The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

Without real evidence that Jesus was "Hellenistic"(?), It seems most likely that He was an Aramaic speaking Jew...like how He's portrayed...There are also subtle things that set Jesus apart, one of these being His hair, which He wore in the Nazarean fashion. I think there needs to be a more concise definition of Hellenic regardless, is language being referred to here? Geography? Customs? Religion?

There is no evidence he wore his hair in the fashion of the Nazarean. In fact, comparing Jesus to what was expected of a Nazarean, Jesus simply does not fit.

 

[Storm]

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?

I think so, though certainly embellished.

I'd like to help as much as possible, but I'm not sure what details you're looking for.

Could you give me some sample questions?

Reposting 'cause I think you missed it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are also subtle things that set Jesus apart, one of these being His hair, which He wore in the Nazarean fashion.

Right. Because a lot of what is accounted for as "evidence" historically speaking is hearsay etc.

Apparently, a lot of what is accounted as evidence - Pot-Kettle speaking, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. What possible information do you have concerning his appearance. For that matter, what evidence do you have concerning 1st century CE Nazarean [sic] fashion?

 

[Desert Snake]

Apparently, a lot of what is accounted as evidence - Pot-Kettle speaking, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. What possible information do you have concerning his appearance. For that matter, what evidence do you have concerning 1st century CE Nazarean [sic] fashion?

I guess I should answer this... Are you saying that there's no hearsay as to the appearance of Jesus? I assumed the hearsay was that He was a Jewish person who lived in Israel, had long hair and is usually depicted with a sparse beard...but that could just be the millions of statues, icons, drawings of Him... anyway I think I'll bail this thread now...hasta!

 

[fallingblood]

Reposting 'cause I think you missed it.

I did miss that.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I was looking for anymore. I'm not really sure why this thread was brought up again either.

At this point though, I think I would like to hear any argument for Jesus not existing.

 

[Storm]

Ah. Can't help you there.

 

[fallingblood]

I guess I should answer this... Are you saying that there's no hearsay as to the appearance of Jesus? I assumed the hearsay was that He was a Jewish person who lived in Israel, had long hair and is usually depicted with a sparse beard...but that could just be the millions of statues, icons, drawings of Him... anyway I think I'll bail this thread now...hasta!

The way he is depicted really has no bearing on how he actually looked. The long haired, sparse beard view has little to do with Jesus, and more to do with how much later artists, based on their areas (primarily Europe), decided to depict him.

It is highly unlikely that he had long hair. He probably had a full beard. He was not light skinned, as he is generally depicted, but instead was darker skinned.

 

[Desert Snake]

The way he is depicted really has no bearing on how he actually looked. The long haired, sparse beard view has little to do with Jesus, and more to do with how much later artists, based on their areas (primarily Europe), decided to depict him.

It is highly unlikely that he had long hair. He probably had a full beard. He was not light skinned, as he is generally depicted, but instead was darker skinned.

O.k. I'm back Well on that point I agree, there is a good chance Jesus was quite dark complected. Not that this has anything with Him being a myth or not.

 

[Muffled]

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?

Yes it is true.

God inspired the writing of the Bible.

God speaks the truth.

Therefore the Bible is true.

However one should not confuse truth with inerrancy. The errors are true errors.

 

[Muffled]

O.k. I'm back Well on that point I agree, there is a good chance Jesus was quite dark complected. Not that this has anything with Him being a myth or not.

The Bible does not contain a description of skin pigment. There are extra-biblical myths based on assumptions of what Jews must have looked like based on what they look like today but that doesn't work very well since Jews are well mixed these days.

The truth is that the skin pigment could have been anything even blue since Jesus was at least one half creation. Of course one would expect Biblical authors to comment if his skin pigment was blue. Perhaps with no comment, one could presume that Jesus was not much different from other people of His day.

 

[Muffled]

I just figure with many that think he knew some koine greek even if he was illiterate and with Galilee being partially hellenistic. wasnt much of a way for him not to be.

I think I coined that from another historians site anyway

He could not be illiterate and readfrom the prophet Isaiah. That also meant that He could read Hebrew.

His statement on the cross "Eli eli...." was an Aramaic statement and since that was the lingua franca of Galilee it seems likely that it was His usual spoken language. Jesus is never reported as having spoken or read Greek.

 

[waitasec]

Yes it is true.

God inspired the writing of the Bible.
.......

However one should not confuse truth with inerrancy. The errors are true errors.

:thud::sad:

 

[fallingblood]

He could not be illiterate and readfrom the prophet Isaiah. That also meant that He could read Hebrew.

His statement on the cross "Eli eli...." was an Aramaic statement and since that was the lingua franca of Galilee it seems likely that it was His usual spoken language. Jesus is never reported as having spoken or read Greek.

He actually would not have had to known Hebrew. The OT had been translated into both Greek and Aramaic by that time.

As for Jesus reading from Isaiah, there are problems from that story. One, being that the verses he read from would have been impossible to do so in the manner in which he did. The reason being that they would have been written on a scroll, and the verses Jesus read from would have been too far apart to actually have been read together smoothly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One, being that the verses he read from would have been impossible to do so in the manner in which he did. The reason being that they would have been written on a scroll, and the verses Jesus read from would have been too far apart to actually have been read together smoothly.

As someone who frequents the synagogue and has more than once seen multiple passages read from the Torah scroll, I'm a little unclear as to your comment. What verses were being read? Why would that have posed a problem? And where do we find some reference or explanation concerning the smoothness of delivery?

 

[sojourner]

He could not be illiterate and readfrom the prophet Isaiah.

Yes he could. Jewish boys were taught the text by rote. Most of them were illiterate.

 

[fallingblood]

As someone who frequents the synagogue and has more than once seen multiple passages read from the Torah scroll, I'm a little unclear as to your comment. What verses were being read? Why would that have posed a problem? And where do we find some reference or explanation concerning the smoothness of delivery?

The verses in which this story appears is Luke 4:18-19. In it, Jesus is quoting from Isaiah. He starts at Isaiah 61:1, jumps to Isaiah 58:6, and then back to Isaiah 61:2.

From my understanding, to do so seamlessly would not have been possible.

As a side note, Isaiah 61:1 and 61:2 are modified as well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The verses in which this story appears is Luke 4:18-19. In it, Jesus is quoting from Isaiah. He starts at Isaiah 61:1, jumps to Isaiah 58:6, and then back to Isaiah 61:2.

From my understanding, to do so seamlessly would not have been possible.

As a side note, Isaiah 61:1 and 61:2 are modified as well.

Thank you. Modified from what?

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you. Modified from what?

Modified was probably a bad term. They were edited in order to take out any real suggestion of Israel, and to fit more into Lukan theology of a world savior.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Modified was probably a bad term. They were edited in order to take out any real suggestion of Israel, and to fit more into Lukan theology of a world savior.

I'm sorry, what was edited? What are you holding up as the source?

 

[fallingblood]

I'm sorry, what was edited? What are you holding up as the source?

Isaiah 61:1 and Isaiah 61:2 were edited. In Isaiah 61:1, he omits to heal the broken hearted. In Isaiah 61:2, he omits "(to announce) a day of vindication, to console those who mourn, to give those of Zion who mourn glory instead of ashes." (this verse carries into verse 3).