The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[Oberon]

Yet you see parrallels between Gnosticism and calvinism

Yes, both have a predetermined elect.

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

You mean, not reading into the text whatever I want to? Yes, I'm busy with that.

Have you studied Sufism too? I think not

You got the "i think not" part right. But I have studied islam and sufism. It simply isn't my area of expertise. Nor is it normally counted as gnostic, except by "modern" gnostics.

 

[logician]

Not really. Despite disagreements, the Jesus depicted in John is not a different "version" than the synoptics. .

This statement is so ludicrous as to be nonsensical. Whoever wrote John appears to be mainly interested in a spiritual Christ, whereas the rest of the gospels concentrate on the man Jesus. Night and day, Gnosticism vs literalism.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You got the "i think not" part right. But I have studied islam and sufism. It simply isn't my area of expertise. Nor is it normally counted as gnostic, except by "modern" gnostics.

quite clearly you havent...
as you would notice the paralells

I am not saying Sufism is gnostic (although it is with a small g)
merely one can see what I and the UU poster are saying by examining Sufism...

Sufism also seek to leave the world.....

Clearly though, you dont actually understand what Gnosis is...
............................

As we look to the divine in each other, encouraging each other to rise to the fullness of is or her own divine nature, we push against our limitations until they dissolve and a gift unfolds. As we learn to witness the miracle of creation, a time comes when “wheresoever you look, there is the Face of God; everything is perishing except the One Face.” Whether we choose celibacy or committed partnership, whether we are female or male, the same work remains of polishing the mirror of the heart, of being in remembrance moment by moment, breath by breath. Each moment we reaffirm the inner marriage until there is no longer lover or Beloved but only Unity of Being. Little by little, we die to what we thought we were. We are dissolved into Love, and we become love, God willing. As Rabi’a says:
In love, nothing exists between breast and Breast.


Speech is born out of longing,

True description from the real taste.

The one who tastes, knows;

The one who explains, lies.


How can you describe the true form of Something In whose presence you are blotted out?


And in whose being you still exist?


And who lives as a sign for your journey?
Women and Sufism, by Camille Adams Helminski

 

[Oberon]

This statement is so ludicrous as to be nonsensical. Whoever wrote John appears to be mainly interested in a spiritual Christ, whereas the rest of the gospels concentrate on the man Jesus. Night and day, Gnosticism vs literalism.

Yes, whatever the various websites tell you.

To those of us who have actually studied the matter, however, they aren't all that different. Yes, John is less interested in the Jesus tradition and more interested in other matters. The Jesus of john is still not a different Jesus, however.

As for nonsensical, you are still posting junk about "maturea" and other riduculous comparisons. Why don't you study the field instead of regurgitating whatever you can find from google?

Let me ask you:

Do you read greek or latin?

How many historical texts from this period have you studied?

What is your degree or what are you degrees in?

Have you studied history?

Do you have ANY historical academic sources to back your various claims?

 

[Oberon]

Clearly though, you dont actually understand what Gnosis is...

Yes, clearly I haven't read into my sources as much as you have. While they never call themselves "gnostic" nor seem to have shared the same philosophy as you do, clearly I don't understand them. :sarcastic

 

[Mr Cheese]

Yes, clearly I haven't read into my sources as much as you have. While they never call themselves "gnostic" nor seem to have shared the same philosophy as you do, clearly I don't understand them. :sarcastic

I said, as in the other thread where you argued from a pooint of literalism and sheer ignorance...

You dont understand what GNOSIS is....

le sigh :sarcastic

 

[J Bryson]

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.

Total agreement on that. When people accuse me of cherrypicking from the Bible, I simply tell them that I'm part of a tradition that goes back to early Christianity.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

[/color]
Not really.





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.




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?

Even conceding ALL that arguendo it proves nothing. And actually supports that case for the accounts of JC - whoever wrote them - containing the same myth exaggeration and pure fantasy other writings do.

NOTHING in your argument advances the case for GOD!

But it DOES show the lenghts believers will go to attribute god status to an ignorant illiterate wandering jew who convinced a few dozen other equally ignorant jews he was a god.

As for physical evidence - ever been to Rome?

 

[cesara]

[snip]

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

Firstly, thanks for the response. I find this sort of dialog very stimulating. I always learn a lot.

Though I'm a fan of Ehrman, Elaine Pagels [faculty at Princeton and one of the few academics worldwide who can read Coptic] has far more credentials in the area of the NHL.

"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

Would you consider today's Christian denominations to be 'elitist'? If not, how do you rationalize passages such as this from the Gospel of Mark:

"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."

Or Paul writing to the Corinthians where he states that he was lifted to the 3rd heaven and heard: "inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell."

He speaks of "God's Secret Wisdom" which was "among the mature."

Or what about Luke, when he states, "The kingdom of God is within you." -- probably one of the most recognizably 'gnostic' sentiments found in the NT.

If we can rationalize these passages as being non-elitist then, so too, should we use that rationalization when looking at the NHL.

In the Pistis Sophia we find this passage:

"Tell them! Tell everyone who has let go of these things and is worthy of enlightenment; give them the mysteries of the Light and don't hide them from them at all.

Even if they're wicked and they've been involved in all the errors and iniquities of the world, all of which I've described, don't keep the mysteries from them, so that they might apologize for their transgressions and be enlightened like I've described. Give them the mysteries of the Light and don't hide them from anyone; the mysteries are specifically for the forgiveness of error.

It's because of error that I've brought the mysteries into the world in the first place, so that I can correct every error committed by everyone since the beginning. This is why I've told you: 'I haven't come to call the righteous.' So you see, I brought the mysteries so that everyone's errors may be forgiven and so that everyone will achieve the Light. The mysteries are the gift of the First Mystery, that he may wipe out the errors and iniquities of everyone trapped in the imperfection."

Gnostic texts tend to support universalism -- of apokatastasis. Attaining salvation is as easy as looking within you, using Jesus as an example. Everyone and anyone has access -- one need only look to find Gnosis.[captial G]

"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

What Gnosticism rejects is the system that has been imposed on the world, not the world [or body], itself. Let me point you to a list of 10 Things Religious Pundits Need to Know About Gnosticism [just google is for reference; sorry, I can't put links into posts, yet] by Jordan Stratford, a contemporary Gnostic priest. In it, he says:
"4) Gnostics do not hate the physical world

Gnostic scripture frequently invokes favourably the beauty and power of the natural world; the symbolism of pregnancy, midwifery, childbirth, newborns, storms and ripe crops are frequently employed by Gnostic authors. Gnostics do not view the flesh as evil, but rather as temporary when contrasted with the immortality of the soul—a view shared by most if not all Christians.

What Gnostics reject is not the earth, but the system: the artificial world of injustice, prejudice, institutionalization and materialism. "

Anyway, I could go on, but I feel that this conversation isn't really lending well to the original topic at hand.

If you'd like to continue this dialog in a new thread I'd be happy to join you.

 

[logician]

Yes, whatever the various websites tell you.

To those of us who have actually studied the matter, however, they aren't all that different. Yes, John is less interested in the Jesus tradition and more interested in other matters. The Jesus of john is still not a different Jesus, however.

As for nonsensical, you are still posting junk about "maturea" and other riduculous comparisons. Why don't you study the field instead of regurgitating whatever you can find from google?

Let me ask you:

Do you read greek or latin?

How many historical texts from this period have you studied?

What is your degree or what are you degrees in?

Have you studied history?

Do you have ANY historical academic sources to back your various claims?

1. Do you read greek or latin?

I did take a couple of years of Latin.

2.How many historical texts from this period have you studied?

None, I don't read Greek or Latin.

3.What is your degree or what are you degrees in?

Mathematics (bachelors), and business(Masters)

4. Have you studied history?

Yes, including all world religions.

5. Do you have ANY historical academic sources to back your various claims

Various books I have read, and many years of study in a church setting.

 

[Oberon]

1. Do you read greek or latin?

I did take a couple of years of Latin.

2.How many historical texts from this period have you studied?

None, I don't read Greek or Latin.

3.What is your degree or what are you degrees in?

Mathematics (bachelors), and business(Masters)

4. Have you studied history?

Yes, including all world religions.

5. Do you have ANY historical academic sources to back your various claims

Various books I have read, and many years of study in a church setting.

So you haven't studied the texts themselves, and despite your claim of reading various books (and I believe you have, but books like The Jesus Mysteries are hardly academic and they are filled with errors) you have yet to cite a single academic source backing your claims about Jesus.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This stuff, even as it is presented in the other threads about the mythical Yeshua, is priceless....Just too funny...

 

[logician]

I give up, some historical Jesus existed. Let's all go home and sing KUMBAYA.

 

[linwood]

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.

The Gospels are rich in information but unfortunately such a great deal of that information can be evidenced as incorrect, ignorant, contradictory, impossible, or obvious myth that it brings the veracity of the entirety of The Gospels as "Truth" into question.

Bias against the supernatural is an acceptable reason for skepticism of supernatural events/people considering no human has ever documented empirical evidence of anything occurring or existing that could be defined as "supernatural".

However, you`re wrong about bias against the supernatural even being a point in this debate as I`ve seen no one challenge the divinity of Jesus as God, the only challenge I`ve seen so far is the one about the existence of Jesus as man.

Yes, actually, we have the letters of Paul.

Yes we do and I will lump them in with the gospels when weighing evidence for veracity of their "Truth" for the same reasons.

Also, the longer reference in Josephus is widely believed to be an alteration of a genuinely josephus passage.

Which has been so mangled as to intent, content and specifics that it cannot be considered at all in any intellectually honest manner.
Please don`t defend the TF as legitimate evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

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?

Agreed, but you`re speaking to someone who believes in the existence of a historical Jesus of some kind almost entirely due to the evidence of The Gospels.

However as I`ve said, the veracity of the "Truth" in the gospels concerning so many other aspects of the culture, history, geography, etc.. leads me to understand why someone just a bit more sceptical than myself might disregard them entirely.

Just so my position in this discussion isn`t misunderstood.

I`m not a Christ-Myther, I believe he existed.

I just wish the evidence was better.

 

[logician]

"I just wish the evidence was better."

Why does it matter to you whether he existed, or better said, whether somebody can prove he existed? The supposed Jesus himself said blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe.

 

[Oberon]

The Gospels are rich in information but unfortunately such a great deal of that information can be evidenced as incorrect, ignorant, contradictory, impossible, or obvious myth that it brings the veracity of the entirety of The Gospels as "Truth" into question.

Which is true for most ancient historical texts. They all have to be read skeptically, because they all contain bias, and most contain myth, rumors, etc. Some are better than others. The gospels are not the worst or least reliable historical texts by a long shot. They also are far from the best.

Which has been so mangled as to intent, content and specifics that it cannot be considered at all in any intellectually honest manner.
Please don`t defend the TF as legitimate evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Why not? The consensus of scholarship (see in particular Vermes, who notes the typical Josephan vocabulary) that the longer passage is genuine, just altered, and that it is about Jesus. Furthermore, almost no one believes the reference to Jesus' brother is a forgery.

I`m not a Christ-Myther, I believe he existed.

I just wish the evidence was better.

So do I. But I think the gospels are better histories than you give them credit for. I've spent a great deal of time studying the oral tradition behind the gospels, and I think that at the very least the sayings and teachings of Jesus are well documented in the synoptics. Events tend to get more mangled up in transmission, because they only occur once, teachings are repeated.

 

[linwood]

Why does it matter to you whether he existed, or better said, whether somebody can prove he existed? The supposed Jesus himself said blessed are those that have not seen, yet believe.

Citing Christian tradition to me isn`t gonna work very well.


It doesn`t matter to me whether he really existed or not beyond the obvious interest I have for understanding the "truth" about what drives the spirituality and mentality of 95% of the population that surrounds me.

Then there is the fact that Christianity is something I`ve put a considerable amount of time and effort into understanding so I have a vested interest in solidifying or deconstructing my knowledge/beliefs about the subject.

I think Jesus whether historical or mythical is an interesting icon and it`d be very cool to "know" more about the actual man, men, or creators of the myth itself.

The first step is to answer the question the OP implies.

Did Jesus exist as man?

 

[linwood]

Why not? The consensus of scholarship (see in particular Vermes, who notes the typical Josephan vocabulary) that the longer passage is genuine, just altered, ....

Is it genuine or is it altered?
It cannot be both.

I really don`t want this to degrade into a debate about the veracity of the TF Oberon.

I cannot accept it as evidence because the content of the original passage was so altered (if it even existed) as to make it`s initial content unknowable in any manner at all.
The context around it does not even give a hint of its origins.

I will however put it on your list.

Why do you not mention any of the Nag Hammadi library as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Much of it is arguably early enough for consideration (at least in comparison with the canon).

Furthermore, almost no one believes the reference to Jesus' brother is a forgery.

I never said it was, in fact I listed it as one of the two items of evidence I know of.
However someone else pointed out that it isn`t very strong evidence as to exactly who it was speaking of.
Nevertheless I`ll accept it as evidence in this discussion.

So do I. But I think the gospels are better histories than you give them credit for.

I don`t think you give me enough credit.
I`ve stated that The Gospels alone are enough evidence for me to hold a belief in the historicity of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Is it genuine or is it altered?
It cannot be both.

Maybe I'm not being clear. The consensus of scholarship is that Josephus wrote the passage about Jesus. However, almost all experts believe that at some point scribes, rather than just copying, added certain phrases about Jesus. So the bulk of the passage is Josephus, with christian additions.

Why do you not mention any of the Nag Hammadi library as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Much of it is arguably early enough for consideration (at least in comparison with the canon).

Not really. There is a minority position that the bulk of Thomas predates the canonical gospels. For the majority, however, the synoptics are the best sources, and Thomas and John are used only for the purposes of multiple attestation of a particular tradition. I follow the majority in believing that none of the gnostic texts predate the canonical gospels.

I never said it was, in fact I listed it as one of the two items of evidence I know of.
However someone else pointed out that it isn`t very strong evidence as to exactly who it was speaking of.
Nevertheless I`ll accept it as evidence in this discussion.

Given that James is identified as Jesus' brother by Paul and Mark/Matthew, and there weren't that many people "being called Christ" I think it is pretty clear who the passage as talking about.

I`ve stated that The Gospels alone are enough evidence for me to hold a belief in the historicity of Jesus.

I think we can go beyond that. I think research into the oral traditions behind the gospels shows that it was a fairly controlled tradtion. They are pretty good sources for Jesus' teachings, and perhaps less so in other respects.

 

[Buttons*]

2) Gnosticism-

You would think that at least this early Christian thought system would be represented well by the authors. It isn’t. Below I will detail mistakes which the authors make concerning Gnosticism

a) Representing Gnosticism as unified system

Gnosticism is an umbrella term given by scholars to a diverse group of both Christian and non-Christian thought systems/texts/practices. The members themselves would not have referred to themselves as “Gnostics.” In fact, scholars of Gnosticism do not even agree just who should be counted as Gnostic and who shouldn’t. The diversity between different systems is so apparent that certain scholars (see particularly “Rethinking Gnosticism&#8221 suggest the term be abandoned all together.

b) Representing the Gnostics as modern day “radical”

The authors present the Gnostics as if they were feminists, enlightened, equalists, etc. In fact, most Gnostic sects believed that the world/creation was inherently bad, if not outright evil. In particular, the texts speak of a hatred of the body and of sex/carnal desire. More importantly, perhaps, the Gnostics were elitists. They believed that only a select group of believers would be saved, while all others would perish.




I will get to the problems with Freke and Gandy’s treatment of the historical Jesus later, but others should feel free to comment in the meantime.

I realize that Gandy and Freke don't do a completely thorough job of discussing Gnosticism - but then, they aren't Gnostic scholars. I don't even think they have a doctorate. People like Pagels, Le-Loup, and Dr. Needleman do a much better job of discussing the texts for what they are, and manage to actually take the good with the bad.

a. It's true that Gnostics of old wouldn't have referred to themselves as Gnostic. They would have simply called themselves Christian (if they were Christian Gnostics) - but referred to different texts for their understanding of Christianity. Similarly, Sufis feel that they are Islamic, even though they see the Qur'an differently. It's a similar outfit. We simply don't know enough about mystic Christians to actually tell us what they were like. I'd also like to point out that mainstream Christianity also had beginnings where leaders of different sects argued and had trouble deciding what should be a part of the tradition. (Hence the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism)

b. As I said, we don't know enough about Gnostic culture in order to actually intelligently discuss the issue. If one reads the text though, while they may not have been rabid feminists in modern terms, they did believe in a feminine and male balance. Male is not all that matters. In this way, it is an important step forward. Gnostics, from my understanding (and LOTS of reading) were all the things you and those other authors mentioned. There were some who cherished enlightenment, and there were some who squandered it and became elitist. This happens in any religious faction. Gnosticism is no different. While it wasn't perfect, it offered many positive ways of viewing the soul. It did attack the "world" as it is, because of it's basis in Platonic thought, but it also realizes that balance is what is required in order for this all to take place. The dark and the light work together. Gnostics hint to this truth in their writings.