The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

Sure. Intellectual arrogance mostly, I think.

You think wrong, and your thinking is based on nothing more than ignorance. You're the one making an incredible claim, that goes against what the accepted stance is. Thus, you have the burden of proof. You may want to actually start proving your point now (by showing evidence supporting your position) instead of making baseless statements.

For those of us who accept our own intellectual fallibility, it's not an either/or issue.

Great way to try to avoid the issue. But it doesn't get you very far.

Hey, could I so easily run circles around you in this sort of debate if I weren't familiar with the subject matter?

Well... umm... come to think of it... probably so.

Run circles around me? I think you're being a little delusional here. All you're doing is running away from the issues being presented by either being dismissive, using avoidance tactics, or whining that I'm not addressing the point you make. So yes, I can say you're not very familiar with the subject, as you simply have not shown any actual critical knowledge on the subject.

 

[fallingblood]

I figure it was passover during the time the guy should have been hanging on a cross so there would have been an influx of jews.

Why? He was just one more Jew being killed by Rome.

Most of them most likely never would have heard of Jesus. The reason being quite simple. Jesus did not travel extensively. He was primarily known in the Galilee area, where he preached. Thus, this influx of Jews, which would have been coming from all over, mostly would not have noticed him. He would, to them, be just one more Jew who was crucified.

On a side note, it really is not too surprising that no other Jews even mention Jesus during that time. First, we are talking about a society that was by and large illiterate. Second, we can look at another figure from that same general time period. Paul was not mentioned by other Jews from that time. Josephus does not even mention Paul. Yet, Paul traveled more extensively that Jesus did. Paul had a ministry that lasted much longer than that of Jesus. He got into trouble with the authorities, as Jesus had. Yet, no one mentions him. In fact, one can name many different Jews from that time that no one mentioned until much later.

This is simply the product of an oral culture in which the vast majority of people are illiterate.

 

[outhouse]

There would have been no reason for the Jews to create such a failing figure

except with the resurrection ,,, he now maigically didnt fail but gained strength

 

[doppelganger]

Just out of curiosity, given that it is almost impossible to verify whether any details of any stories about him are accurate with the possible exception of his being the brother of James, what difference does it really make whether there was one or more persons named "Jesus" if the bulk of what has been said about him rather obviously falls in the realm of metaphorical fiction?

In other words, if there was an historical person who was gradually mythologized into God, who cares? Fundamentalists will adamantly reject the suggestion that Jesus is anything other that what is literally described in the canonical Gospels - so they don't care. Aside from the need for this sort of belief-based faith, it's otherwise a relatively minor detail given how little we will ever be able to know about him.

It's a relatively close call as to whether there is evidence of a particular historical figure named "Jesus" that was the inspiration for all of what became Christianity. But even if there was, from the standpoint of historical methodology, there's almost nothing we can really say about this person, what he taught or what he did. As an historian, the various movements that claimed and been inspired by these stories is almost infinitely more important than the historical person (if there was one) and the events of his life that, no matter how you slice it, are almost entirely lost to history.

 

[outhouse]

The idea that Jesus was created in order to fulfill the desire of having a hero simply does not stand questioning.

I agree

it didnt start that way, but in the end he was elevated to that status as the movement carried him hundreds of years later.

people often miss that historical jesus and biblical jesus are not the same charactors

 

[fallingblood]

except with the resurrection ,,, he now maigically didnt fail but gained strength

However, the resurrection must be understood in a Jewish perspective. This is exactly how Paul presents it.

The resurrection was not a special event reserved just for Jesus. As Paul tells us, Jesus was thought only to be the first fruits, as in the first person in the general resurrection. The idea was the Jesus began the general resurrection, and soon, the faithful would undergo the resurrection themselves.

So even in that aspect, Jesus failed. The resurrection of Jesus, at first, signaled the general resurrection (again, that is how Paul presents it). Yet, that was a failed idea. As time went on, and the idea did not come to pass, it had to be revised. However, the initial idea did in fact fail.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree

it didnt start that way, but in the end he was elevated to that status as the movement carried him hundreds of years later.

people often miss that historical jesus and biblical jesus are not the same charactors

The last statement of yours really hits the nail on the head.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I figure it was passover during the time the guy should have been hanging on a cross so there would have been an influx of jews.

Yes, but not all of them were congested on one road during the short period of time that Jesus was being crucified. The Passover celebrations were not over yet - a large amount of people would not be leaving at the time of the crucifixion.

 

[fallingblood]

Just out of curiosity, given that it is almost impossible to verify whether any details of any stories about him are accurate with the possible exception of his being the brother of James, what difference does it really make whether there was one or more persons named "Jesus" if the bulk of what has been said about him rather obviously falls in the realm of metaphorical fiction?

Scholars are able to, with relative reliability, what Jesus would have done and even said in part. The process is the same used with various other historical figures who have also had mythical ideas attached to them.

However, the real importance lies in him being the founder of a movement that would eventually become Christianity. And since Christianity has had such a major impact on western history, Jesus has a great importance. Because of this importance, it does matter what we can actually know about him. And as research progresses, there is quite a bit that is being found out about Jesus with relative certainty.

In other words, if there was an historical person who was gradually mythologized into God, who cares? Fundamentalists will adamantly reject the suggestion that Jesus is anything other that what is literally described in the canonical Gospels - so they don't care. Aside from the need for this sort of belief-based faith, it's otherwise a relatively minor detail given how little we will ever be able to know about him.

Fundamentalists are a dying breed though. Religious people are becoming more and more liberal (especially in western societies). When one looks at book sales on the subject, or even the viewership of documentaries on the subject, one will find that many people are interested in the subject, even though modern critical scholarship does strip away the mythologized aspect of Jesus.

This is done for many of the same reasons we do it with any historical figure. Both Alexander the Great and Augustus were mythologized into gods. Yet, through research, those ideas are stripped away, and we get to see who those people were (as best as one can). It is done because they are important people in history, and knowing more about them reveals more about our history.

It's a relatively close call as to whether there is evidence of a particular historical figure named "Jesus" that was the inspiration for all of what became Christianity. But even if there was, from the standpoint of historical methodology, there's almost nothing we can really say about this person, what he taught or what he did. As an historian, the various movements that claimed and been inspired by these stories is almost infinitely more important than the historical person (if there was one) and the events of his life that, no matter how you slice it, are almost entirely lost to history.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the events of his life are almost entirely lost to history. We can know various things about Jesus based on him being a male Jew, living in Palestine (more specifically Galilee), in the first century. We can know various things about him based on his relationship with John the Baptist. We can know various things about him based on the Gospel accounts when they are critically viewed.

Historical methodology can tell us quite a bit about Jesus. Now, what we can know about Jesus may not be able to be labeled 100% accurate. There is some guesswork, and most things can not be said for complete certain. However, that is true with many historical figures.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

More so, I addressed the issue of plagiarism in a pervious section, which ironically, you also mentioned in this post and said you weren't talking about plagiarism.

Sigh....

No, Blood. I didn't say that I wasnt' talking about plagiarism.

I am indeed talking about plagiarism.

Yikes. It really isn't possible for us to communicate, is it? That's why I've asked if anyone else wants to address the issue of the synoptic gospels with me. You can't seem to get your head around it, but it is a very big point for me. I really would like to hear someone address it.

Anyone: Can you explain the apparent plagiarism in the synoptic gospels? Why is it there? Is there any other example of such plagiarism which you can post for me? I'd be really curious to see whether any other 3 books exists, purportedly by different authors, telling the same story... but with plagiarized language.

I've asked fallingblood for such examples, but he has not yet seen fit to post it or even to address my request.

Really, I'm coming to the conclusion you can't support your point, so all you can do is whine an complain that I won't address what you're saying or that I don't understand what you're saying. That is a childish tactic.

In case you're serious, try addressing the actual issues I raise. Then you'll hear no more whining from me about your refusal to address my issues.

 

[outhouse]

However, the resurrection must be understood in a Jewish perspective. This is exactly how Paul presents it.

The resurrection was not a special event reserved just for Jesus. As Paul tells us, Jesus was thought only to be the first fruits, as in the first person in the general resurrection. The idea was the Jesus began the general resurrection, and soon, the faithful would undergo the resurrection themselves.

So even in that aspect, Jesus failed. The resurrection of Jesus, at first, signaled the general resurrection (again, that is how Paul presents it). Yet, that was a failed idea. As time went on, and the idea did not come to pass, it had to be revised. However, the initial idea did in fact fail.

Yes but much later they used it for a sign of divinity

 

[fallingblood]

In case you're serious, try addressing the actual issues I raise. Then you'll hear no more whining from me about your refusal to address my issues.

You've just shown two things to me. One, you are either unable to, or unwilling to read what I have stated before (as I have addressed your issue multiple times now, and you simply only dismiss it). The second thing, you simply are a waste of time to debate as you refuse to enter into a mature debate. Instead of addressing the issue, you dismiss your opponents, and instead, you claim that they are not addressing your issue.

Clearly, you have very little knowledge on this subject, which is why you refuse to address the rebuttals I have given you, and why you continue to make so many elementary mistakes on your reasoning on this subject.

I'll answer your ridiculous question one more time. Why is there apparent plagiarism in the Gospels? Because the Gospel writers were using older sources in order to make their accounts. It is as simple as that. The Gospel writers are using older sources, and copying them in part, in order to make their accounts. Luke even tells us this directly. It is a ridiculous question, one that shows that you have done no actual research on the subject. And I can see why you keep saying that I'm not addressing your question, because if you acknowledged it, your main point simply would not be evidence for your idea.

 

[jelly]

Why? He was just one more Jew being killed by Rome.

Most of them most likely never would have heard of Jesus. The reason being quite simple. Jesus did not travel extensively. He was primarily known in the Galilee area, where he preached. Thus, this influx of Jews, which would have been coming from all over, mostly would not have noticed him. He would, to them, be just one more Jew who was crucified.

On a side note, it really is not too surprising that no other Jews even mention Jesus during that time. First, we are talking about a society that was by and large illiterate. Second, we can look at another figure from that same general time period. Paul was not mentioned by other Jews from that time. Josephus does not even mention Paul. Yet, Paul traveled more extensively that Jesus did. Paul had a ministry that lasted much longer than that of Jesus. He got into trouble with the authorities, as Jesus had. Yet, no one mentions him. In fact, one can name many different Jews from that time that no one mentioned until much later.

This is simply the product of an oral culture in which the vast majority of people are illiterate.

so quantify the number of jews who didn't mention jesus or his existence.

 

[fallingblood]

so quantify the number of jews who didn't mention jesus or his existence.

Why does it matter? 0 Jews mentioned Jesus during his life time. 0 Jews mentioned John the Baptist during his life time. 0 Jews mentioned Paul during his life time. It really doesn't matter. Because we do have one Jew, who was a contemporary of Jesus (Paul), who wrote about Jesus. He may not have written about Jesus during the life time of Jesus, but that really doesn't matter.

 

[jelly]

why?
because then I can apply your criteria about literacy to that number.

 

[fallingblood]

why?
because then I can apply your criteria about literacy to that number.

Yet you are asking for something that is impossible. And really, applying my criteria about literacy will do nothing anyway (more so, it is isn't my criteria. It is the excepted criteria).

How many Jesus didn't mention Jesus? It really doesn't matter. Especially when one considers that not every Jew, or even a majority of the Jews would have heard of him in the first place. And then you have to work out that the Jews who would have known about Jesus, were for the most part, rural Jews. The lower class, which makes literacy even lower.

Then you have to factor in that they were living in an oral culture, meaning that information, for the most part, was passed on by word of mouth.

So it doesn't matter how many Jews didn't mention him, or even how many literate Jews didn't mention him. That really is of no importance. Because we know for sure that Paul was in contact with literate Jews and Gentiles, and no one mentioned him anyway.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You think wrong, and your thinking is based on nothing more than ignorance.

If I'm ignorant, why do I so easily dominate you here in debate?

Curious question. You should probably think about it.

You're the one making an incredible claim, that goes against what the accepted stance is. Thus, you have the burden of proof.

Do you really have no idea how that looks, Blood -- the little game of trying to saddle the other guy with "the burden of proof"?

Really, you don't realize how that looks to those who take debate seriously?

You may want to actually start proving your point now (by showing evidence supporting your position)....

Since I have devastated all of your points with massive and irrefutable evidence, and actually proved to God Up Above that you come to this table with no evidence and puny argumentation, what more can I do?

HeeHee....

Run circles around me? I think you're being a little delusional here.

I once knew this little fighting gamecock. Oh, man... was he full of himself, strutting around the chickenyard all day, poking his chest way out.

Unfortunately, I'm a natural mimic. I can't help myself. If I hear a bird call, I answer back as best I can. If I see a man marching in front of a band, my legs start kicking up high, too.

So anyway, I started following the little gamecock around his pen, strutting high, poking out my chest. Of course, before very long, he noticed me. And he turned around and looked at me. And do you know what he said?

He said: I think you're being a little delusional, AmbiguousGuy.

(Don't mind me, everyone. I just like to tell stories sometimes.)

 

[Storm]

If I'm ignorant, why do I so easily dominate you here in debate?

Um... you don't. :sorry1:

 

[jelly]

Yet you are asking for something that is impossible. And really, applying my criteria about literacy will do nothing anyway (more so, it is isn't my criteria. It is the excepted criteria).

How many Jesus didn't mention Jesus? It really doesn't matter. Especially when one considers that not every Jew, or even a majority of the Jews would have heard of him in the first place. And then you have to work out that the Jews who would have known about Jesus, were for the most part, rural Jews. The lower class, which makes literacy even lower.

Then you have to factor in that they were living in an oral culture, meaning that information, for the most part, was passed on by word of mouth.

So it doesn't matter how many Jews didn't mention him, or even how many literate Jews didn't mention him. That really is of no importance. Because we know for sure that Paul was in contact with literate Jews and Gentiles, and no one mentioned him anyway.

so how much is a majority?

 

[sojourner]

Anyone: Can you explain the apparent plagiarism in the synoptic gospels? Why is it there? Is there any other example of such plagiarism which you can post for me? I'd be really curious to see whether any other 3 books exists, purportedly by different authors, telling the same story... but with plagiarized language.

What, specifically, makes you think the synopotics constitute plagiarism?