The Myth of The Jesus Myth

[McBell]

I don't know. It seems blatently obvious that he did. The problem I have is with your "someone named Jesus." As I'm sure you know, surnames weren't used as identifiers. The Jesus of the gospels is based on a specific Jesus. Whether you take the extreme skepticism of Bultmann with respect to our sources or apply models of oral control of transmission from oral cultures similar to those of Jesus (and supported by internal evidence), it isn't just "some Jesus." It is a specific Jesus, identified by Josephus as "the one called christ" and by his family and hometown (who rejected him) by reference to his family, and by his sect as the christ.

What I find interesting is your need to specify.

Is it not enough that I have no problems with the idea that there could well have been a Jesus who started a cult, had followers and that that cult is what is now referred to as 'Christianity'?

Why the irrational need for a specific in this case?

 

[Oberon]

What I find interesting is your need to specify.

Is it not enough that I have no problems with the idea that there could well have been a Jesus who started a cult, had followers and that that cult is what is now referred to as 'Christianity'?

Why the irrational need for a specific in this case?

Because I don't understand the whole "some jesus" point. There were many jesus' living in that period. It was a common named. However, the point of Josephus' "the one called christ" is to distinguish this Jesus from the others. There was a spefic Jesus of Nazareth whose teachings and probably some of his actions are represented in the NT. The "some Jesus" is unnecessary.

 

[McBell]

Because I don't understand the whole "some jesus" point. There were many jesus' living in that period. It was a common named. However, the point of Josephus' "the one called christ" is to distinguish this Jesus from the others. There was a spefic Jesus of Nazareth whose teachings and probably some of his actions are represented in the NT. The "some Jesus" is unnecessary.

Yes, it is necessary.
Though you may well be having a hard time seeing the distinction, the distinction is still there.
And in my opinion, the distinction is, in fact, rather important.

Though I am allowing for the possibility that you do see the distinction and do not like it.

Interesting how when talking about possibilities people tend to ignore the ones that do not fit into what they want.....

 

[Oberon]

Yes, it is necessary.

Based on what?

Though you may well be having a hard time seeing the distinction, the distinction is still there.

I see the disctintion. I don't see the evidence for it. All of our sources point to a very specific figure.

And in my opinion, the distinction is, in fact, rather important.

And you acquaintence with this field consists of what research?

Though I am allowing for the possibility that you do see the distinction and do not like it.

It isn't a matter of "like" or "not like." I see no basis for it. All of our earliest sources are very clearly based on the mission of Jesus of Nazareth. There were plenty of people named Jesus, but as an identifier Josephus used "Jesus, the one called christ" because this was enough to identify him, as he was that well known among certain circles, as was his brother.

Interesting how when talking about possibilities people tend to ignore the ones that do not fit into what they want.....

I don't ignore it. I am simply know a great deal more of the relevant information than you do. As such, I find that there is no evidence to support you position. It is that simple.

 

[linwood]

Interesting how when talking about possibilities people tend to ignore the ones that do not fit into what they want.....

It`s more than interesting, it`s becoming quite humorous.

 

[dogsgod]

The difference is, THIS myth is true.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The difference is, THIS myth is true.

Well, not so fast....I've been trying to pin down this (Jesus of Nazareth) as Oberon mentions...but the trouble I'm running into is there seems to a problem with the existence of a city called Nazareth back then.....

Does anyone have any info as to this being a real place at the time. I thought I read somewhere this was some sort of graveyard. This can't be because Jews can't, well not supposed to, live near the graveyards......

 

[blueman]

You`ve got to be kidding.
You find the testimony of resurrection in the NT "credible"?

Sure I do. I respect the beliefs of others because it is their free will to choose, whether they believe God gave them that free will or not. When I read the Bible, I do not hone in on any one verse to provide me with a full context of the message that the author is looking to articulate to the reader. I read whole chapters and books to validate the message in my mind and heart. Those who attempt to discredit the validity of the bible will focus on individual verses and contrast them with other authors in looking for discrepancies, without having a firm understanding of the message the author was relaying to the readers. Its fine to question the bible and there is no fault in that. In reference to the New Testament Gospels, the basic themes are this (1) Jesus, the Son of God came to earth in the flesh and ministered, taught and performed miracles; (2) He sought out a group of ordinary men from modest backgrounds to leave everything they had to follow Him; (3) He was chastised, rejected and condemned by the religious and affluent leaders of that day; (4) He was crucified and (5) He rose again and revealed Himself to His followers and other people. Why? The primary purpose was to redeem mankind through salvation offered by and through Jesus Christ. Even the most critical skeptic could acknowledge that.

There are claims and speculation that the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables, myths and fairy tales. If it is, it will go down as one of the most powerful hoaxes of all time. For what's it worth, people will acknowledge a fairy tale and/or fable for what it is, just that. We all know that Cinderella, Snow White and Seven Dwarfs and the like are fairy tale stories and acknowledged them as such. I am not sure opponents to the Bible came make a claim with any level of assurance in their minds. The Bible has had such sustainable power even in light of the fact that many people living in 1st century Palestine had every opportunity to dispute and discredit what the New Testament author's accounts during the period their writings were being circulated to the Jewish, Roman, Greek and other culture during that period. Although there were other writers and people with opposing views to the Bible during that time, none of their teachings or writings to dispute or discredit the Bible some 2000 years later have had any staying power or supplanted the Bible as the authorized Word of God. Since many schlars would agree that the NT Gospels and Paul's Epistles were written within a 15-60 period after the cruxifiction of Jesus, this period is well within the lifetime of those who witnessed and could have disputed said events. Here is some compelling circumstantial evidence that points to the rationale for the resurrection of Christ:

(1) Saul a former persecutor of the Christian Church is converted within a short period after the death and subsequent claimed resurrection of Christ. Why???

(2) Within a 20 year period after Christ's death, thousands of Jews and Romans converted from Judiasm and pagan religions and converted to Christianity. Why???

(3) The disciples who scattered in fear after Jesus's arrest and execution, became fiery defenders of Christ and preached His divine nature and message, even to their deaths (10 of the 11 were martyred). Why???

(4) The empty tomb. The Jewish leaders in the Babylonian Talmud acknowledged that Christ had great power and performed many wonders and attributed it to socery. Even after He was executed and buried, when the tomb came up empty three days later, these same leaders claimed His followers stole the body.

(5) The NT Gospels reference women finding the tomb empt. In that culture in the 1st century, a women's word was not taken as credible, yet the NT authors did not remove this from the biblical record.

(6) Jesus Christ and His teachings has had more impact on the religious, scholastic, literary (there are more books written about Jesus in the Library of Congress than any other historical figure), political (Declaration of Independence), humanitarian, musical and art culture than any other figure in history. That is quite a powerful impact and level of influence whom some would claim as just an ordinary man or worse, mythical figure.


Peg me what you want, but there is sound intellectual rationale for what I believe in that's only strengthened my faith. God's expression of love and grace came through the person of Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son and God. He extends His hand and wants to have a relationship with you as well. There's enough weight in His favor to believe His claim. If you don't believe that God can intervene supernaturally in a natural world, you will never accept Him for who He is.

 

[dogsgod]

Well, not so fast....I've been trying to pin down this (Jesus of Nazareth) as Oberon mentions...but the trouble I'm running into is there seems to a problem with the existence of a city called Nazareth back then.....

Does anyone have any info as to this being a real place at the time. I thought I read somewhere this was some sort of graveyard. This can't be because Jews can, well nit supposed to, live near the graveyards......

There not existing a Nazareth until hundreds of years later is of no consequence for the true believer. Just believe as Oberon does, he'll lead the way.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There not existing a Nazareth until hundreds of years later is of no consequence for the true believer. Just believe as Oberon does, he'll lead the way.

No thank you.....

I just thought I'd throw that question out there. The whole (No Nazareth) at the time of the supposed birth of Yeshua interested me.....

 

[dogsgod]

No thank you.....

I just thought I'd throw that question out there. The whole (No Nazareth) at the time of the supposed birth of Yeshua interested me.....

It's very interesting because its existence was entirely unknown to everyone except to the unknown author of Mark. It should come as no surprise that this mythical Son of God grew up in a mythical land.

 

[linwood]

Those who attempt to discredit the validity of the bible will focus on individual verses and contrast them with other authors in looking for discrepancies, without having a firm understanding of the message the author was relaying to the readers.

Actually the very best "discrediting" of the Bible I`ve seen comes from those who understand when where and why it was written as well as by whom.
Those who have an unbiased understanding of how it was formed.

There are claims and speculation that the Bible is nothing more than a book of fables, myths and fairy tales.

Not a claim I would make as I`ve read those fairy tales as well as the Bible.
It is no fairy tale but it is no history textbook either.

Here is some compelling circumstantial evidence that points to the rationale for the resurrection of Christ:

You and I have a much different definition of "compelling".

 

[blueman]

Actually the very best "discrediting" of the Bible I`ve seen comes from those who understand when where and why it was written as well as by whom.
Those who have an unbiased understanding of how it was formed.

Not a claim I would make as I`ve read those fairy tales as well as the Bible.
It is no fairy tale but it is no history textbook either.



You and I have a much different definition of "compelling".

As I stated before, when you have a naturalistic disposition, you will never embrace the ways of God.

 

[blueman]

It's very interesting because its existence was entirely unknown to everyone except to the unknown author of Mark. It should come as no surprise that this mythical Son of God grew up in a mythical land.

The question is did it exist or didn't it? Very little is known about Nazareth from the ancient sources. Outside of the New Testament, Nazareth is never mentioned until the Byzantine period (4th c. A.D.). Archaeological excavations have confirmed that the city was only a small agricultural village during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

There was nothing special about this poor ghetto, so the fact there was little detail regarding it is not a big deal at all. Trying to challenge the precision of people, places and things will be a tough challenge in light of the plethora of archeaological discoveries over the past couple of centuries. You all are grasping for air in your arguments.

 

[dogsgod]

The question is did it exist or didn't it? Very little is known about Nazareth from the ancient sources. Outside of the New Testament, Nazareth is never mentioned until the Byzantine period (4th c. A.D.). Archaeological excavations have confirmed that the city was only a small agricultural village during the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

There was nothing special about this poor ghetto, so the fact there was little detail regarding it is not a big deal at all. Trying to challenge the precision of people, places and things will be a tough challenge in light of the plethora of archeaological discoveries over the past couple of centuries. You all are grasping for air in your arguments.

I'm not grasping for anything, I'm not the one trying to prove anything in order to support a faith. I merely pointed out the undisputed fact that no one was aware that the location in question was known as "Nazareth" until the unknown author of Mark came up with the name. Also, there is no evidence to suggest it would have been a "poor ghetto" if in fact it did exist, it would have been on a major trade route between Jerusalem and Damascus, a final stop to load up with fresh supplies before embarking on the long trip through the desert and a first stop to rest for those traveling from points east.

 

[Oberon]

I merely pointed out the undisputed fact that no one was aware that the location in question was known as "Nazareth" until the unknown author of Mark came up with the name. Also, there is no evidence to suggest it would have been a "poor ghetto" if in fact it did exist, it would have been on a major trade route between Jerusalem and Damascus, a final stop to load up with fresh supplies before embarking on the long trip through the desert and a first stop to rest for those traveling from points east.

Completely false. There is no mention of multiple sites in the ancient literature which have nonetheless been confirmed by archaeology. Mark didn't come up with the name. This is simply another absurd argument from silence. The name isn't mentioned until after Mark, therefore mark made it up? Even though we know there was a town there where nazareth is supposed to be? Nice try.

 

[McBell]

 

[dogsgod]

Completely false. There is no mention of multiple sites confirmed by archaeology. Mark didn't come up with the name. This is simply another absurd argument from silence. The name isn't mentioned until after Mark, therefore mark made it up? Even though we know there was a town there where nazareth is supposed to be? Nice try.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply stating the fact that a so called town called "Nazareth" was unheard of prior to the gospel of Mark. Make of it what you will.

 

[Oberon]

I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply stating the fact that a so called town called "Nazareth" was unheard of prior to the gospel of Mark. Make of it what you will.

Just because our often sparce textual records do not mention a particular town until Mark doesn't mean anything. Archaeology is a far better tool in this case, and lo and behold the little village is there!

 

[dogsgod]

Just because our often sparce textual records do not mention a particular town until Mark doesn't mean anything. Archaeology is a far better tool in this case, and lo and behold the little village is there!

There? And where would that be?