The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[averageJOE]

Was Jesus a real man or myth? We'll never know. But personally I don't think it matters one bit. Say someone actually provides hard, undeniable physical evidence...so what?? They just proved he was alive, thats it. What they will never prove was the claim if him being a messiah.

I have never debated his exsistance. I don't care about that. I've debated the claim of him being the son of God. Which I for one will never believe. To me, Jesus (if he existed) was the worlds first child celebrity. From birth he was led to believe that he was the son of God. And he grew up actually believing that. Soon everyone started beleiving it. Eventually the rumor spred like wild fire. Like the Salem witch trials only bigger.

I believe with every ounce of my body that Jesus has nothing to do with God. I believe that worshiping the life and death of a mortal man who claimed/believed he was the son of God is kinda creepy. The freekin' Manson Family truley believed that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ!!

 

[Oberon]

Wrong. And wrong, again. But, I digress.

"As far as we can tell from the Nag Hammdi writings, of instead of taking a libertine view of ethics (anything goes, since nothing matters), Gnostics were ascetic, advocating the strict regulation and harsh treatment of the body. Their logic was that since the body is evil, it should be punished; since attachment to the body is the problem of human existence, and sicne it is so easy to become attached to the body through pleasure, the body should be denied all pleasure. Thus it appears that they typical Gnostic stand on how to treat the body was rather strict." p. 126


"The Gnostics virtually fetishized this notion of an elite, a group of people in the know, who recognized the true nature of the church's profession of faith, of its Scriptures, of its sacrements...
It is a powerful message. It was obviously attractive. But I don't know if it could ever have won out. One of the problems with religions that stress the importance of the spiritually elite is that they have trouble winning over the (nonelite) masses." pp.132-3

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

All the evidence I know of are the gospels themselves and a single reference from Josephus concerning "James the brother of Christ" which is really quite vague.

Anyone have any more?

Yes, actually, we have the letters of Paul. Also, the longer reference in Josephus is widely believed to be an alteration of a genuinely josephus passage. Furthermore, four bioi within a few generations of Jesus is a great deal when it comes to the ancient world. How many figures do you think had that kind of attestation?

 

[Arkholt]

Was Jesus a real man or myth? We'll never know. But personally I don't think it matters one bit. Say someone actually provides hard, undeniable physical evidence...so what?? They just proved he was alive, thats it. What they will never prove was the claim if him being a messiah.

I have never debated his exsistance. I don't care about that. I've debated the claim of him being the son of God. Which I for one will never believe. To me, Jesus (if he existed) was the worlds first child celebrity. From birth he was led to believe that he was the son of God. And he grew up actually believing that. Soon everyone started beleiving it. Eventually the rumor spred like wild fire. Like the Salem witch trials only bigger.

I believe with every ounce of my body that Jesus has nothing to do with God. I believe that worshiping the life and death of a mortal man who claimed/believed he was the son of God is kinda creepy. The freekin' Manson Family truley believed that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ!!

While I don't agree with your assessment of Jesus Christ, as I do believe he has to do with God, I completely agree with your sentiment. Proving or disproving that Christ was a historical figure will do nothing to prove or disprove his divinity. I feel the same way about proving anything in the Bible is historical. Why does it matter? It's what we learn from it and do with it that matters.

 

[Dunemeister]

While I don't agree with your assessment of Jesus Christ, as I do believe he has to do with God, I completely agree with your sentiment. Proving or disproving that Christ was a historical figure will do nothing to prove or disprove his divinity. I feel the same way about proving anything in the Bible is historical. Why does it matter? It's what we learn from it and do with it that matters.

Given that much of the content of Christian faith has to do with the nature of her founder, I'd say that questions of the bible's historicity are crucial, not optional. That's not to say that every Christian needs to be versed in historical criticism, but the work has to be done.

 

[logician]

Given that much of the content of Christian faith has to do with the nature of her founder, I'd say that questions of the bible's historicity are crucial, not optional. That's not to say that every Christian needs to be versed in historical criticism, but the work has to be done.

The "Christian" faith has much less to do with it's supposed "founder" than the real founders of the religion in Rome, who selected which books did or did not belong in their Bible, and came to agreements as to Church theology. The Christian faith today is a conglomoration of a number of myths, and a myriad of denominations.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

The gospels actually represent a rather rich corpus of information. Jesus is the most well-attested individual of ancient history. The only reason to reject the accounts is a bias against the supernatural. IMO, so much the worse for the bias.

That statement is absurd on its face. There are literally hundreds of Greeks and Romans who are well documented to have existed. We have cross references, independent accounts, and even some physical evidence that many of the ancients were quite real people who did real things that had a real impact on their world.

Now this JC guy - not so much. But I will concede w/o argument some guy named Jesus did exist and was regarded as a god by some small group of followers. And that these followers wrote accounts of his life in support of their beliefs.

So what? How does that = GOD!

 

[Mr Cheese]

"As far as we can tell from the Nag Hammdi writings, of instead of taking a libertine view of ethics (anything goes, since nothing matters), Gnostics were ascetic, advocating the strict regulation and harsh treatment of the body. Their logic was that since the body is evil, it should be punished; since attachment to the body is the problem of human existence, and sicne it is so easy to become attached to the body through pleasure, the body should be denied all pleasure. Thus it appears that they typical Gnostic stand on how to treat the body was rather strict." p. 126


"The Gnostics virtually fetishized this notion of an elite, a group of people in the know, who recognized the true nature of the church's profession of faith, of its Scriptures, of its sacrements...
It is a powerful message. It was obviously attractive. But I don't know if it could ever have won out. One of the problems with religions that stress the importance of the spiritually elite is that they have trouble winning over the (nonelite) masses." pp.132-3

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.



Yes, actually, we have the letters of Paul. Also, the longer reference in Josephus is widely believed to be an alteration of a genuinely josephus passage. Furthermore, four bioi within a few generations of Jesus is a great deal when it comes to the ancient world. How many figures do you think had that kind of attestation?

gnostics were far from one group....
While many were ascetics, not all were

One has to remember the vast majority of Gnostic writings are actually anti-gnostic

 

[Oberon]

That statement is absurd on its face. There are literally hundreds of Greeks and Romans who are well documented to have existed.

Not really.

We have cross references, independent accounts, and even some physical evidence that many of the ancients were quite real people who did real things that had a real impact on their world.

Physical evidence? Like statues and coins? Because we have statues and coins of zeus too. The fact is, there really aren't that many people from ancient history who have as much written about them as early as Jesus does. There are some, but not hundreds by any stretch of the imagination.

Have you read a great deal of latin or greek history? It contains myth, magic, and miracles. Diogenes' biographies were written centuries after the people had died. They were filled with mythic junk. Herodotus was filled with myths, hearsay, etc.

Now this JC guy - not so much.

How many greeks or romans had four bioi, several epistles, and a jewish historian attesting not simply to their existence but details of their life within a generation or two?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Right. Do you have sources to back these "statistics?" I thought not.

oh please you are your sources....

You know what, baked beans make you fart
But it took science 5 years to prove it.
Prior to this, I am SURE you would claim,

"where's your source...?"

The statistics may not be accurate, however to deny the inherant bias in the vast majority of such people is rather silly...

but then I dont have a source nor do I feel the need to...

I guess that means you have won...
amazing, you have won a discussion on an internet forum:sarcastic
You must feel special

 

[Oberon]

gnostics were far from one group....
While many were ascetics, not all were

That's true. In fact, as a group "gnostics" don't exist. It is an umbrella term applied to a variety of groups, sometimes radically different, which flourished in a particular period. In fact, we can't always agree just which groups were gnostic and which weren't. Some count Marcion, others don't. A group of scholars got together in the 60s (if memory serves) to hash out a definition, but that failed.

However, that being said, one of the themes that runs through the literature we call gnostic is a rejection of this world.

One has to remember the vast majority of Gnostic writings are actually anti-gnostic

That's true. And one of the things Nag Hammadi did for us was make us trust those writings a lot more as they fairly accurately depicted gnostic beliefs. All lot of claims made by church fathers used to be dismissed by modern scholars, who thought they must have been exaggerating, until we found the Nag Hammadi texts.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Ermm, no....unless your only reference is the heresiologists. Gnostic texts found in the Nag Hammadi clearly celebrate things like birth, sex and nature. The idea illuminated from the NHL is that physical reality can be wonderful, but don't be fooled into thinking that is ALL there is.

Further, Gnostics were [and are] universalists -- everyone is 'saved' if they so choose to be. Gnostic elitism was espoused by heresiologists to further discredit an ideology they disagreed with.

A good fine summary
Of course Oberon wont believe it, as he's too busy reading the "experts"

Of course there were MANY Gnostics groups....they came in all shapes and sizes

The Mandaeans (last living Gnostic faith) for example consider celibacy to be a sin...

But yes a fine summary frubals for you... to understand Gnosticism one has to read below the surface

 

[Oberon]

oh please you are your sources....

I know, I ask people to back up ridiculous statements by actual evidence. How silly!

The statistics may not be accurate, however to deny the inherant bias in the vast majority of such people is rather silly...

Everyone is biased. However, a lot of NT scholars are biased AGAINST christianity if anything. There are plenty of Jewish, agnostic, and atheist scholars in the field.

 

[Oberon]

A good fine summary
Of course Oberon wont believe it, as he's too busy reading the "experts"

No I read the texts too. Many of them discuss how only the few will be saved. Reminds me of calvinism.

 

[Mr Cheese]

However, that being said, one of the themes that runs through the literature we call gnostic is a rejection of this world.

.

Its a rejection of the world before Gnosis, before "understanding"

something you clearly don't understand...

 

[Mr Cheese]

No I read the texts too. Many of them discuss how only the few will be saved. Reminds me of calvinism.

Thats because you are like a french person visiting America for a day
WHo upon arriving home thinks all americans are fat, stupid and eat fast food.

but never mind.....

You should examine sufism...but anyway

 

[Oberon]

Its a rejection of the world before Gnosis, before "understanding"

something you clearly don't understand...

Right. Because I read the texts, rather than read into them. I study the period in question to understand the world behind the text, rather than turn it into whatever I want.

 

[Oberon]

Thats because you are like a french person visiting America for a day
WHo upon arriving home thinks all americans are fat, stupid and eat fast food.

but never mind.....

You should examine sufism...but anyway

I spend years studying these texts, and you can't tell the difference between them and a modern forgery, but I'm the one who is making snap judgments?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Backto the ORIGINAL topic

proving whther Jesus existed as a physical homosapien is a bit like trying to catch a fart in a hurricane using a butterfly net.

We can all sit around and discuss Josephus etc etc etc

What is clear is there are many versions of the Jesus story. The myth version is but ONE, it is far from the only one. We have the "official" Biblical one, which is split into many sub stratums
We have the myth one, Jesus son of Isis, is actually Quatzecoytly the winged beast etc etc etc
We have the Chinese version, Jesus the wondering dude who is the Tao...
We have the Gnostic one, which also has many guises, from a Nazorean (a religious sect as opposed to personage of a town), to essene, to wondering spirit, to emanation of the monad (aeon) etc.
We even have avatari or cosmic christ Jesus... Hinudism and new agers...

So what do we have in the end?

We have the idea Jesus is all things to all men...
As Philip says:

Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him. He appeared to them all. He appeared to the great as great. He appeared to the small as small. He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this, his word hid itself from everyone. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount, he was not small. He became great, but he made the disciples great, that they might be able to see him in his greatness.

............

Jesus the myth dude? well of course many "attributes" of jesus are of the "myth" guy...
As Pagans became christians, old ways didnt suddenly duie, they just got re-assesed.
Religion has been doing this for centuries.... Lillith wasnt always the Goddess of masturbation for example.

Although some scholars argue that some early christians were Isis worshippers

Praise the Aten

How manifold are your works,
They are hidden from before (us)
O Sole God, whose powers no other possesses.
You did create the earth according to your heart
While you were alone
Man, all cattle, large and small
All that are upon the earth
That go about on their feet
(All) That are on high
That fly with their wings
http://www.kenseamedia.com/egyptian_gods/images/aten_02.jpg

 

[Mr Cheese]

I spend years studying these texts, and you can't tell the difference between them and a modern forgery, but I'm the one who is making snap judgments?

Yet you see parrallels between Gnosticism and calvinism

thats like trying to say that oranges taste the same as pork pies, because they are both "round"....

but you don't see that, as you are too busy in literalism...

Have you studied Sufism too? I think not

 

[Oberon]

What is clear is there are many versions of the Jesus story.

Not really. Despite disagreements, the Jesus depicted in John is not a different "version" than the synoptics. And Thomas, the only other source early enough to be of any use, is full of sayings, and is probably (although not certainly) dependent on the synoptics.

What is clear is that there are a number of early, historical sources for Jesus. These contain many mythic elements, and some of them (John and Thomas) are really only useful as checks against traditions found in the synoptics or the epistles. These sources are more than enough to say that Jesus was historical.