The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I read a bio of Alexander several years ago. Actually I had it read to me by the author, a British woman historian of some age, as I recall. A Book-on-Tape. (Always unabridged. I despise the abridged stuff.)

And it was so interesting. At the Gordian Knot incident, the author actually raised her voice in outrage at the idea that Alex would have cheated by using a sword. All the stories otherwise were calumny!

Quite curious. You could hear her bias so clearly in the timbre of her voice. I remember thinking, "Now how in the heck does this woman know whether Alexander untied the knot or cut it? How does she even know that Alexander even visited the knot?"

She didn't know, of course. As with many scholars who let their own biases overcome clear thought, she was enraged by something which was a concoction within her own mind.

There were many other examples. I came away from that book believing much less in historical truth than I had before.

 

[jelly]

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.

so how many of the members of this forum that have flamed me and other wise been disrespectful calling my self and others trolls and otherwise being on high horses making jokes know biblical jesus' real name?
anyone?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

so how many of the members of this forum that have flamed me and other wise been disrespectful calling my self and others trolls and otherwise being on high horses making jokes know biblical jesus' real name?

Fred.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe it is Caligula who we have just one account of his life written by a contemporary.

Don't we have coins and statues with Caligula's likeness?

I might doubt virtually all the stories told about him, but I'd see little reason to doubt his existence.

 

[fallingblood]

I might ask you some questions about ^^.
what is biblical jesus' real name?

It is Jesus. The same exact as the historical Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeshua bar Yosef

 

[fallingblood]

so how do you know biblical jesus' real name?

Because it is right there in front of us.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Actually, it's not way out line. From a literary and art standpoint, they are portrayed nearly the same. In fact, one of the earliest bas reliefs depicting Jesus is an obvious rip-off of an earlier one depicting Augustus. People just didn't do this stuff with people who didn't exist.

 

[fallingblood]

Don't we have coins and statues with Caligula's likeness?

I might doubt virtually all the stories told about him, but I'd see little reason to doubt his existence.

Zeus had statures and coins created in his supposed likeness as well.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Zeus had statures and coins created in his supposed likeness as well.

So you think Zeus was historical, like Caligula?

 

[fallingblood]

What is it in the earliest writings? untranslated?

Yeshua. I don't know the Hebrew characters for it, but that is what it would be.

 

[fallingblood]

So you think Zeus was historical, like Caligula?

No, just pointing out that statues and coins do not make one instantly a historical figure.

 

[sojourner]

Yeshua. I don't know the Hebrew characters for it, but that is what it would be.

the earliest writings about Jesus wouldn't be in Hebrew. They'd be in Greek.

 

[fallingblood]

the earliest writings about Jesus wouldn't be in Hebrew. They'd be in Greek.

That's true. I misread what was being said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Fred.

Flintstone.

 

[sojourner]

Flintstone.

Or is it "Savage?"

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, just pointing out that statues and coins do not make one instantly a historical figure.

Well... OK, I guess.

It has never occurred to me that anyone might think such a thing, but I guess it doesn't hurt for you to make the declaration, just in case.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually, it's not way out line. From a literary and art standpoint, they are portrayed nearly the same.

Well, yes, but not from an historical standpoint.

In fact, one of the earliest bas reliefs depicting Jesus is an obvious rip-off of an earlier one depicting Augustus. People just didn't do this stuff with people who didn't exist.

I just disagree. By the time the Jesus bas-relief was made, Jesus was already a God like unto the God Augustus. And any possibly historicity was long lost anyway. I mean, they had no man upon whom to model the relief.

 

[jelly]

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?

only if you believe it.

 

[sojourner]

Well, yes, but not from an historical standpoint.



I just disagree. By the time the Jesus bas-relief was made, Jesus was already a God like unto the God Augustus. And any possibly historicity was long lost anyway. I mean, they had no man upon whom to model the relief.

But the point is made that people didn't make bas-reliefs of non-existent people.