• 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.
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
fallingblood said:
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.
Click to expand...

My process is similar. I look at the stories in the gospel and set aside all fantastical claims to then get a (possible) picture of an everyday man known as Yeshua. I then try and match up some of the events, places and people with other historical information. It's a little hit or miss though. There's information that can be regarded as historical in the NT that doesn't seem to match up with external sources. It doesn't prove he didn't exist but it sheds some light on the agenda of the writers of the time.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
Dirty Penguin said:
My process is similar. I look at the stories in the gospel and set aside all fantastical claims to then get a (possible) picture of an everyday man known as Yeshua. I then try and match up some of the events, places and people with other historical information. It's a little hit or miss though. There's information that can be regarded as historical in the NT that doesn't seem to match up with external sources. It doesn't prove he didn't exist but it sheds some light on the agenda of the writers of the time.
Click to expand...
why isn't the bible's account of the name of the man who supposedly hung on a cross fantastical?
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
jelly said:
why isn't the bible's account of the name of the man who supposedly hung on a cross fantastical?
Click to expand...

Na, there's some fantastical stuff there. I can still look at the account and say there is some air of possibility in the whole process. The who earthquake thing, curtains splitting and "souls of saints" rising from the grave and running through the city seems fantastical so I set those types of claims aside.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
Dirty Penguin said:
Na, there's some fantastical stuff there. I can still look at the account and say there is some air of possibility in the whole process. The who earthquake thing, curtains splitting and "souls of saints" rising from the grave and running through the city seems fantastical so I set those types of claims aside.
Click to expand...
are you saying you are uncertain that the name of the guy the bible refers to is possibly incorrect/correct?
 
A

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
There's information that can be regarded as historical in the NT that doesn't seem to match up with external sources. It doesn't prove he didn't exist but it sheds some light on the agenda of the writers of the time.
Click to expand...

It may just point to writers writing long enough after the events to be ignorant of the actual history.

Which is another of my points for a non-historical Jesus. If he had actually lived and worked during the time as claimed for him, why did the gospel writers wait so long to tell his story?

I think it's more reasonable to think of Mark Twain and his "Jumping Frog" story. That story had been told around the mining campfires for quite some time. Twain heard it, practiced telling it to his friends, improving it with each telling, and finally wrote it up.

I wonder if there was an actual historical frog whom we can find if we strip away all the fantastical claims. :)
 
Last edited:
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
idav said:
The "historical" young version of Jesus killed a boy. The bible skips that period.
Click to expand...
Actually, most ancient figures have little known about their early lives. For the most part, it just wasn't recorded.

As for the young version of Jesus. There is little reason to believe that it is credible.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
AmbiguousGuy said:
It may just point to writers writing long enough after the events to be ignorant of the actual history.

Which is another of my points for a non-historical Jesus. If he had actually lived and worked during the time as claimed for him, why did the gospel writers wait so long to tell his story?

I think it's more reasonable to think of Mark Twain and his "Jumping Frog" story. That story had been told around the mining campfires for quite some time. Twain heard it, praticed telling it to his friends, improving it with each telling, and finally wrote it up.

I wonder if there was an actual historical frog whom we can find if we strip away all the fantastical claims. :)
Click to expand...
yes there is but it was a donkey.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
jelly said:
then why make this thread?
Click to expand...
So you didn't read the OP. Great. Go back to page one, post one, and read what I state. If you even took the time to try to understand what this thread is about, instead of spamming, you wouldn't have to ask such ridiculous questions.
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Dirty Penguin said:
My process is similar. I look at the stories in the gospel and set aside all fantastical claims to then get a (possible) picture of an everyday man known as Yeshua. I then try and match up some of the events, places and people with other historical information. It's a little hit or miss though. There's information that can be regarded as historical in the NT that doesn't seem to match up with external sources. It doesn't prove he didn't exist but it sheds some light on the agenda of the writers of the time.
Click to expand...
Very true. The writers definitely had an agenda. Their beliefs definitely influenced what they wrote.

That is one reason why historical Jesus research is difficult. There isn't much information to go with, and the information has to be examined so much with the hope of getting that nugget of truth.
 
J

jelly

Active Member
fallingblood said:
So you didn't read the OP. Great. Go back to page one, post one, and read what I state. If you even took the time to try to understand what this thread is about, instead of spamming, you wouldn't have to ask such ridiculous questions.
Click to expand...
why cry about it.
you know that historical jesus and biblical jesus is the same figure you said so.
why use a strawman argument of one existing and one not existing to create the thread?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
jelly said:
why cry about it.
you know that historical jesus and biblical jesus is the same figure you said so.
why use a strawman argument of one existing and one not existing to create the thread?
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
AmbiguousGuy said:
It may just point to writers writing long enough after the events to be ignorant of the actual history.

Which is another of my points for a non-historical Jesus. If he had actually lived and worked during the time as claimed for him, why did the gospel writers wait so long to tell his story?
Click to expand...
They lived in an oral culture in which people passed on information by word of mouth. The reason was because the vast majority were illiterate, and even less could write (people who could write well, about 1% or lower in Palestine). And peasants in general, never received the education in reading. When we realize that Jesus's followers were basically all peasants, or of the lower class, it is no surprise that no one was able to write about him.

Pretty much the same reason why there were no writings about any of the other religious leaders during that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top