The Jesus Myth

[Dirty Penguin]

I have a hard time getting my head entirely around your point, so I'll wing it.

The Bible seems different in kind from your other examples. People use it to root their entire beings. They use it to explain why we're here and what we're to do. The others aren't like that. They are entertainment.

This is similar to my position. People in the scriptures traced their genealogy back to Adam and Eve. Yeshua's genealogy traces itself back to Adam and Eve. The NT talks of Adam and Eve as though they were real people and are the ones responsible for bringing "sin" into the world. The story of Adam and Eve and their descendents gives one the impression it's talking about flesh and blood humans but considering man has been on this planet tens of thousands of years the current theme now suggest that the Adam and Eve story was a metaphor. Now, if the story is a metaphor then how are any of the other stories that equate their supposed existence to Adam and Eve any more real than the Adam and Eve story? How is the story of Yeshua (not counting the fantastical claims) any more real than the Adam and Eve story given the writers of the NT, in order to show he was the prophesied savior, connected a genealogy right back to Adam and Eve....

It's a head scratcher......

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a hard time getting my head entirely around your point, so I'll wing it.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[fallingblood]

I think that studying the Bible as one might study Greek and Roman mythology is just fine.

There is one problem though. You are lumping the Bible into just one book. It's not that. It is a collection of books. Some contain mythological elements, yes. However, some also contain historical information.

Considering that both Jesus and Paul also rank up in being some of the most important figures in western history, much can be learned from the Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the passage is in question, then it gives little credibility to the idea that Jesus can read. From what can be seen in this passage from Luke, it is unlikely that it was actually something that occurred, but instead, was something created by Luke, or someone who shared Luke's theology.

Sorry, but that argument is simply incoherent.

I find that unlikely though. Scholars, in the past, have wanted to believe that literacy in Israel was higher. However, as more research has been done on the subject, the conclusion continues to be that literacy was exceptionally low in the area.

With what recent scholarship are you familiar? What relevant text about the 2nd Temple Period would you recommend?

As for vowel letters in Hebrew, I don't think that would change much as the common language was Aramaic. Hebrew, at the time, was a limited language.

What you think is not particularly relevant. What is relevant, however, is your apparent penchant for circular reasoning. There is zero basis for the presumption that a nascent religious sect leader would be functionally illiterate when it came to Hebrew religious text.

 

[fallingblood]

Sorry, but that argument is simply incoherent.

How so? If one can show that the particular verse does not go back to Jesus, but was instead created by Luke or someone who shared his ideas, then it can not be proof that Jesus was literate.

Since the verse is in question (Luke 4:18-19), as it is only attested to in one source, the story itself is improbable, and that it fits to well into Lukan theology, and not the theology that one would expect from Jesus, it is safe to rule it out as an authentic account of Jesus. Instead, at some later point, it was inserted into the Jesus story. Thus, it can not be used to show that Jesus was literate

With what recent scholarship are you familiar? What relevant text about the 2nd Temple Period would you recommend?

Here is a great source to begin with Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the first centuries c.e. A great source, even though a little older, is William Harris's work, Ancient Literacy. For more among just Jews, Catherine Hezser's work, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine is good.

What you think is not particularly relevant. What is relevant, however, is your apparent penchant for circular reasoning. There is zero basis for the presumption that a nascent religious sect leader would be functionally illiterate when it came to Hebrew religious text.

It is relevant if it is based off of logic, and historical knowledge. And there has been no circular reasoning. If there has been, please point it out.

Really though, Jesus did not need to know Hebrew. The common language was Aramaic. The Hebrew scripture was already being translated into Aramaic. Since Jesus never mentions any formal training, and no one else seems to do so until much later, there is little reason to assume that he received any. There is no suggestion he learned Hebrew from his parents, or that he could read or speak Hebrew. There is no real suggestion that he could read.

So a knowledge of Hebrew was not necessary, especially considering that one could memorize all that they would need of it. They could memorize this by their parents teaching them the scripture (based on their memorization of it which would be passed down by the mother), and by hearing it preached out loud.

And with the amount that Jesus actually quotes the Hebrew scriptures, there is no reason to believe he had to actually read it in order to know it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How so? If one can show that the particular verse does not go back to Jesus, but was instead created by Luke or someone who shared his ideas, then it can not be proof that Jesus was literate.

1. You've shown no such thing.
2. At issue is 'evidence,' not 'proof'.
3. Given the above, your comment is a non sequitur at best.

 

[fallingblood]

1. You've shown no such thing.
2. At issue is 'evidence,' not 'proof'.
3. Given the above, your comment is a non sequitur at best.

1) Actually I have. At the time being, the arguments that I have created have not been rebutted, so they still stand.

The fact that it is only attested to in one Gospel means that it is questionable at best. Then add to the fact that Jesus would not have been able to read the supposed verse he did (as it doesn't exist), adds more problem. Instead, what we see is that he supposedly read from two different verses. However, that would not have been possible in the manner that it is written. The reason being that he would not have been able to seamlessly jump from one verse to the other, while at the same time editing them in order to make them fit into an idea that we see no where else being attested to.

Finally, since the revised verses fit so well into Lukan theology, it is logical to assume that someone, either the author, or someone who had the same theology, created them and inserted them into the story. Add this to the rest of the actual story, of Jesus foreshadowing that his mission would go to the Jews, be rejected by them, and then move onto the Gentiles (which is a theme seen in both Luke and Acts), it is highly unlikely that the story actually goes back to Jesus.

Thus, it can not be used in order to support the idea that Jesus was literate, since at best, the story is questionable.

2) Fine, it can not be evidence that Jesus was literate. Really changes nothing.

3) You haven't shown that to be true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is one problem though. You are lumping the Bible into just one book. It's not that. It is a collection of books. Some contain mythological elements, yes. However, some also contain historical information.

Considering that both Jesus and Paul also rank up in being some of the most important figures in western history, much can be learned from the Bible.

I don't want to burst any balloons, but in my opinion the Bible is even now going the way of the Odyssey. In 200-300 years, I suspect that people will view the Bible as most of us now view Greek and Roman mythology. Sure, they informed our culture. Yes, they are valuable artifacts of our history. But Jesus will be seen as we now see Apollo, and Paul will be viewed as a fanatical religion-creator. It's already becoming this way in Britain and other European countries.

Just my opinion of it, of course.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't want to burst any balloons, but in my opinion the Bible is even now going the way of the Odyssey. In 200-300 years, I suspect that people will view the Bible as most of us now view Greek and Roman mythology. Sure, they informed our culture. Yes, they are valuable artifacts of our history. But Jesus will be seen as we now see Apollo, and Paul will be viewed as a fanatical religion-creator. It's already becoming this way in Britain and other European countries.

Just my opinion of it, of course.

I highly doubt that. For one, the Bible has been used quite often to help in archeological excavations. For history of the Middle East, it is important to a point as it gives us one more view point.

As for Jesus, I highly doubt that he will be seen as people now see Apollo. The reason being that Jesus was a historical figure. As for both Paul and Jesus, whether or not they are seen as fanatics, it doesn't take away their importance. Whether one is religious or not, that doesn't take away the fact that both Jesus and Paul are some of the most important figures in Western history. The reason being simple. Christianity plays a crucial role in Western history. That simply can not be denied. And as long as history is valued, Paul and Jesus will have a place in that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As for Jesus, I highly doubt that he will be seen as people now see Apollo. The reason being that Jesus was a historical figure.

Well, not in my opinion. And my guess is that more and more people will move toward my view as his theological importance diminishes.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, not in my opinion. And my guess is that more and more people will move toward my view as his theological importance diminishes.

His theological importance can completely disappear, and it wouldn't matter. Because Western history is intimately tied to Jesus. Jesus plays a huge part in western history because of the movement that he started. Regardless of ones religion, one can not deny the importance that Jesus served.

Without the movement that he created, Western history would be completely difference. And again, the difference between Apollo and Jesus, Jesus existed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1) Actually I have.

Actually, you have not. What you've 'proven' is that Luke did not quote from the KJV or its vorlage, nothing else. Congratulations on a thoroughly underwhelming accomplishment.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, you have not. What you've 'proven' is that Luke did not quote from the KJV or its vorlage, nothing else. Congratulations on a thoroughly underwhelming accomplishment.

Luke would have been quoting from the Septuagint. I'm a little more familiar with Bible translations than the KJV.

And yes, I have proven my point. You were under the wrong impression when you believed that I was comparing what Luke was saying to the KJV. And really, that was just a small amount of the argument. You haven't shown it to be flawed, so it still stands.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

His theological importance can completely disappear, and it wouldn't matter.

OK, I just disagree. Without the cultural respect -- the assumption that Christianity is somehow 'legit' -- the church on every street corner -- I think lots more people would disbelieve in the historicity of Jesus. Minds are clouded by all of that in our current world.

In other words, a space alien or AI robot, looking at the evidence for the first time and without any dog in the fight, would likelier disbelieve in the historical Jesus than believe.

Anyway, I think we've expressed ourselves on this issue. You can have the last word on it if you like.

Because Western history is intimately tied to Jesus. Jesus plays a huge part in western history because of the movement that he started. Regardless of ones religion, one can not deny the importance that Jesus served.

I obviously agree that Christianity has played a huge part in western history -- mostly because it became (by political fiat and the sword) the majority state religion in the west -- but I don't see Jesus himself as playing any role at all. I couldn't think so, since I don't think he existed in any form recognizable to us.

Without the movement that he created, Western history would be completely difference. And again, the difference between Apollo and Jesus, Jesus existed.

Jesus created no movement. Paul and the gospel writers did that. Jesus didn't even exist.

Last word to you unless you want to argue something specific.

 

[sojourner]

There is zero basis for the presumption that a nascent religious sect leader would be functionally illiterate when it came to Hebrew religious text.

There's every archaeological basis. Most Judaic boys of the time were taught the texts by rote memorization -- not reading. It is possible that Jesus could read a little. But it's far more likely that, being a rural Galilean, he was illiterate, like over 85% of his colleagues.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus created no movement. Paul and the gospel writers did that. Jesus didn't even exist.

Most serious scholars think that Jesus did exist. There is as much (or more) written about Jesus early on than about many of the certifiable "celebrities" of the period.

I think you're downplaying Xy as just another cultural myth. However, the difference between Xy and other religions is that Xy is not tied to a specific culture or even geographical area. Xy has changed to meet the demands of the cultural environment in which it has found itself.

 

[InChrist]

Except it would not have been possible to read that passage, as there is no passage that states that. It is a combination and editing of three verses.

[FONT=&quot]Whether it was possible to “read” the passage as Jesus did you or I can’t know since we cannot see the scroll which the words were written on. But my perspective is that Jesus knew the words by heart and chose to say them as He did (or edit them as you say) for a purpose. He could do this because He (as God) had already inspired Isaiah to write all of what was written in the first place.[/FONT]

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think you're downplaying Xy as just another cultural myth. However, the difference between Xy and other religions is that Xy is not tied to a specific culture or even geographical area. Xy has changed to meet the demands of the cultural environment in which it has found itself.

Yes, it's big. No doubt about that. Western Europe pretty much conquered the world, after all -- spreading its religion to all parts of it.

But I think Islam is beginning to do the same thing so far as cultural contouring. I'll be curious to see how American Muslims and middle eastern Muslims get along theologically in another 50 years. Not so well, I'm thinking. I expect some serious schisms. Islam is youngish, after all, and has been pretty insular until now. I see no reason why it won't undergo the same growing experience as Christianity has done as it gets nourished among educated, well-to-do practitioners in free societies.

 

[fallingblood]

OK, I just disagree. Without the cultural respect -- the assumption that Christianity is somehow 'legit' -- the church on every street corner -- I think lots more people would disbelieve in the historicity of Jesus. Minds are clouded by all of that in our current world.

In other words, a space alien or AI robot, looking at the evidence for the first time and without any dog in the fight, would likelier disbelieve in the historical Jesus than believe.

Anyway, I think we've expressed ourselves on this issue. You can have the last word on it if you like.

That simply is not true. Even for those who do not believe Christianity is legit, the idea that Jesus is a historical figure still factors in. The reason being that there is little to no reason to assume that he didn't exist.

The problem is when atheists, and non-Christians decided that if a historical Jesus existed, he had to be exactly how the Bible states. That simply is false and based on a lack of research on the actual subject of the historical Jesus.

There really is no reason to not believe that a historical figure named Jesus existed. As it stands, the popular Jesus myth simply can not hold water, and is easily debunked with a little research. The reason being we have more evidence for him than many other historical figures.

I obviously agree that Christianity has played a huge part in western history -- mostly because it became (by political fiat and the sword) the majority state religion in the west -- but I don't see Jesus himself as playing any role at all. I couldn't think so, since I don't think he existed in any form recognizable to us.

That's fine. However, you would have the burden of proof when it comes to that idea. If you don't think he existed, then you have the burden of proving that idea.

Jesus created no movement. Paul and the gospel writers did that. Jesus didn't even exist.

Last word to you unless you want to argue something specific.

The Gospel writers never created a movement. The movement was already started by that time. We know this because Paul had already been working in that movement. More so, the Gospels were based on oral tradition, and this tradition preceded it by around 4 decades. They couldn't create a movement that already existed.

As for Paul, he didn't start the movement either. We can be sure of this as he tells us straight out that there was already a movement that he was persecuting. It was that movement that he joined. So again, the movement had to exist before him, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to actually persecute it.

More so, he tells us that the movement was centralized in Jerusalem, and was headed by James, Peter, and John. James was the brother of Jesus (as Paul tells us), and Peter and John were disciples. So the movement must have existed before Paul if it was headed by someone else.

Really, there is no reason to assume Paul or the Gospel writers created something that we can know for sure existed before them. And the fact that Paul states that he met with James, the brother of Jesus, gives us every reason to assume that his movement centered around Jesus, came from a historical Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, it's big. No doubt about that. Western Europe pretty much conquered the world, after all -- spreading its religion to all parts of it.

But I think Islam is beginning to do the same thing so far as cultural contouring. I'll be curious to see how American Muslims and middle eastern Muslims get along theologically in another 50 years. Not so well, I'm thinking. I expect some serious schisms. Islam is youngish, after all, and has been pretty insular until now. I see no reason why it won't undergo the same growing experience as Christianity has done as it gets nourished among educated, well-to-do practitioners in free societies.

Christianity is still the largest growing religion though. And with it also being the quickest growing religion in China, which is to be the next superpower; Christianity seems to have quite the staying power.

As for Islam doing the same thing, that doesn't wipe away the fact that Western History will always, to a point, be effected by Christianity. You can't rewrite history without Christianity. If Islam ends up having the same influence, it just means that one will not be able to write history with out including Islam as well. As a side note, Islam is also influenced by Christianity, so Christianity, at least to a point, will remain to have some influence regardless.

However, this would not be the first time that Islam was a major player in the world. Islam has already ran a huge empire, and it's influence can not be denied in many European and Asian countries. It really hasn't been insular at all, when one realizes that it was already once a big player in the world.

I don't see it becoming dominant though, and if it does, it will be more liberal than it is now. Americans will not accept a conservative form of Islam, and neither will Europeans. For the Western world to really accept Islam, it will have to become more liberal. And that is what one is seeing in western societies (this is not including Muslim immigrants, as that is a different story. However, there is little doubt that their children will become more and more liberal in their beliefs, if they already aren't). That is simply the way that religion is going in the Western world.

As for a problem arising between American and European Muslims, I see no reason why.