The Jesus Myth

[fallingblood]

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.

Actually, a physical man could succeed as the Messiah, if one is speaking of the Jewish Messiah. In fact, we know of a few claimants who made a very good go at it. They did fail; however, the fact that some have gotten so far, would suggest that it would be possible.

 

[idav]

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 an interesting point. Though the number of churches may not have been all that great but it is possible for it to be in the double digits early on since the number of apostles was in the double digits. Also I get the idea that the churches are few considering how much Paul was up in their business and would travel to them if necessary.

 

[fallingblood]

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?

Jesus would have died around 30 C.E. At latest, 32 C.E.

Paul began writing, from what we have, around 49 C.E.

The problem becomes trying to really place the events of Paul into a time line. Even the date of 49 C.E. for his first letter is debatable. However, based on the information we do have, it would probably be safe to place it around 36 C.E. (if I remember correctly, most scholars would place that at the latest time he could have converted. 33 C.E. being the earliest).

Now, that would give Paul around 3-6 years to persecute the Christians (and this was not a massive amount of persecuting either. Paul states in his letters that he was not even known in Judea really). The extent of his persecution is debatable, but I would suggest it was not that much.

That short time period would have allowed for some missionary work though (there were still 12 disciples according to Paul, and it would be safe to assume they still preached the message of Jesus). It would not have been a lot of members, but still enough to be persecuted.

More so, in Jerusalem, that is where the Jesus movement centered after Jesus died. As Paul informs us, James, the brother of Jesus, along with Peter and John, were running the church in Jerusalem. We find out from Josephus that James actually became respected there, at least to a point.

The fact that Paul states that the brother of Jesus was still living (he also mentions more family of Jesus) shows that Jesus had been a recent historical figure.

 

[outhouse]

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 is suspicious

its why biblical jesus is not historical jesus

doesnt mean its fiction, its how they looked at the situation and the story grew with oral transmission.

but personally I think that the hero thing played the greater part of it

problem with that is they didnt need a hero and he didnt have enouh following while alive.

it was a slow movement not a hollywood movie. Theology didnt really need a hero for the movement to grow.

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.

he took over where john left off and ran with it freestyle

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh no. I'm saying that the death of the witnesses caused some expidency for the writing of the Gospels.

The apostles and their students weren't around anymore, so their stories were rather quickly codified.

That makes sense, but it doesn't match the most popular theory around here, which seems to be that the gospels were some sort of transcription of existing, formalized oral stories. But I remember that you aren't a fan of that idea.

How do you think that the earliest written story came to be? From listening to loose campfire stories? By questioning witnesses? By transcribing the existing codified stories?

 

[jelly]

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...

are you lying intentionally?
you replied to a question I asked.
there was no predicate statement to you were responding to; your response was to my question!
to understand what I am claiming you have to read my posts in this link AND be sure to read up to post #919 (which is your post)----> http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94384-jesus-myth-92.html#post2506535 <---

...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.

I have considered your OP..

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?

there is no diffference between biblical jesus and historical jesus when it comes to existence.
there is no evidence that is not fabricated to completely assert (with any truth) that historical jesus/biblical jesus existed.
there is an abscence of evidence everywhere that is looked (with the exception of evidence that is fabricated) and the lack of evidence supports the claim "there is no evidence of jesus that is not fabricated".
are you happy?

since trolls like to argue and sometimes use incorrect assumptions I will explain to you why you are acting like a troll.

first, you assert your authority by mentioning you have some knowledge on the subject of "the Jesus Myth" AND you have the audacity to include the fact that you have written papers on the subject "the Jesus Myth" (which I think in your own mind confirms that you an authority on "the Jesus Myth"). Secondly, you assume that a historical jesus existed because there is a biblical jesus or you assume that a historical jesus existed because you just want to believe that a historical jesus existed (or you are a very good troll and believe niether, but I don't think you are a very good troll so I wont digress about your assumptions or beliefs because I think you are just an average person who is not aware they have been acting like a troll). Then, most trollfully, you attribute the real life name "jesus" to a historical jesus because you can then formulate the troll question (which is what trolls do). After you have all the peices of the troll puzzle together (for you the troll puzzle is as follows: a forum, a means to access the forum, a somewhat anonymous name to identify yourself, and a relative degree of comfort to post what you want) you compare your historical jesus to biblical jesus and think of the troll question to ask that would best descibe your disposition which is "is the Jesus Myth true?". Finally, you wait for people to respond to the bait (which is the troll question) and when people do you make stupid comments to assert that the troll question is a valid question to ask when in fact you just wanted to troll...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

there is no evidence that is not fabricated to completely assert (with any truth) that historical jesus/biblical jesus existed.

What a weasel-worded piece of ignorant garbage that was. Why don't you drop this pathetic display and simply and clearly articulate and defend your position on historicity?

 

[jelly]

What a weasel-worded piece of ignorant garbage that was. Why don't you drop this pathetic display and simply and clearly articulate and defend your position on historicity?

I can entitle you to your opinion.
why the OP doesn't ask me for my opinion on historicity, it asks for an opinion on "the Mythical Jesus".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can entitle you to your opinion.
why the OP doesn't ask me for my opinion on historicity, it asks for an opinion on "the Mythical Jesus".

Do you know how to construct a coherent sentence?

 

[jelly]

Do you know how to construct a coherent sentence?

do you know how to read between the lines?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

do you know how to read between the lines?

It's your old nemesis! Peanut butter!

 

[jelly]

It's your old nemesis! Peanut butter!

thanks.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The oral stories have several markers in them that were intended to be used as tools that help the listener recall the content exactly - but that doesn't mean that they did. The oral tradition is not a printing press.

Yes, I agree. I think there's a lot of confusion out there about 'oral cultures.' It was a rare story indeed which did not change much over the years.

 

[fallingblood]

I can entitle you to your opinion.
why the OP doesn't ask me for my opinion on historicity, it asks for an opinion on "the Mythical Jesus".

Wow. I was actually asking about historicity. The was part of the OP. Arguments for and against the Jesus Myth. Meaning, to simplify it even more; arguments for a historical Jesus, or arguments for a mythical/imaginary/fabricated/etc Jesus.

Again, you need to go back and read the OP. You simply stating your opinion, and not backing it up, is not what the OP is asking.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I'm very sorry to say that I missed the "good evidence and arguments for that case."

Believe me, I can sympathize. I can't tell you how many times I thought I've come up with something that's pure genius only to find that my professor is displeased with it or he is only mildly impressed... and then he thinks that something I thought was obvious is the best thing he's ever read. Go figure.

I've even come up with an argument that is quite similar to yours: That Marcion, who was excommunicated in 144CE, was active much earlier than that - and popular. So the seeds were sown for his widespread popularity before 144BC. That paper has been rejected a few times by scholarly journals. But my paper on the history of women in philosophy was accepted without revision - something that I thought was obvious.

I understand your attraction to the argument, but it simply isn't tenable. Sometimes it just works out that way.

Here's something to consider.... the whole concept of "AD" - "in the year of our Lord" - is centered on the approximate life of Christ. There's no such thing as Christ living significantly earlier than that because he is the starting point.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

An elegant statement of faith, I think. As such, I can't argue with it.

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.

OK, but doesn't this argue for a much earlier Jesus? If the resurrection message was early, wouldn't lots of contemporary Jerusalemites have been calling BS?

Considering the existence of the early churches, it seems to me that people were believing in Jesus' resurrection well before 33ad.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

who is Yeshua/Jesus and how do you know?

What do you mean? All I can tell you is the gospels are speaking of a man named Yeshua. I'm not "certain" he ever existed but I'm certain the gospels are certain he existed. One of the biggest questions for mythicist is can we be certain he didn't exist. When it comes to history nothing is certain.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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



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.

I agree that the all the issues that we are talking about are perplexing, but they are not unanswerable. Without consulting my sources to be exact, Paul was converted about 35CE but then spent 12 years in study and contemplation, then went on a few missionary journeys from 50-62, ending with his death in Rome. During his journeys, he spread the Gospel in many parts of the ancient world, and during this 24 year time period Christian traditions expanded and developed, and early Christian literature was produced in many parts of the ancient world over a long period of time, the earliest being Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians in 52 ending with some parts of John being written as late as 120CE. That's quite a while for development of theology, myth, and writing.

 

[jelly]

What do you mean? All I can tell you is the gospels are speaking of a man named Yeshua. I'm not "certain" he ever existed but I'm certain the gospels are certain he existed. One of the biggest questions for mythicist is can we be certain he didn't exist. When it comes to history nothing is certain.

is history a part of history?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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).

So you're holding that there were no literate people in Jerusalem, who believed in Jesus, within 30-50 years of his death? At least none who could be bothered with writing his story?