The Jesus Myth

[dogsgod]

You're right, dogsgod: and since it would be impossible for a man to throw a silver dollar across the Potomac or roll a silver platter up like a scroll I guess it's safe for us to assume that George Washington never existed.

It's totally absurd to equate mythical heroes such as Hercules and Superman with the legends built around people like George Washington whom we know to have existed by way of actual and real evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

It's totally absurd to equate mythical heroes such as Hercules with the legends built around people we know to have existed by way of actual and real evidence.

*once again watches point go sailing high over dogsgod's head*

 

[dogsgod]

*once again watches point go sailing high over dogsgod's head*

Nothing sailed over my head. Your point is absurd. There is actual and real evidence for George Washington and we are well aware of the silly little legends built around this person of historical merit. The same can't be said of this Jesus Christ figure, nor for Superman or Hercules, all that exists for these characters is myth. This simple point is lost on you.

 

[Quagmire]

Nothing sailed over my head. Your point is absurd. There is actual and real evidence for George Washington and we are well aware of the silly little legends built around this person of historical merit. The same can't be said of this Jesus Christ figure, nor for Superman or Hercules, all that exists for these characters is myth. This simple point is lost on you.

I admire the way you never let the fact that you fail to understand whats being said to you keep you from having an opinion about it.

 

[dogsgod]

You're right that we're inconsistent about how we handle the texts. But then, nobody is strictly consistent in anything of importance. Most skeptics, for instance, are not very skeptical of science. They seem to take it for granted that science is this wonderful process of true belief formation, which we can blithely follow because it self-corrects. This despite the umpteen examples to the contrary.

Misrepresenting skeptics is no way to make a point. Scientific observations are met with skepticism, a suspension of belief, until verified, and even then there is no reason to cling to scientific explanations lest new information sheds more light which can either confirm, or alter, or do away with a given explanation for a new one. Beliefs of the skeptic are loosely held and are formulated by drawing from conclusions that are grounded in evidence, a belief system that is anathema to that of the religious. Skeptics can be just as consistent with historical and religious claims as with scientific. The same basic methods apply which explains why many remain skeptical in regards to an historical Jesus, or religious claims such as that of the existence of a creator God.

 

[Jeremiah]

I think it's extremely probable that a 1st Cent. Jewish rabbi named Jesus (or his Aramaic equivalent)actually existed, had a significant following, was considered to be the Messiah by his followers, and most likely was crucified.

If for no other reason than the fact that by the time Paul began his ministry (which may have been as early as 49 BCE.) there was already a well established church based on the afore mentioned beliefs.

If you base calculations for the date of the crucifixion on Josephus' account of the ministry/execution of John the Baptist, then the most likely date is somewhere around 36-37 BCE.

That would mean there was only (at most) a 14 yr. lapse ot time between the end of Jesus' ministry and the beginning of Paul's. That isn't near enough time for a full-fledged religion to evolve out of local legends based on a completely mythical character, especially when you consider that, according to the accounts in Acts and in Paul's epistles, some form of Christianity was already extant and well established by the time Paul showed up.

Taking all that into account the only possible conclusions you can draw about the origins of the Christian church are either;

A. One day around the time the alleged crucifixion was supposed to have taken place, a few people got together and said, "Hey! I'm tired of fishing for a living. What say we start our own religion based on a completely imaginary character that we make up and somehow convince a few thousand local people that he actually existed right here under their noses but somehow escaped everybody's notice".

or..

B. There really was someone named Jesus in 1st. Cent. Judea who's life, ministry, and (probably) death served as a basis for the Jesus that we know.

"Taking all that into account the only possible conclusions you can draw about the origins of the Christian church are either;

A. One day around the time the alleged crucifixion was supposed to have taken place, a few people got together and said, "Hey! I'm tired of fishing for a living. What say we start our own religion based on a completely imaginary character that we make up and somehow convince a few thousand local people that he actually existed right here under their noses but somehow escaped everybody's notice".

or..

B. There really was someone named Jesus in 1st. Cent. Judea who's life, ministry, and (probably) death served as a basis for the Jesus that we know"

Or

C. A mixture of both A & B, plus some other stuff.

-----

I think the origin of the Christian religion is bit more involved then just Jesus Christ.

 

[kai]

How would we know?

indeed!

 

[fallingblood]

It's totally absurd to equate mythical heroes such as Hercules and Superman with the legends built around people like George Washington whom we know to have existed by way of actual and real evidence.

So basically a myth build on some one like George Washington is alright, but a myth on someone you don't believe to have existed is wrong? The only difference is your stance on whether or not you believed that person existed. What I am trying to say is that wading through the myth to find a historical Jesus is not wrong to do as you claimed. We do it with characters such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, Buddha, etc.

 

[dogsgod]

So basically a myth build on some one like George Washington is alright, but a myth on someone you don't believe to have existed is wrong? The only difference is your stance on whether or not you believed that person existed. What I am trying to say is that wading through the myth to find a historical Jesus is not wrong to do as you claimed. We do it with characters such as Alexander the Great, Augustus, Buddha, etc.

No, we don't find such historical persons by wading through myth, that is a fallacy. We find historical persons by reviewing verified facts, not the myths that surround them. The notion that it's safe for us to assume that George Washington never existed for the reasons cited is absurd, just as absurd as it is to suggest Alexander the Great, Augustus, Buddha, etc. are extracted from myth.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think it's extremely probable that a 1st Cent. Jewish rabbi named Jesus (or his Aramaic equivalent)actually existed, had a significant following, was considered to be the Messiah by his followers, and most likely was crucified.

If for no other reason than the fact that by the time Paul began his ministry (which may have been as early as 49 BCE.) there was already a well established church based on the afore mentioned beliefs.

If you base calculations for the date of the crucifixion on Josephus' account of the ministry/execution of John the Baptist, then the most likely date is somewhere around 36-37 BCE.

That would mean there was only (at most) a 14 yr. lapse ot time between the end of Jesus' ministry and the beginning of Paul's. That isn't near enough time for a full-fledged religion to evolve out of local legends based on a completely mythical character, especially when you consider that, according to the accounts in Acts and in Paul's epistles, some form of Christianity was already extant and well established by the time Paul showed up.

Taking all that into account the only possible conclusions you can draw about the origins of the Christian church are either;

A. One day around the time the alleged crucifixion was supposed to have taken place, a few people got together and said, "Hey! I'm tired of fishing for a living. What say we start our own religion based on a completely imaginary character that we make up and somehow convince a few thousand local people that he actually existed right here under their noses but somehow escaped everybody's notice".

or..

B. There really was someone named Jesus in 1st. Cent. Judea who's life, ministry, and (probably) death served as a basis for the Jesus that we know.

What you seem to be forgetting is that myths of supposed saviors of mankind who had twelve followers, performed miracles and were eventually executed only to come back to life had pervaded throughout history long before the 1st century AD. It certainly did not first appear with Jesus, and most of the myths that surround Jesus were drawn from various other mythologies that were around at the time, spread almost entirely by word-of-mouth. Add this to the fact that the closest thing we have to a first-hand account of Jesus' actual life (the Bible, which was comprised and mostly written by people who lived twenty years after Christ's supposed death), and you've got a pretty strong case that Jesus' whole life was nothing but a string of myths drawn from other myths pervaded and distorted throughout the centuries by word of mouth, censorship and eventual publication.

We'll call that option "C", and that's the one I'm running with.

 

[Quagmire]

What you seem to be forgetting is that myths of supposed saviors of mankind who had twelve followers, performed miracles and were eventually executed only to come back to life had pervaded throughout history long before the 1st century AD.

Well duh.

It certainly did not first appear with Jesus, and most of the myths that surround Jesus were drawn from various other mythologies that were around at the time, spread almost entirely by word-of-mouth.

Again, well duh.

Add this to the fact that the closest thing we have to a first-hand account of Jesus' actual life (the Bible, which was comprised and mostly written by people who lived twenty years after Christ's supposed death), and you've got a pretty strong case that Jesus' whole life was nothing but a string of myths drawn from other myths pervaded and distorted throughout the centuries by word of mouth, censorship and eventual publication.

We'll call that option "C", and that's the one I'm running with.

So you're not going to address my actual point then.

I'll try to clarify a bit:

Regardless of what myths, folklore, borrowed traditions, etc., that eventually became attached to the Jesus story, the fact remains that the we have ample evidence that some form of Christianity was already in existence by the time Paul showed up and had existed in an unbroken chain of continuity from the time immediately following the ministry/excecution of John the Baptist, ie., the time the crucifixtion would have taken place, up to the time of Paul's ministry.

The similarity between what eventually became Christian Dogma/tradition and that of other religions is a moot point because;

1. We don't know what the earliest Christians believed, although it's reasonable to assume they considered Jesus the Jewish Messiah, which is something completely different from the "Resurected Savior of mankind and divine, begotten son of God" as he appears in Pauline Christianity. The Later is indeed in accord with the traditional "Savior God" theology of other and older religions, which should be no surprise when you consider that Paul was a Hellenized Jew and a Roman citizen.

2. Savior God myths/religions don't just pop into existence out of nowhere, they evolve over time. To find a a complete and immediately popular Savior God religion suddenly popping into existence---in 1st. Cent. Judea of all places---where there hadn't been one previously is unlikely to the point of being ridiculous all by itself. To add to that by saying that it's central figure was an imaginary character that everyone involved just agreed to accept as having been a flesh and blood contemporary goes beyond ridiculous.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Heresy!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., the fact remains that the we have ample evidence that some form of Christianity was already in existence by the time Paul showed up and had existed in an unbroken chain of continuity from the time immediately following the ministry/excecution of John the Baptist, ie., the time the crucifixtion would have taken place, up to the time of Paul's ministry.

That would be an outstanding discovery! Where might I find this "ample evidence"?

 

[Quagmire]

That would be an outstanding discovery! Where might I find this "ample evidence"?

OK;

1. No one, that I've ever come across, doubts the authenticity of at least some of the epistles ascribed to Paul.

2. Paul must have been writing to and/or about someone (by this I mean his follows on one hand and the Jerusalem Christians another).

3. Based on the dating of Corinthians Paul's ministry was underway sometime around (and more likely just prior to) 50 BCE, and his first epistles are dated from about this time.

4. Whatever you make of the relationship between Paul and the Jerusalem Christians, it's obvious that the Jerusalem church was already well established when Paul arrived on the scene.

5. If you take the most likely date for the ministry/execution of John the Baptist (around 34-35 BCE. Based on Josephus) as a starting point, and the end of Pilate's office in Judea (37 BCE, also based on Josephus) as the latest possible date, the most likely date for the crucifixion is 36 or 37 BCE.

So, Paul's ministry would have begun sometime around 15 years after the most probable date for the crucifixion, if not sooner. If there were already a well established Jerusalem church at this time, which Paul's letters attest to, I think the most logical conclusion is that this church must have been in existence in some form from the beginning of the movement up until Paul.

If we decide to accord the Book of Acts any credibility then the time lapse shrinks slightly and there's even more evidence for the unbroken continuity of the early Christian church; the fact that Christianity was popular and wide-spread enough to warrant persecution several years prior to Paul's ministry, for instance.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I find your argument quite convincing, Q. I would say that there probably was someone on whom the church was founded. martyrs have always been good for business, theologically speaking. However this person would bare very little resemblance to the 'biblical' jesus figure, whom can be shown to be a compilation of earlier myths and legends.

 

[Riverwolf]

I find your argument quite convincing, Q. I would say that there probably was someone on whom the church was founded. martyrs have always been good for business, theologically speaking. However this person would bare very little resemblance to the 'biblical' jesus figure, whom can be shown to be a compilation of earlier myths and legends.

I think that's primarily what's being argued, for it is the most likely scenario based on what we know so far.

 

[Quagmire]

I find your argument quite convincing, Q.

Thanks SSE.

I I would say that there probably was someone on whom the church was founded. martyrs have always been good for business, theologically speaking. However this person would bare very little resemblance to the 'biblical' jesus figure, whom can be shown to be a compilation of earlier myths and legends.

I agree, just as I would expect the very earliest (pre-Paul) Christianity to bear little resemblence to Christianity as we know it.

 

[fallingblood]

No, we don't find such historical persons by wading through myth, that is a fallacy. We find historical persons by reviewing verified facts, not the myths that surround them. The notion that it's safe for us to assume that George Washington never existed for the reasons cited is absurd, just as absurd as it is to suggest Alexander the Great, Augustus, Buddha, etc. are extracted from myth.

That is not actually what I was saying. I did say we should wade through myths to find people. However, once we found a historical figure, such as Jesus, we have to then discern what is myth and what is not. I won't touch on the notions you claim to be absurd, because I agree with you in those cases.

However, looking at all of the evidence for a historical Jesus, as well as all of the scholars who support that idea, including the authorities on the subject, I don't see much reason to doubt a historical figure that can be related to Jesus. Now certainly, he was not born of a virgin or any of that other hog wash, but a leader none the less.


SSE: You basically hit the idea that I will be supporting. Jesus was a historical figure, but not anything like most people think of him as. I think probably the best description I've seen of him is by John Dominic Crossan who argues that Jesus would have been an illiterate peasant from a hamlet no one cared about, and died a criminal in the eyes of Rome.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well duh.

There's no need to be rude.

Again, well duh.

Again, there's no need to be rude.

So you're not going to address my actual point then.

I'll try to clarify a bit:

Regardless of what myths, folklore, borrowed traditions, etc., that eventually became attached to the Jesus story, the fact remains that the we have ample evidence that some form of Christianity was already in existence by the time Paul showed up and had existed in an unbroken chain of continuity from the time immediately following the ministry/excecution of John the Baptist, ie., the time the crucifixtion would have taken place, up to the time of Paul's ministry.

Could you point me in the direction of any records of this? Much appreciated.

The similarity between what eventually became Christian Dogma/tradition and that of other religions is a moot point because;

1. We don't know what the earliest Christians believed, although it's reasonable to assume they considered Jesus the Jewish Messiah, which is something completely different from the "Resurected Savior of mankind and divine, begotten son of God" as he appears in Pauline Christianity. The Later is indeed in accord with the traditional "Savior God" theology of other and older religions, which should be no surprise when you consider that Paul was a Hellenized Jew and a Roman citizen.

Regardless of what the earliest Christians might have believed (perhaps, for example, they believed not in Jesus but in Cthulhu and only ate sandwiches on weekends?) the records that we have - both historical and theological - fail to clarify either the existence of Jesus or any single one of his miracles, but instead indicate that certain facets of Jesus' supposed existence were simply drawn from previous belief structures.

2. Savior God myths/religions don't just pop into existence out of nowhere, they evolve over time. To find a a complete and immediately popular Savior God religion suddenly popping into existence---in 1st. Cent. Judea of all places---where there hadn't been one previously is unlikely to the point of being ridiculous all by itself. To add to that by saying that it's central figure was an imaginary character that everyone involved just agreed to accept as having been a flesh and blood contemporary goes beyond ridiculous.

Once again, you're claiming that Jesus either existed or that he and the whole belief structure he founded "suddenly popped into existence" - but none of this is sufficiently supported by the evidence you have presented, and what's more is contrary to the records were actually do have, that show no evidence of Christ's actual existence and indicate strongly that he is the result of several savior mythologies simply being either merged or re-branded. And, also, you make a false claim that many around considered Jesus a contemporary. As I have already said, the earliest records of Jesus' existence were written twenty years after his death - that is hardly a contemporary. It is quite possible that Jesus existed, the question is how can we validate his existence and how much of said existence relies entirely on myth and heresay.

Again, considering the fact that no contemporary historical records of Jesus exist (or, at least, survived), and that Jesus' life as recorded by those who were supposedly closest to being said contemporaries mirrors closely that of various other religions' mythologies and practices, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that such a man did not exist and was merely the result of the combining and manipulating of ancient religions through word-of-mouth.

 

[zorrow]

Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived.