The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

You may want to take a look at the book "The Rise and Fall of Jesus" by Steuart Campbell. It is a very interesting book which gives valid scenarios of how Jesus could have pulled off the so called miracles and he gives very compelling arguments. Even to the point of how he could have faked the resurrection of Lazarus(especially since he knew Lazarus) as well as faking his own resurrection. Something to consider when trying to label it as myth, legend or factual stories.

I wouldn't put much weight on the ideas of Steuart Campbell. Just reading the product description, I can already see one glaring fallacy. The idea of a messiah who would die and be resurrected simply did not exist at that time. So to argue that Jesus knowingly planned to fake his death and then be resurrected simply doesn't work as there would be no point.

Also, his personal comments about the book, he claims that no one else had put together these supposed clues, that he had some special insight. That in itself makes me want to avoid him. That and he is a writer of pseudoscience, I give little stock in what he writes.

 

[fallingblood]

Why would people die for a lie?

Because they believe in the lie. It is as simple as that.

 

[Eldameldo]

I wouldn't put much weight on the ideas of Steuart Campbell. Just reading the product description, I can already see one glaring fallacy. The idea of a messiah who would die and be resurrected simply did not exist at that time. So to argue that Jesus knowingly planned to fake his death and then be resurrected simply doesn't work as there would be no point.

Also, his personal comments about the book, he claims that no one else had put together these supposed clues, that he had some special insight. That in itself makes me want to avoid him. That and he is a writer of pseudoscience, I give little stock in what he writes.

May I point out, whether people believed the Messiah would die and be resurrected, Isaiah 53 points to this.
Verse 8 ...that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

verse 12
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.


notice the dividing the spoil takes place after he is dead.

 

[fallingblood]

May I point out, whether people believed the Messiah would die and be resurrected, Isaiah 53 points to this.
Verse 8 ...that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

verse 12
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.


notice the dividing the spoil takes place after he is dead.

Notice that it actually says nothing about the Messiah.

 

[idav]

The idea of a messiah who would die and be resurrected simply did not exist at that time.

I'm not so sure about that. Besides the story was a twisting of the Jewish texts to make it seem like something was being fulfilled. So someone had the idea to do it whether they actually attempted it or just wrote that someone did it. For example the NT has jesus talking about Jonah being in the whale for 3 days and the writers, in hindsight, conveniently attribute that to a prophecy of a resurrection as well as Lazarus coincidentally being out for 3 days. They literally took the jewish texts and did everything they could to make match some modern marvel of jesus.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm not so sure about that. Besides the story was a twisting of the Jewish texts to make it seem like something was being fulfilled. So someone had the idea to do it whether they actually attempted it or just wrote that someone did it. For example the NT has jesus talking about Jonah being in the whale for 3 days and the writers, in hindsight, conveniently attribute that to a prophecy of a resurrection as well as Lazarus coincidentally being out for 3 days. They literally took the jewish texts and did everything they could to make match some modern marvel of jesus.

If you look at the Jewish ideas concerning the Messiah, a dying and resurrected Jesus simply was not present. It was not an idea that was in circulation until after Jesus died.

It was only after the death of Jesus that the idea that the Messiah would die and be resurrected came about. And it was in direct response to the idea that some believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and thus whatever happened to him must have been part of the Messianic idea.

The NT may say something about the Messiah having to die and be resurrected, but that idea was only created after Jesus died. Before that, there was no such expectations. Thus, it would be impossible for Jesus to have tried to fulfill an expectation that simply did not exist.

 

[idav]

If you look at the Jewish ideas concerning the Messiah, a dying and resurrected Jesus simply was not present. It was not an idea that was in circulation until after Jesus died.

It was only after the death of Jesus that the idea that the Messiah would die and be resurrected came about. And it was in direct response to the idea that some believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and thus whatever happened to him must have been part of the Messianic idea.

The NT may say something about the Messiah having to die and be resurrected, but that idea was only created after Jesus died. Before that, there was no such expectations. Thus, it would be impossible for Jesus to have tried to fulfill an expectation that simply did not exist.

When did this idea start circulating. The writings that we have are long after the event would have taken place. If someone would have actually attempted the idea it would give a good reason as to why a story started being copied so much and given so much acceptance.

Don't get me wrong I think it is much more likely the writers did it themselves based off of some great philosopher. Either way someone had the idea to take all the stories of the jewish texts and turn them into something that nobody thought of before and it was fairly elaborate the way they pieced it together. It seemed very planned and schemed whether or not someone actually attempted the miracles. But how easy would it have been for someone to just say 'guess what my mom was a virgin when she had me, praise god'. Then again that whole "virgin" thing probably mistranslated but you get the idea.

 

[fallingblood]

When did this idea start circulating. The writings that we have are long after the event would have taken place. If someone would have actually attempted the idea it would give a good reason as to why a story started being copied so much and given so much acceptance.

Don't get me wrong I think it is much more likely the writers did it themselves based off of some great philosopher. Either way someone had the idea to take all the stories of the jewish texts and turn them into something that nobody thought of before and it was fairly elaborate the way they pieced it together. It seemed very planned and schemed whether or not someone actually attempted the miracles. But how easy would it have been for someone to just say 'guess what my mom was a virgin when she had me, praise god'. Then again that whole "virgin" thing probably mistranslated but you get the idea.

There is one problem with that idea. We are talking about writings that occurred around 40 years at earliest. We can skip Paul for this as he tells us little about Jesus.

That is some time for those writers, after hearing the stories, to look back into their scripture and find texts that supposedly backed up their writing. That is actually exactly what happened.

We will take the idea of the virgin birth. Our earliest sources actually don't speak of it (Mark and Paul). Matthew and Luke disagree about the actual story. So it is unlikely Jesus ever said he was born of a virgin, or that the idea was circulating during his life.

However, we know that at sometime the story was created and began to circulate. Matthew takes the story, and claims that it was predicted in the OT. He says that Isaiah had stated it would be a Messianic expectation. However, if one looks at the passage, it never states anything about the Messiah. More so, if taken in context, one would see that the prophecy spoken of in the passage had already been fulfilled.

So what do we have? Someone after the fact, taking the life of Jesus, and trying to place it into the OT. If one looks at the various prophecies that Jesus supposedly filled, one will see that they have nothing to do with the Messiah, nor mention the Messiah.

So it isn't that Jesus was trying to fit into a character that is described in the OT. Instead, Jesus did things, grew a following, that following believed he was the Messiah, and then later on, searched the scripture to find ideas that could be molded into the life of Jesus.

It was only after the death of Jesus that those so called prophecies began to be searched out.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It was only after the death of Jesus that those so called prophecies began to be searched out.

I couldn't agree more.

However, the question lingers about Jesus's understanding of Scripture.

If he was an apocalyptic teacher, he may well have taught a that a few of those prophesies concerning himself and his times were coming true.

 

[idav]

We are talking about writings that occurred around 40 years at earliest.

One issue with that is the fact that we just don't have the earliest writings. We only have the earliest writings that survived the test of time. The earlier writings could have easily had indications that the prophet referenced the OT as the actions were taking place. When we go to the earliest writings we see only a prophet with valuable sayings as in the gospel of Thomas. Could there have been writings as old as those that had Jesus actually prophesying based on the OT in respect to the miracles that were happening?

We can't really determine if as you say "Someone after the fact, taking the life of Jesus, and trying to place it into the OT". It could have just as well someone actually doing these things in knowledge of what the OT had. Whoever would have done this would have had to been a serious OT scholar even if it was a sci fi version of the OT. It could have easily been someone simulating these things and writers and followers eating up. The other explanation being that someone actually did these miracles with no trickery which would be more the christian stance.

 

[ellenjanuary]

After watching The God Who Wasn't There by Brian Flemming, I decided to write a book on the Jesus Myth. I've written papers for and against the subject in the past (as I've been on both sides of the issue), but decided to write a more in depth discussion on the subject, taking the position that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, but was not as the Bible portrays him.

As I would like this to be all inclusive, with me not leaving out anything that may be considered important, I would just like to get everyone's arguments for and against.

So basically, is the Jesus Myth true?

A book! I'ma gonna write an essay on why Jesus was Agenda from jump - this time without the hallucinations - using the Holy Spirit. I remember something like 38000 sects of Christianity vs, like 2, for Islam. There's my best argument in a nutshell.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A book! I'ma gonna write an essay on why Jesus was Agenda from jump - this time without the hallucinations - using the Holy Spirit. I remember something like 38000 sects of Christianity vs, like 2, for Islam. There's my best argument in a nutshell.

Or, rather 38000 sects of: Christendom.
There is a difference between Christendom and first-century Christianity.
Jesus explained in Matthew chapter seven that 'many' would come 'in his name' but prove false.

Christendom professes to follow Jesus but its teachings do not match 1st-century Christian teachings of Christ, so that makes Christendom as counterfeit Christianity or the 'many' of Matthew chapter seven.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Or, rather 38000 sects of: Christendom.
There is a difference between Christendom and first-century Christianity.
Jesus explained in Matthew chapter seven that 'many' would come 'in his name' but prove false.

Christendom professes to follow Jesus but its teachings do not match 1st-century Christian teachings of Christ, so that makes Christendom as counterfeit Christianity or the 'many' of Matthew chapter seven.

Yeah but... where'd your Holy Spirit come from, cause I know you hooked up... if one was to just read the gospels, try to find the Spirit, they'd just get thirsty. Alla controversy 'cause the churches looking for truth, don't realize they got played.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God's holy spirit itself comes from God. -Romans 8v26;16

 

[ellenjanuary]

God's holy spirit itself comes from God. -Romans 8v26;16

Through the prophet "flavoring" the Spirit with locality. That's why the OT prophets have a different feel. There's no locality to the Christ, it's like the blood without the body; so one has to pick up the "body" through either the rest of the Bible, the church, or outside study, leading to confusion.

 

[Ilisrum]

In my opinion, one of the strongest cases for Jesus' historicity is the portrayal of John the Baptist in the Gospels. There would have been no reason for the authors to invent the story of Jesus' baptism by John. It was clearly a huge problem for them and it would have been much more helpful to their cause if they had just excised the story altogether. That Mark, and subsequently Matthew and Luke, included the story (however distorted) shows that the tradition goes back to a real historical event.

 

[outhouse]

In my opinion, one of the strongest cases for Jesus' historicity is the portrayal of John the Baptist in the Gospels. There would have been no reason for the authors to invent the story of Jesus' baptism by John. It was clearly a huge problem for them and it would have been much more helpful to their cause if they had just excised the story altogether. That Mark, and subsequently Matthew and Luke, included the story (however distorted) shows that the tradition goes back to a real historical event.

in the same respect, if one was thought to be a hellenistic hero only from oral tradition, one's story could easily grow up into and around the culture.

if one thought john had baptised him because thats who would have if he existed, it would be attributed to john despite actual historicity.

like many hebrew fables, often there is a nugget of truth behind it. But not always. Moses is another historical figure and he has zero historicity. The lager the man is in the story, sometimes its less that we have to work with.

looking at their past and their own literal history leaves me wondering.

Im still %60 for and I think that is giving allot.

 

[Ilisrum]

in the same respect, if one was thought to be a hellenistic hero only from oral tradition, one's story could easily grow up into and around the culture.

True. But we know that others from Hellenistic myth existed or had their lives mythologized and embellished. Midas of Phrygia is probably historical and philosophers such as Pythagoras were mythologized to a point where his historicity can possibly be doubted. Paris (or his historic prototype Alaksandu of Wilusa) of the Homeric myths may be historical, though unlikely.

if one thought john had baptized him because that's who would have if he existed, it would be attributed to john despite actual historicity.

Yeah, you can say that, but that sounds more like special pleading to me. Come on, you know better than that. Why would they say John baptized him when it would have been so much simpler for them to leave this event out all together?

The Islamic Gospel of Barnabas makes no mention of a baptism by John, though this isn't surprising since Muslims don't practice baptism. Either way, it would have worked just as easily, and to the advantage of the evangelists, to not mention this event at all.

ike many hebrew fables, often there is a nugget of truth behind it. But not always. Moses is another historical figure and he has zero historicity. The lager the man is in the story, sometimes its less that we have to work with.

The difference between the Moses story, which was written several centuries later and had political as well as theological purposes to serve, the Jesus story was written only several decades after his death. His historicity isn't really an issue since the Jesus figure (as opposed to the Christ myth), seems plausible enough in that particular setting. Besides, Josephus mentions both Jesus and his brother James, and we know from early church historians that Jesus had nephews that were leaders in the Jerusalem Church. Sure, they could have lied about their lineage, but what purpose would it serve in the eyes of both the Roman government and the Jewish authorities? They would have been trapped between a rock and a hard place.
But I'm no expert. That's just my two cents.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah, you can say that, but that sounds more like special pleading to me. Come on, you know better than that.

I do understand that most scholars will back the historicity of john actually baptising yeshua. Its one of those certainties on a very very small list.

me I like to keep my options open and investigate all possibilities even though its been done by proffesionls with 100x my education on the subject.

His historicity isn't really an issue

his historicity isnt overwhelming either.

Ive been running with this.

he was a traveling hellenistic teacher of judaism who was baptised by john and was a healer. he ticked off the pharisees and romans who quickly crucified him.

beyond that little can be said with any certainty

 

[Otherright]

I do understand that most scholars will back the historicity of john actually baptising yeshua. Its one of those certainties on a very very small list.

me I like to keep my options open and investigate all possibilities even though its been done by proffesionls with 100x my education on the subject.



his historicity isnt overwhelming either.

Ive been running with this.

he was a traveling hellenistic teacher of judaism who was baptised by john and was a healer. he ticked off the pharisees and romans who quickly crucified him.

beyond that little can be said with any certainty

Yeah, I have to agree with you outhouse. His historicity isn't overwhelming at all. Its kind of lackluster when you study it. Even the miracles attributed to him are debatable as to whether or not they are complete interpolation.