of God, the Logos, or the Word, influenced more by the theological groundwork layed down by Philo which predated the supposed time of a Jesus ministry. The mythical view seems also to fit in well with the historical record, or rather the lack of historical record as the case may be since no one wrote of a Jesus of Nazareth during his supposed lifetime.

Don't see how you can have a Jesus of Nazareth when Nazareth was nothing more than a cemetery until the 3rd century.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Apparently there is no historical Jesus at the core of the Gospels. From what I have come to understand the Gospels appear to be fabricated, consisting of scripture, legends, bits of oral tradition, anecdotes, stories, and mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults.

That is exactly the argument that would present if one were to set out to disprove the existance of any historical figure. It is convenient that this argument discounts the texts which prove the historicity of Christ which include his lineage and recorded deeds in His life. To put it simply, if you wish to disprove ones existence then remove proof of their existence from the discussion.

 

[pladecalvo]

People might find this interesting:

http://gdj.50megs.com/Table.html.

It's a bit complicated at first glance but it's basically an electronic search of early Christian writings to look for words such as Gospels or Jesus. The result was that nothing was found until the early-mid 2nd century.

 

[McBell]

That is exactly the argument that would present if one were to set out to disprove the existance of any historical figure. It is convenient that this argument discounts the texts which prove the historicity of Christ which include his lineage and recorded deeds in His life. To put it simply, if you wish to disprove ones existence then remove proof of their existence from the discussion.

Everything ever written about the most important man to ever walk the face of this here Earth (Jesus Christ) has its source as the Scriptures the bible is based upon.
This is called "circular reasoning."

Circular reasoning is fun actually.
Cause with it, I can say that Frodo Baggins is a historical figure because The Lord of the Rings trilogy documents his ordeal rather nicely.

Since there is nothing to collaborate the Bible outside of the scriptures that Bible is based upon, many would say that there is no proof for your historical Jesus.
Thus making your statement:

To put it simply, if you wish to disprove ones existence then remove proof of their existence from the discussion.
​

Rather irrelevant since there is no proof he actually existed and all the evidence to the contrary (that he did exist) just that, evidence.

 

[dogsgod]

That is exactly the argument that would present if one were to set out to disprove the existance of any historical figure. It is convenient that this argument discounts the texts which prove the historicity of Christ which include his lineage and recorded deeds in His life. To put it simply, if you wish to disprove ones existence then remove proof of their existence from the discussion.

The purpose of this thread is to understand early writings. It has nothing to do with setting out to disprove the existence of anyone. It is about education, and in this case one can learn about early Jewish mythology.

 

[dogsgod]

Everything ever written about the most important man to ever walk the face of this here Earth (Jesus Christ) has its source as the Scriptures the bible is based upon.
This is called "circular reasoning."

Circular reasoning is fun actually.
Cause with it, I can say that Frodo Baggins is a historical figure because The Lord of the Rings trilogy documents his ordeal rather nicely.

I think it was Isaac Asimov that belonged to a club that met regularily for the purpose of engaging in what you refer to. They would take sides and argue that Sherlock Holmes was a real person vs fictional and would go about "proving it" in a number of ways.

 

[McBell]

I think it was Isaac Asimov that belonged to a club that met regularily for the purpose of engaging in what you refer to. They would take sides and argue that Sherlock Holmes was a real person vs fictional and would go about "proving it" in a number of ways.

It really is interesting when you get into the nitty gritty of it.
One of the big problems I have run into when attempting to discuss this is that those who believe that Christ not only existed but existed exactly as the Bible portrays him tend to get all defensive and want to accuse me of all manner of things.

For instance, i never once said that Jesus did not exist.
I merely pointed out that the picture many a person paint of Jesus is based upon the Bible, which is based upon scripture and that there is not a single reliable reference of Jesus that does not rely upon said scriptures.
This is a fact.

This does not mean that Jesus did not exist.
Only that the scriptures are the only documentation of his existence.

 

[dogsgod]

This does not mean that Jesus did not exist.
Only that the scriptures are the only documentation of his existence.

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?

 

[Halcyon]

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?

 

[Draka]

I think that the Jesus myth is very equal and comparable to most other myths. It's the "hero myth". Someone born of questionable or strange means or has abnormal beginnings, has travels, learns and teaches lessons, gains followers or helpers, traverses "hell" or a crossing of some sort, comes back to reunite with loved ones. You can see this is just about any mythology or story. It's the same throughout most belief systems as they are all somehow built upon these same mythical ideas. It just makes much more sense to take it as a mythical story than to take it as reality.

 

[michel]

Apparently there is no historical Jesus at the core of the Gospels. From what I have come to understand the Gospels appear to be fabricated, consisting of scripture, legends, bits of oral tradition, anecdotes, stories, and mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There also appears to be no evidence of a belief in an historical Jesus that effected Christianity as a wole until near the end of the second century. Apparently, until then, Christians expressed a belief in a spiritual Son of God, the Logos, or the Word, influenced more by the theological groundwork layed down by Philo which predated the supposed time of a Jesus ministry. The mythical view seems also to fit in well with the historical record, or rather the lack of historical record as the case may be since no one wrote of a Jesus of Nazareth during his supposed lifetime.

I can understand that; many of the world's Myths are borne out of stories that have been passed on from generation to generation; most likely with spome embelishment. There can be no proof positive that Jesus lived - just as there can be no proof positive that he didn't live; having said that, I don't need proof. My faith obviates the need for proof.

 

[des]

In all respect, I thinik the term mythological is much misunderstood and not exactly what you (or most people) think. When most people think the word "myth", they think it means a falsehood or lie. This is not the case. Myth (or as I prefer) "mythos" is a term implying meaning about a set of experiences that is not entirely within the "here and now" reality. Therefore, such concepts of life after death, meaning of existence, etc. are contained in mythos and NOT in day to day reality. It means they are too big for day to day reality. Day to day reality is nice for weather forecasts, your vacation plans, etc. but they fit very poorly for things have to do with meaning. Our culture does poorly with mythos, so it comes up with "literal" explanations of the Bible and that sort of thing, things which were never meant to be literal day to day reality types of writing.

It doesn't matter if Jesus' life conforms strictly to day to day reality writing because it has to with that which transcends the day to day.

--des

It would make a great deal of difference to my faith because it would mean that everything I believed about my own purpose for being here and my expectations for life after death would be mythical, too. I'm not particularly concerned that anybody is going to be able to convince me of that, though.

 

[michel]

In all respect, I thinik the term mythological is much misunderstood and not exactly what you (or most people) think. When most people think the word "myth", they think it means a falsehood or lie. This is not the case. Myth (or as I prefer) "mythos" is a term implying meaning about a set of experiences that is not entirely within the "here and now" reality. Therefore, such concepts of life after death, meaning of existence, etc. are contained in mythos and NOT in day to day reality. It means they are too big for day to day reality. Day to day reality is nice for weather forecasts, your vacation plans, etc. but they fit very poorly for things have to do with meaning. Our culture does poorly with mythos, so it comes up with "literal" explanations of the Bible and that sort of thing, things which were never meant to be literal day to day reality types of writing.

It doesn't matter if Jesus' life conforms strictly to day to day reality writing because it has to with that which transcends the day to day.

--des

An interesting observation; thanks.

 

[Random]

I tend to discern that a historical guru/teacher existed whose life and deeds were later somewhat embellished and imbued with mythical character: ie. Jesus of Nazareth latterly becoming the Sun/Son of GOD.

 

[dogsgod]

I tend to discern that a historical guru/teacher existed whose life and deeds were later somewhat embellished and imbued with mythical character: ie. Jesus of Nazareth latterly becoming the Sun/Son of GOD.

Yes, that was more or less my view until I read the mythicist view. Now it appears the Son of God was part of a Hellenistic/Jewish mythology and the Jesus of Nazareth came about later.