The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, you have the advantage of hindsight - there's no way you would have known the historical significance of what you saw / heard while you were there.

Yes, if there were nothing special about Jesus, I would agree with that. But I have a hard time thinking that there was nothing special... if he lived during that time.

Why would these oral stories have been created if there was nothing special about the 30AD Jesus?

It's part of why I imagine a much earlier Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, if there were nothing special about Jesus, I would agree with that. But I have a hard time thinking that there was nothing special... if he lived during that time.

Why would these oral stories have been created if there was nothing special about the 30AD Jesus?

It's part of why I imagine a much earlier Jesus.

I think the fact he might of been crazy talking in parables and people viewed his execution as a act of martyrdom made him different. he had a belief structure that had been semi established and jesus ran with it [johns theology]

it was also a perfect storm as the culture was open for a new movement away from judaism that accepted normal common pagans but had a all powerful monotheistic god. People must have wanted to get away from the angry god of the OT and a nicer more loving god must have been accepted easier

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, if there were nothing special about Jesus, I would agree with that. But I have a hard time thinking that there was nothing special... if he lived during that time.

Why would these oral stories have been created if there was nothing special about the 30AD Jesus?

It's part of why I imagine a much earlier Jesus.

Oh, I agree that Jesus was special. But you would have to be someone with extraordinary insight to recognize the impact that he (or his figure) would have on human history.

I mean - according to the Gospels, his closest disciples didn't even recognize Jesus for who he was - at least someone extraordinarily special.

IMHO it's the transforming power of a single belief - the resurrection of Jesus - that gave significance to everything that came later. It's the kernel of the Gospels - without it, there is no other miracle or teaching.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My point is that the early Christians were not eager to write everything down was because they - along with just about everyone else of their time and place - preferred listening to reading.

OK. I can only say that I don't find it compelling -- the thought that 50 years changed things.

To my mind, the most likely reason for the 50-year delay is that Jesus didn't live in 30AD. I think that if there were a man behind the myth, he probably lived much earlier.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK. I can only say that I don't find it compelling -- the thought that 50 years changed things.

To my mind, the most likely reason for the 50-year delay is that Jesus didn't live in 30AD. I think that if there were a man behind the myth, he probably lived much earlier.

I don't think that anything did change, except possibly that there were more wealthy people in the Christian communities that valued putting Christian traditions down into writing. That's how all books were funded back then - they were either written by or commissioned by wealthy people. That's a simple historical fact.

Even if Jesus died much earlier than 30 AD, and there's no reason at all to believe that he did, it doesn't change anything. The setting in life that we're discussing would be the same if he lived 300 years earlier. People were still poor, illiterate, and lived in a culture where orality was favored.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

IMHO it's the transforming power of a single belief - the resurrection of Jesus - that gave significance to everything that came later. It's the kernel of the Gospels - without it, there is no other miracle or teaching.

To be clear, you believe that the resurrection didn't happen physically, but was an idea added later and which turned Jesus into a remarkable figure?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To be clear, you believe that the resurrection didn't happen physically, but was an idea added later and which turned Jesus into a remarkable figure?

I believe that Jesus resurrected completely - physically and divine. But I'm intellectually awake enough to realize that is dogma. Through faith, I participate and actualize the myth.

I think that tradition and Scripture are two very different things, but they are interwoven into the history of the early Church. That is, I think that the message of the resurrection, which drives the theology of the traditions, went out in the earliest Christian message. Now these traditions developed and were added at some point into what became the Gospels. That doesn't mean that the ressurrection occured in a literal sense - it's the teaching of the resurrection that is early and the central driving force of Christian teaching. Without it, Jesus would be historically insignificant and Christianity would not exist.

 

[fallingblood]

what?

Reading what I said in context, and in order, probably would help. Just a suggestion.

 

[jelly]

... People were still poor, illiterate, and lived in a culture where orality was favored....

so they could make up stories?

 

[fallingblood]

So all of that changed in the 50 years after Jesus died? There was a great shift toward literacy?

A_E answers this very well.


In addition, what changed in this short period of time (from the death of Jesus to the writing of the Gospels) were the followers of the Jesus movement. Paul was preaching to very different groups, many of which lived in cities. Many were still poor, but Paul does show that the upper class, to a point, were also starting to follow the message of Jesus. By having more individuals from the upper class being apart of the movement, there was a higher chance of someone being literate (since literacy was primarily a thing of the upper class).

Really, the Jesus movement simply got lucky that they attracted a few literate people.

 

[jelly]

Reading what I said in context, and in order, probably would help. Just a suggestion.

how did I take what you said out of context...?

 

[fallingblood]

how did I take what you said out of context...?

Just think about that a little.

 

[fallingblood]

It really is entertaining how you can come up with the most irrational and incoherent interpretations of people's writing.

I see no reason to address the question.

From seeing what he has said so far, and his responses. I think it slamming ones head into the wall probably would be as productive as answering his posts. At least something good could come of that.

 

[jelly]

Just think about that a little.

why not show me how I took it out of context?

 

[fallingblood]

why not show me how I took it out of context?

Did you quote my whole statement? Nope. Did you take various posts of mine, and from those posts take only a small part of them? Yep. Did you actually put what I said in context? Nope.

Why not actually address the OP now? Or are you just going to make more asinine statements?

 

[jelly]

this is your ENTIRE post.
at the very most basic level is historical jesus and biblical jesus the same figure?

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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think the fact he might of been crazy talking in parables and people viewed his execution as a act of martyrdom made him different. he had a belief structure that had been semi established and jesus ran with it [johns theology]

That makes sense. I don't know enough about that culture and those times to say for sure, but I still think the 30-50-year delay in gospel-writing looks suspicious. If he was kooky and passionate enough to generate oral stories, it seems to me that it would've been enough to generate written stories.

But who knows.

it was also a perfect storm as the culture was open for a new movement away from judaism that accepted normal common pagans but had a all powerful monotheistic god. People must have wanted to get away from the angry god of the OT and a nicer more loving god must have been accepted easier.

I can agree with that, but personally I think that the hero thing played the greater part of it. The idea of a messiah is tremendously powerful. But no physical man could ever succeed as a messiah. So we got a messiah who was beyond physical.

As for the theology or teachings of Jesus, I really don't know enough about how that looked in the early days of the church.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This "30 to 50 year delay" is three parts ignorance and seven parts selection bias. First, one would expect written scripture to play an increasingly important role in the diaspora. Second, the presumption that the absence of evidence of earlier text somehow indicates the absence of earlier text is simply naive.

 

[fallingblood]

this is your ENTIRE post.
at the very most basic level is historical jesus and biblical jesus the same figure?

It was said in context of another statement. That was a follow up question, which I answered, clarifying a previous statement. You should have read the first statement as well.

Please now, stop your foolishness, and just address the OP. You still have not. You seem to be posting in a thread that you seem to have no knowledge on or want to have knowledge on. You're wasting everyone's time by making asinine statements, that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. So please, stop and think about the OP, and then reply accordingly. That, or just stop all together.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Even if Jesus died much earlier than 30 AD, and there's no reason at all to believe that he did....

Well, I have to disagree with that. I think I've offered some good evidence and arguments for that case.

... it doesn't change anything. The setting in life that we're discussing would be the same if he lived 300 years earlier. People were still poor, illiterate, and lived in a culture where orality was favored.

I agree that the culture didn't change much during that period. But I don't think oral stories about Jesus could have arisen in such a short time (between crucifixion and Q or Mark maybe?). Not stories so formalized that the gospels could be seen as simply copying down oral recitations.

Another thing bothers me. It's about Paul and the churches which already existed during his persecution of Christians. Paul had his epiphany somewhere around 35 AD, yes? (If you disagree, could you give me your best guess for a date?) So how could there be established churches if Jesus wasn't even dead yet? Especially since -- as everyone here seems to agree -- Jesus didn't make a big splash? Why would churches already be established by then if Jesus wasn't a big deal in Jerusalem?

That is a big timing problem, isn't it?

The more I think on it, the more convinced I'm becoming that any historical Jesus must have lived long before the time claimed for him.

I don't see that as any kind of problem, but I'm not invested in Christianity, so I don't know if Christians would be bothered by it.