The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

nothing would make your story believable, but you can't seem to realize that.

Please show that then. Show me why nothing would make it believable. Or show why it is not believable.

1) you are making an assumption here, that jesus even existed.

Not really an assumption. It is the accepted view. I really don't have to prove something that is already the accepted view.

2) are you suggesting that jews entered the city through a path that did not include going past the city gates?

No, I'm suggesting that Jews did not enter the city on the day of Passover, when Jesus was crucified. They would have already entered the city quite some time before.

 

[fallingblood]

hmm next paragraph changes from the idea to an attempt at a factual statement.
anyways the story goes that imaginary man was crucified.
other than that I don't too much about the ctiy's layout, do you? can you let me know how many jews wouldn't enter the city as falligblood explained.
did jews even go to the city?

First, you have to show that Jesus was an imaginary man. The accepted view is that he is a historical figure. Really, there are only a handful of scholars who disagree. Since the accepted point of view is that Jesus exists, I really don't have to prove what is already accepted. However, that does mean you need to show why one should go against the accepted view. So please, tell me why you believe that Jesus was an imaginary man.

As for no one entering the city, they would have done so already about a week before. Jesus is said to have been crucified on Passover. Jews would not have been entering the town on Passover, as that would have been late. They would have needed to have been in the city at least the day before, in order to prepare for the Passover meal, and about a week before that to go through the purification rituals.

 

[fallingblood]

well there is this idea that some people subscribe to that during a time of year a certain religious group make a pilgrimage to a city where the jesus guy supposedly existed.
yet I have not heard of one recording of uncle jim bob becoming a christian and saying "hey I was there during the time this guy lived and died!"

Because the vast majority of people were illiterate. And when I say illiterate, I meaning more so they couldn't read. As even less people could write than could read. And even less could write well.

More so, since most couldn't read, writing was limited. In addition, they were living in an oral culture, where most information was passed on by word of mouth.

 

[fallingblood]

Now that's the big question. How do we separate the man from the myth in the narrative? Do we simply dismiss the esoteric claims such as (walking on water, turning water into wine.....) and try and construct a Yeshua without the magic? If so then we're left with a wondering teacher who ruffled a few feathers.

That is a great question, and really, not a simple one to answer. Serious research on the Historical Jesus isn't very old. It really only goes back about 2 centuries, which is relatively a short time. And since then, there has been quite a bit of debate on the subject.

But yes, we are left with basically a wandering teacher, who upset some. That would probably be a good summary.

 

[fallingblood]

True, but how can we be certain he was baptized and killed by the hanging on a cross?

They are embarrassing. The Gospel writers reluctantly seem to mention the baptism by John. And it goes against the standard idea of Jesus. Why would a sinless being need to be baptized? Many scholars have tried to answer just that. It just does not fit into the idea that people tried to portray of Jesus.

As for the crucifixion. Again, it was not what would have been expected. For the Messiah, dying on a cross proved he failed. A dead person can't reign as king.

 

[fallingblood]

that is not what it comes down to.
they story is just a rehash of prior tales.
what it comes down to is that people take it seriously.

Please provide some of these prior tales, and how they relate to that of Jesus.

 

[jelly]

hold on a second.
are you that foolish to believe that men didn't tell tales before the jesus story came along?
are you serious that you don't understand that special men called druids told stories.
there is WAY too much evidence, but you wouldn't believe me if I told you petorglyphs were stories.

 

[jelly]

Please show that then. Show me why nothing would make it believable. Or show why it is not believable.

1) I am stubborn and want evidence not testimony
and
2) produce a body.

Not really an assumption. It is the accepted view. I really don't have to prove something that is already the accepted view.

ok so it is true that the accepted view by somebody else is enough for you.

No, I'm suggesting that Jews did not enter the city on the day of Passover, when Jesus was crucified. They would have already entered the city quite some time before.

I am sure you got a million suggestions, but what I really want is a believable story.
can I suggest that you are incorrect in your assessment of the time when jews would have entered the city?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good grief ...

 

[jelly]

good morning.

 

[Caladan]

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 agree with the scholars who say that the Jesus Myth hysteria is, a hysteria.
But I would say that there are many historical factors that cannot be ignored when we look at the way early Christianity evolved into Imperial Christianity.
the mid eastern and mediterranean existence of the deity's rebirth, and the descension into hades or to an underworld, the Roman Imperial Cult, or the apotheosis of Roman Imperators, as in the case of Roman imperator Augustus, or in the Heroic cult of the Greek mythology in general. the later (Both the Roman and the Greek cases) were the social platform of the first centuries, and as the christian sect became less and less Judaic, it also shifted towards Hellenic social practices and became closer to the practices of Roman Imperial Cult, and to what was left of the Herioc cult of Hellenic society.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with the scholars who say that the Jesus Myth hysteria is, a hysteria.

:clap:clap a great summary :clap:clap

 

[jelly]

since the idea doesn't support the jesus story it has to be hysteria?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

since the idea doesn't support the jesus story it has to be hysteria?

I'm sorry - I honestly have no idea what that sentence means.

 

[jelly]

yeah well it is not a sentence it is a question.
learn to read.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm sorry - I honestly have no idea what that sentence means.

I think he may have been struck by Caladan calling it "the Jesus Myth hysteria."

I was struck by it, but I haven't read this whole thread. Is there some movement among scholars toward Jesus-as-myth?

 

[jelly]

I think he may have been struck by Caladan calling it "the Jesus Myth hysteria."

I was struck by it, but I haven't read this whole thread. Is there some movement among scholars toward Jesus-as-myth?

there are movements, and there are scholars, but I cannot confirm scholars having movements.
other than that you pretty much understand what I was trying to ask.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yeah well it is not a sentence it is a question. learn to read.

Corehent questions are often sentences as well. :yes:

 

[Caladan]

I was struck by it, but I haven't read this whole thread. Is there some movement among scholars toward Jesus-as-myth?

What I meant to say, or what I actually did say *snort snort* is that the majority of scholars consider the popular discussion of the Jesus myth as a hysteria. it has no scholarly content and often attaches itself to popular conspiracy theories.
an easy solution for easy people. a better challenge would be to study early christianity, in light of the Judaic and Hellenic populations, and their disagreements.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I meant to say, or what I actually did say *snort snort* is that the majority of scholars consider the popular discussion of the Jesus myth as a hysteria. it has no scholarly content and often attaches itself to popular conspiracy theories.
an easy solution for easy people. a better challenge would be to study early christianity, in light of the Judaic and Hellenic populations, and their disagreements.

Well said.