• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Jesus Myth

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
why ??

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

I love you, man. But most of the time, I've got no clue what you're on about. As I told you earlier, I really think a good start would be for you to bring your writing style more in line with the stylebooks.

I'm not trying to be ugly. I just can't understand you most of the time, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of it is your writing style. Plus... well... most of it lately just seems to be little substanceless potshots. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems to me.

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 :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Jeez. How many times have you dragged out this bit about 'There's a difference between historical Jesus and Biblical Jesus' -- as if it's a grand truth which only you and a few of the chosen know about? Why do you continue to repeat such a profoundly simple and obvious truth?

It's perplexing. My impression is that you maybe just recently learned it, and so you feel like you have a duty to inform the rest of us?
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
jelly said:
is it true that biblical jesus is not historical jesus and historical jesus is not biblical jesus?
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that the two terms are spelled differently, and that the verb "is" is usually seen as an equals sign.

So, no. I don't believe that historical jesus is biblical jesus.

Beyond that, I wouldn't want to analyze outhouse's claim any further. Not enough info.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

An amazing claim, my friend.

I'd never have the nerve to say that.
 
Last edited:
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
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.
Click to expand...

Augustus (supposedly) ruled an empire for at least a decade. Hundreds of thousands of people knew of him. Coinage (I'm guessing). Documents. Contemporary writings.

Jesus? Well... virtually nothing if one discounts the NT.

I think that comparing Jesus to Augustus is way out of line in discussions of historicity, although I understand that you're only using it to explain your point.
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
steppe dweller said:
Would contemporary Roman writings concerning Jesus be more believable than the NT?
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. Way more. Same with Jewish writings from that time. A fundamental truth of historical research is the preference for unbiased sources. As many and as varied as possible.

How can we trust clearly theological books to tell us historical truth?
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Dirty Penguin said:
This is kind of the question I'm interested in. What makes the biblical Yeshua different from the historical one...:confused:
Click to expand...
This was a question I had when I first started my research. In fact, it was this question (among a few others), that caused me to argue that Jesus didn't exist.

When talking about Jesus, scholars have begun to differentiate between the historical Jesus, and the Biblical Jesus. The Biblical Jesus is easy. One reads the Bible (Gospels primarily), and see what it says about Jesus. He performs miracles, was resurrected, is savior, the son of God etc. Included in that can also be later ideas formed about him such as he is God.

The historical Jesus, simply, is the actual historical figure in which various stories, myths, and exaggerations were attributed to.

Basically, the idea is that there was a historical figure named Jesus, in the first century, who gained a small following, and was a teacher. He was later crucified as he rubbed the wrong people wrong. So we have a foundation here.

Next, we get the idea of Jesus that is formed in his followers minds. His followers believed somethings about Jesus. They believed he could do miracles, he could heal people, he was resurrected, etc. Now, they most likely honestly believed this stuff. And Jesus was by far not the only person in the ancient world that these ideas were attached to. As time went on, more and more stories and the like were attached to him. Some of these went back to what the original followers believed to happen, others were added later on, and most likely, in many cases, still were believed to be factual.

This later addition was placed on the foundation of a historical Jesus, and it is the one we now see in the Bible.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
steppe dweller said:
Would contemporary Roman writings concerning Jesus be more believable than the NT?
Click to expand...
They would, if they existed. Really though, Josephus would have been more than enough.

What has to be remembered is that Palestine was a marginal area of the Empire. Jesus, was a marginal Jew, in a marginal area of the Empire (I have to give credit to John P. Meier for the wording here, as it is the idea he states in his books, A Marginal Jew).

We also have to factor in a very low literacy rate. Throughout the empire, it was maybe around 10%. That was, for the most part, reserved for the elite, who could afford and had the time for schooling. Being able to write, was even less common then being able to read.

With that said, we really see nothing written about this area. In fact, about Judaism as a whole we have very few writings at all during this time. Very few writings about Jews, or Palestine at all. And, from what we see from Josephus later on, some of the religious leaders during that time did have fairly large followings. Yet, nothing is mentioned of them.

Palestine simply was a marginal area of the Empire, and thus, there was little to record events that occurred there.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
AmbiguousGuy said:
Augustus (supposedly) ruled an empire for at least a decade. Hundreds of thousands of people knew of him. Coinage (I'm guessing). Documents. Contemporary writings.

Jesus? Well... virtually nothing if one discounts the NT.

I think that comparing Jesus to Augustus is way out of line in discussions of historicity, although I understand that you're only using it to explain your point.
Click to expand...
Augustus was also said to have been born of the union of a god and a woman; he was called a son of a god. He was even called a god. He had a cult that focused on him. He was deemed to be the savior. Many of the titles given to Jesus, were already used by Augustus. There are many different similarities if one looks at the ancient sources regarding Augustus.

Yes, Augustus was much more known, but he was also an Emperor. Even then, his life had many mythical elements added to it.

If we look at Alexander the Great, during his life time, as far as I have come across, there is one mention of him. As for sources concerning his life, we don't have any from quite some time later.

Even some of the Emperors around the time of Jesus, we have few documents. I believe it is Caligula who we have just one account of his life written by a contemporary. The others were produced quite a time after he was already dead. As for both Alexander the Great, and Caligula, there were various mythical elements that creeped into their stories. Alexander the great, for an example, was considered a god by some, as well as the son of a god.

Historians have taken those accounts, pushed away the mythical ideas, and got down to a historical figure. It is a lot easier with those figures; however, the same basic methods are used.
 
I

Ilisrum

Active Member
Paul appears to have made more of a splash, and in a larger area, than Jesus did during his lifetime. However, nobody mentions him either and if it weren't for his authentic letters, his historicity could be questioned also, since the Paul of Acts is semi-mythical. Not surprisingly, some mythologists claim that Paul never existed and his letters are forgeries. Typical.

As I said before, the story of Jesus' baptism by John is probably the best case for historicity.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
jelly said:
what was historical jesus' real name?
Click to expand...
Jesus. If you want the Hebrew or Aramaic, Yeshua. Jesus is close enough, as Jesus is the Greek transliteration of Yeshua ( I have to give credit to A_E for that, as he clarified that in a different thread some time back).
 
I

Ilisrum

Active Member
jelly said:
so historical jesus' real name is different than biblical jesus' real name?
Click to expand...

No. One is Hebrew-Aramaic, the other Greek. But the biblical Jesus only existed in the minds of those who wrote about him, and the believers who came after them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top