The Jesus Myth

[Jayhawker Soule]

If there were, we don't know about them (with the exception of the Ebionites).

And, sadly, we know precious little about them - despite what the today's 'Ebionites' would have us believe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was answering this below

I have a hard time believing that all of the early church leaders were illiterate.

All im saying is jesus wasnt in allot of churches, literacy doesnt matter in a church, jesus spread his message to the poor as a traveling teacher

jesus spread his message to the poor, there were no modern churches and jesus preached outside of the normal hebrew script that got john killed. he wasnt in a church preaching

Is there a point to all this?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is there a point to all this?

Insulting your intelligence.

 

[JMiller]

Mr. J and Mr Angellous, you two seem to be very old members (relatively speaking of course). I got a chuckle out of this recent exchange. Especially the part about an adolescent pushing back just to push back.
I take it you two are quite knowledgeable on the subject. Not my field of study, but I hope to learn as I continue to read your posts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mr. J and Mr Angellous, you two seem to be very old members ... I take it you two are quite knowledgeable on the subject. Not my field of study, but I hope to learn as I continue to read your posts.

It's a long-standing division of labor: I'm very old and he's quite knowledgeable.

 

[JMiller]

It's a long-standing division of labor: I'm very old and he's quite knowledgeable.

Oh my goodness, I just choked on my water. OK, I'll take your word for it!

 

[outhouse]

Is there a point to all this?

could you try and keep up??

 

[outhouse]

Insulting your intelligence.

or possible lack of

 

[jelly]

Let's see. That way *pointing to the nearest gas station*. Seriously, this is not that hard. They weren't stupid.

yeah there is no possible way they would say turn on such and such street, afterall streets didn't have names and if they did a person couldn't identify them because they would be illiterate...
^^sarcasm...

 

[jelly]

Hey, what way is Jerusalem? Or, hey, what way is Rome? Or, I'm trying to get to Corinth, which road would lead me there? Not very hard.

Also, they had roads connecting the Empire. That helps with travel a lot.

how would somebody identify a road if they were illiterate?
why identify a city by name if you couldn't identify it by writing?

 

[sojourner]

jesus spread his message to the poor, there were no modern churches and jesus preached outside of the normal hebrew script that got john killed. he wasnt in a church preaching

He taught in the temple...

 

[fallingblood]

yeah there is no possible way they would say turn on such and such street, afterall streets didn't have names and if they did a person couldn't identify them because they would be illiterate...
^^sarcasm...

Being uninformed is not an argument.

Really, would it be hard to follow these directions. Follow this road and you will get to where you want. Or, follow this road, and then after 20 miles, take a left at the sign post.

 

[fallingblood]

how would somebody identify a road if they were illiterate?
why identify a city by name if you couldn't identify it by writing?

How do they do it now? By familiar sights. By markers. By certain distinguishing features. Again, they were not stupid.

 

[jelly]

do you agree that travel was common and the common traveled commonly?

don't confuse the poor guy, bibilical jesus is the story of historical jesus who preformed miracles..

:banghead3 You just don't even try do you?

who is described in the bible if it wasn't a guy who performed miracles aka historcial jesus?

 

[fallingblood]

do you agree that travel was common and the common traveled commonly?

Yep.

who is described in the bible if it wasn't a guy who performed miracles aka historcial jesus?

Like I said, you aren't trying. I have explained this. What we have in the Bible is a view of the historical Jesus. Did he perform miracles? No (at in my opinion). Did people think he performed miracles? Yes.

View points. That is what we are talking about.

 

[jelly]

Yep.

Like I said, you aren't trying. I have explained this. What we have in the Bible is a view of the historical Jesus. Did he perform miracles? No (at in my opinion). Did people think he performed miracles? Yes.

View points. That is what we are talking about.

so far this is what I understand you to be saying:
1) people communicated with words and markers (?which would have had words on them?) to each other commonly in order to travel, but at the same time people were illiterate so they couldn't write about jesus.
2) biblical jesus is not a story about historical jesus because historical jesus did not perform miracles.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We don't know for sure he waited. In the opinion of Crossan and Borg, Paul, after joining the Jesus movement, went on a mission to Arabia (as Paul states that he did go to Arabia; however, he doesn't mention much about it). The mission was seemingly a failure, and thus, there would be no reason to expect writings to be preserved there.

I realize that there's lots of speculation in Biblical studies. There has to be, what with the state of the evidence. But I think that in the absense of writings, our first guess should be that such writings never existed -- rather than working to explain how they might've existed but were lost. Occam's Razor and all.

We know that Paul wrote more than what we actually have. He tells us this by mentioning letters we no longer have. So it is very possible that Paul wrote before 49 C.E.

I agree that it's possible, of course. But I feel pretty sure that if he'd written about the historical Jesus, that at least some of those writings would have survived. I'd think that the early church in Jerusalem would have a great interest in preserving such writings.

Later, he would receive letters, or sometimes reports from these churches he already founded, asking either questions, or stating problems they were having. Paul would then address those questions and problems.

Yes, I'm familiar with the purpose of Paul's letters, at least in the general way as you describe here.

All we can gleam from the fact that he wrote little about Jesus is that people were not having a problem with his life. No one was questioning aspects of the life of Jesus. So there was no reason to really address that.

That doesn't work for me at all. I think passionate Paul would have written extensively about the historical Jesus, if he'd actually had any reports about it. Jesus was the center of his life.

More so, much of the focus was not on the life of Jesus, but on the death and resurrection. It was that which was most important to them.

The gospel writers -- 30 to 50 years later -- felt it important to tell the historical story of Jesus, but those who actually experienced it (and Paul who interviewed them) felt no such urge? That's way beyond my ability to believe.

It is more than one comment though. He states specifically once, that he met the brother of Jesus. He later mentions this same James on various occasions.

Do we have any of Paul's letters in his own hand? If not (which is my assumption), why don't you wonder whether the James' mention could be an interpolation or confusion or even a falsehood -- as you seem to believe about so much other NT material?

Why do you accept it uncritically, when you discount so many other Biblical claims?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The gospel writers -- 30 to 50 years later -- felt it important to tell the historical story of Jesus, but those who actually experienced it (and Paul who interviewed them) felt no such urge? That's way beyond my ability to believe.

That limitation is hardly an argument. You're looking at the situation with a mythicist bias through a 21st century lens. Is it similarly beyond your ability to believe that the Mishna was produced decades after the fact?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

so far this is what I understand you to be saying:
1) people communicated with words and markers (?which would have had words on them?) to each other commonly in order to travel, but at the same time people were illiterate so they couldn't write about jesus.
2) biblical jesus is not a story about historical jesus because historical jesus did not perform miracles.

Are you actually making an effort here?

I'm wondering if you're trying to make others look stupid or make a fool of yourself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can expand a little bit on that. The four Gospels tell us that John the Baptist baptized Jesus. He can be fairly certain that this is historical, as it is embarrassing. It signals that Jesus was sinful, and that he accepted the authority of another leader.

I've heard quite different explanation as to why Jesus was baptized by John. It's been a long time ago now, but I think it had to do with showing his humility. Plus, a story was needed for the dove to come down, if I'm remembering. Wasn't there some kind of requirement for the messiah... to be baptized? I'll have to review all of that if you want to discuss it further.

The baptism is also the earliest time that all four gospels agree on. It is the start of his ministry. Because Jesus was baptized by John, and that his message was similar to John's (we get this from the little said about John in the Gospels, and what is said in Josephus), the conclusion is that Jesus was a disciple of John. This conclusion is also strengthened by the fact that we are told that other former disciples of John also followed Jesus.

So how do we know that John the Baptist even existed as an historical person? Is he mentioned outside of the gospels?