The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

[The Jesus Myth holds that] the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.

Now there's a tightly-worded thesis statement. I like it. Not to complain, but I wish you'd used it in your OP.

I'd certainly agree with it if read literally. The NT, by itself, wouldn't convince any arm's-length, reasonable person that Jesus really existed -- no more than the Book of Mormon would convince such a person of the events claimed within it. It's a theological compilation. [Close your ears, all good Christians out there. I'm gonna say something offensive.] It reads like a comic book. Superheroes. Miracles. Lofty, dramatic language. I think that if we ever create AI much smarter than us and exempt from our cultural memes... that there's gonna be a lot of head-scratching going on. What the heck are these humans on about, with this Jesus business?

And it's incredibly ancient. How could we trust anything in such a book?

But the NT combined with other ancient texts and resources? I think I'd still agree with the thesis. I can't reliably know anything Jesus. There's just not enough historical evidence to sway me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.

Now there's a tightly-worded thesis statement. I like it.

I do not. It's pretentious blather, little more. What does it mean to assert that "no meaningful verification regarding ... his very existence can be extracted"?

It's nothing more than an argument from absence, i.e.,

you cannot verify his existence therefore ...

Worse. A clearly asserted 'argument' would at least be honest. This is no more than insinuation.

At issue is whether or not "his very existence" can be reasonably inferred. Nothing more.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not. It's pretentious blather, little more. What does it mean to assert that "no meaningful verification regarding ... his very existence can be extracted"?

It's nothing more than an argument from absence, i.e.,Worse. A clearly asserted 'argument' would at least be honest. This is no more than insinuation.

I disagree but OK. Go ahead and post the question which you think we should be addressing here. Or the thesis we should be addressing.

At issue is whether or not "his very existence" can be reasonably inferred. Nothing more.

That makes no sense to me. As I've said, I'm sure there were guys named Jesus in Jerusalem during that time, so I don't know which Jesus you're talking about. The one who had 12 disciples, turned water to wine and rose from the dead? If not, which Jesus?

I think that if you can't define Jesus, you can't search for him. And you certainly can't find him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That makes no sense to me.

I am not surprised.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am not surprised.

I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the issue.

So I am a little surprised.

 

[jelly]

...Go ahead and post the question which you think we should be addressing here. Or the thesis we should be addressing...

bump.

 

[Desert Snake]

The question asked in the OP concerning "Jesus myth" is both true and not true.

Without a doubt there was a 1 century Jew by the name Yeshua. This actually goes beyond probability and becomes a definite. It was a common name back then.


Now the question is...which Yeshua are we talking about and why is the question important if we're not talking about NT miracle yielding Jesus..?

Then this is a completely different argument. The OP needs to specify if he means EXISTENCE of Jesus or MYTHS surrounding Jesus. Two seperate arguments, 'mixing' them up is only going to cause ambiguity.

 

[outhouse]

I was thinking that you wanted to discuss the issue.

So I am a little surprised.

why ??

ive seen your purposely bypassing and bringing up statements already covered.

I'm sure there were guys named Jesus in Jerusalem during that time, so I don't know which Jesus you're talking about. The one who had 12 disciples, turned water to wine and rose from the dead? If not, which Jesus?

we have told you there is a difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus, as a matter of fact that is covered in the very first post OP started

 

[fallingblood]

Then this is a completely different argument. The OP needs to specify if he means EXISTENCE of Jesus or MYTHS surrounding Jesus. Two seperate arguments, 'mixing' them up is only going to cause ambiguity.

The Jesus Myth revolves around the idea that Jesus did not exist. That there was no historical figure of Jesus. Instead, some individuals created a mythical figure resembling other supposed god-men.

 

[fallingblood]

bump.

Maybe instead of bumping useless posts, you would address the OP? Just a thought.

If you want a more detailed idea of what the OP was looking for, as in what it meant by the Jesus myth, here: The Jesus Myth revolves around the idea that Jesus did not exist. That there was no historical figure of Jesus. Instead, some individuals created a mythical figure resembling other supposed god-men.

 

[jelly]

why is there a difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus?

 

[outhouse]

Then this is a completely different argument. The OP needs to specify if he means EXISTENCE of Jesus or MYTHS surrounding Jesus. Two seperate arguments, 'mixing' them up is only going to cause ambiguity.

OP didnt make a mistake.

historical jesus is not biblical jesus

Only with historians and scholars study in the field can one pick the small nuggets of truth out of what we have to work with.

OP has done some of the work, he has the homefield advantage of knowledge here.


ive been through all these arguments before with FB and so far in this thread no one has studied as much as I have when I was looking for answers to put the myth foward.


If one refuses to do any work and bases his opinion from opinion, one doesnt have a leg to stand on.

if one does the work but uses poor resources, one also has no leg to stand on.


the work done to base scholars opinions is more then just reaching into the bible with baseless or biased opinion's. Historical work is applied most people are lacking.

 

[outhouse]

why is there a difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus?

because one is based on religious dogma within that, a actual event and person.

Ancient hebrews worked like that.

examples

exodus, many semetic speaking people migrated slowley out of egypt and surrounding areas in the levant TO the holy land. After the culture started in 1250BC there were hundreds of years of oral storys and fables that changed the actuall events into the story in the bible. There are historical roots that resemble the story. But for the most part exodus has ZERO historicity.

flood, there was a flood on the euphrates in 2900BC [ancient sumeria] a man went down the river on a barge after loading some animals to save himself. He burned a animal sacrifice upon landing. thousands of years later after semetic speaking people left the sumerian culture I believe this story was passed down into the OT with the new hebrews culture twist to meet the new religions needs for the new people. the hebrew flood story has zero historicity, yet there is some truth of a flood in its origins.

these two examples are simular to how the jesus story came to be. there is often a nugget of truth but one has to do the work to find it and the nuggets are different sizes

 

[jelly]

because one is based on religious dogma within that, a actual event and person.

Ancient hebrews worked like that.

examples

exodus, many semetic speaking people migrated slowley out of egypt and surrounding areas in the levant TO the holy land. After the culture started in 1250BC there were hundreds of years of oral storys and fables that changed the actuall events into the story in the bible. There are historical roots that resemble the story. But for the most part exodus has ZERO historicity.

flood, there was a flood on the euphrates in 2900BC [ancient sumeria] a man went down the river on a barge after loading some animals to save himself. He burned a animal sacrifice upon landing. thousands of years later after semetic speaking people left the sumerian culture I believe this story was passed down into the OT with the new hebrews culture twist to meet the new religions needs for the new people. the hebrew flood story has zero historicity, yet there is some truth of a flood in its origins.

these two examples are simular to how the jesus story came to be. there is often a nugget of truth but one has to do the work to find it and the nuggets are different sizes

thank you for your reply.

is it true that biblical jesus is not historical jesus and historical jesus is not biblical jesus?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

... 'mixing' them up is only going to cause ambiguity.

Hey -- some of my best friends are ambiguous!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

thank you for your reply.

is it true that biblical jesus is not historical jesus and historical jesus is not biblical jesus?

This is kind of the question I'm interested in. What makes the biblical Yeshua different from the historical one...

 

[jelly]

This is kind of the question I'm interested in. What makes the biblical Yeshua different from the historical one...

personal name?

 

[fallingblood]

why is there a difference between historical jesus and biblical jesus?

For many of the same reasons why there is a difference between Augustus, and what the earliest sources say about Augustus.

It was not uncommon for myth to enter into the stories of historical figures (not the best worded statement, but I'm tired). We can just look at Augustus. He was called the savior, the son of god, a god, etc.

So, we treat the Gospels as we treat other ancient sources. We acknowledge that myth entered into the story. That there is exaggerations. And that there are theological ideas as well. This defines the Biblical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is how the Bible describes him.

Now, when one begins to shed these things from Jesus, as we would do with any other ancient figure, we get to the actual historical figure, or the historical Jesus.

 

[fallingblood]

thank you for your reply.

is it true that biblical jesus is not historical jesus and historical jesus is not biblical jesus?

Not quite. I would argue that one can not completely separate each other. At the very most basic level, they are the same figure. The Biblical Jesus is based off of the Historical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is how people, at that time, saw the Historical Jesus.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey -- some of my best friends are ambiguous!

It's an art form!