To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[CynthiaCypher]

It evolved out of Hellenistic religion

Can you show how and where?

 

[maxfreakout]

Can you show how and where?

check out that book i mentioned, from p.118 onwards

 

[CynthiaCypher]

check out that book i mentioned, from p.118 onwards

Uh huh. You believe it so give me the who, what, where and how. The movement had to had leaders right? Who where they? Provenance is important so tell where it developed...show me how it developed in that locale.

 

[doppelganger]

I have a question for any Jesus Myth theorists in here:

When and how do you believe Christianity (in any form) first arose?

It's pretty much beyond reasonable dispute that there was in fact a Jerusalem Church headed by James and Peter that appears to have been much more concerned with keeping Jewish customs and practices as part of Christianity, and a second wave of Christianity preached by Paul outside of the Jewish community for the most part that filtered out much of the need for Jewish customs and practice. Setting aside "Acts", which I don't regard as a reliable document for purposes of historical analysis, you can get this much from the genuine letters of Paul, the earliest known and surviving writings that can be clearly identified as "Christian," and reliably authenticated.

Paul's Christianity (according to Paul) arose because he had a vision of Christ. There's really no historical record to work with for where the Jerusalem Church came from with any reasonably degree of certainty, but it's clear that it pre-existed Paul's conversion.

By the mid Second century there were many more forms, some mixing Hellenistic influences and even explicitly rejecting any Jewish dependence (e.g. Marcionism), some doggedly determined to maintain the Jewish character in Christianity and expressly rejecting anything Pauline (e.g. Ebionites), and some trying to come up with a way to merge the Christianity of the gentiles with the practices of the more Jewish Christians that eventually gave rise to the proto-orthodoxy by the latter half of the second century (e.g. Ireneus). The latter is what we now know of as the source of most modern mainstream branches of the extremely diverse Christian tree.

 

[maxfreakout]

The movement had to had leaders right?

Religions do not have to have leaders, religion concerns each individual person's connection to the divine, so each person is their own religious leader

Who where they? Provenance is important so tell where it developed...show me how it developed in that locale.

The book i mentioned covers this area, christianity originated as a mystery religion, evolved out of preceeding mystery religions such as orphism and mithraism and essentially no different from these previous religions

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Religions do not have to have leaders, religion concerns each individual person's connection to the divine, so each person is their own religious leader

So you are saying Christianity started off as some sort of 1st century version of Anonymous? 'splain please.

The book i mentioned covers this area, christianity originated as a mystery religion, evolved out of preceeding mystery religions such as orphism and mithraism and essentially no different from these previous religions

Then how did some sort of Hellenistic Orphic Mystery religion get so Jewish?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The thing is, none of this evidence is a slam dunk, it's all circumstantial. Most of the historical references were writen long after his death and are mostly hearsay rather than first hand accounts. So to say that Jesus absolutely existed without any doubt is wrong. And to say that contesting the historicity of Jesus is an ungrounded conspiracy theory is just an attempt to start a flame war.

Hi, Trey. I just came across this thread and will be reading through it, but I wanted to say that your view of historical truth seems spot on to me. When I meet a person who is absolutely certain about the historical Jesus, I know that I've met someone who thinks vey differently than I do.

When I encounter someone who seems angry at me for doubting a first-century Jesus, I've met a mind which is entirely alien to my own.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I agree. This is about history and not religion. So they should prove their hypothesis with the same methods historians use or shut up.

Yikes. Anyone who fails to convince you of his theory... should shut up?

Are you serious? Or have I misread you?

 

[Quagmire]

Yikes. Anyone who fails to convince you of his theory... should shut up?

Are you serious? Or have I misread you?

You misread her. Basically what I think Cynthia is saying here is that "nu uh" isn't a viable defense for this position.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My personal belief is that a Jesus figure existed.

Do you think he existed in the early first century? I don't. I think the Jesus Story is probably based on an earlier character. Evidence and arguments upon request.

My only beef is with the whole "any one who doubts is a stupid conspiracy nut" attack. History is full of doubts.

Hey, anyone who disagrees with me is a worm-eater.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You misread her. Basically what I think Cynthia is saying here is that "nu uh" isn't a viable defense for this position.

Thanks for the input. Maybe I'm just walking in on something I don't understand. Perhaps she has encountered a 'Jesus-denier' who rufused to back his position .I don't know.

 

[Quagmire]

Perhaps she has encountered a 'Jesus-denier' who rufused to back his position .I don't know.

That's the usual scenario. :yes:

This is usually one of those topics where the "you can't prove a negative" defense gets abused to death.

It's true: there's no way to prove someone never existed, but that isn't a viable excuse for dismissing the evidence that's being offered in favor of his historicity, scant as it is.

The real problem with almost all of the debates on this topic is that a lot of people can't separate the idea of the mythical Jesus from the historic Jesus, so they claim you have to choose one or the other.

If we used that method we'd have to dismiss most historical figures as completely mythical.

For instance:

We know Davy Crocket existed because:

---we have eye-witness accounts
---we have tons of records and documentation about him, his life, his acomplishments, etc.
---museums still have a few of what were supposed to be his personal articles.

but, hey wait a minute....

American folklore says that Davy Crocket was so charismatic that he could make a raccoon fall out of tree spellbound just by smiling at it. We know that's impossible, therefore...obviously Davy crocket never existed.

See what I mean?

When we're trying to determine facts about historical figures---including whether or not they ever existed---whatever folklore or mythology that's risen up in connection with them shouldn't have much bearing on our conclusions one way or the other.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That's the usual scenario. :yes:

This is usually one of those topics where the "you can't prove a negative" defense gets abused to death.

It's true: there's no way to prove someone never existed, but that isn't a viable excuse for dismissing the evidence that's being offered in favor of his historicity, scant as it is.

The real problem with almost all of the debates on this topic is that a lot of people can't separate the idea of the mythical Jesus from the historic Jesus, so they claim you have to choose one or the other.

If we used that method we'd have to dismiss most historical figures as completely mythical.

For instance:

We know Davy Crocket existed because:

---we have eye-witness accounts
---we have tons of records and documentation about him, his life, his acomplishments, etc.
---museums still have a few of what were supposed to be his personal articles.

but, hey wait a minute....

American folklore says that Davy Crocket was so charismatic that he could make a raccoon fall out of tree spellbound just by smiling at it. We know that's impossible, therefore...obviously Davy crocket never existed.

See what I mean?

When we're trying to determine facts about historical figures---including whether or not they ever existed---whatever folklore or mythology that's risen up in connection with them shouldn't have much bearing on our conclusions one way or the other.

You might not be able to prove a negative but they should atleast give us something plausible. You asked a very legitimate question : How did Christianity arise without a Jesus? So far all we gotten was a very vague answer that offers nothing of it's origin.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The real problem with almost all of the debates on this topic is that a lot of people can't separate the idea of the mythical Jesus from the historic Jesus, so they claim you have to choose one or the other.

Yes, I agree with that. To me, the question, "Did Jesus exist?"... doesn't make good sense -- not in a close discussion of the business.

I think the question should be: "If there was a physical man upon whom the Jesus Story was built, what are the most likely facts of his life?"

In my opinion, such a man couldn't have existed in first-century Judea. That consclusion is based mostly on Paul's silence regarding any details of Jesus' physical life. Supposedly Paul had the opportunity to question Jesus' desciples in close detail, when he was in Jerusalem around 35 CE (?). As someone who considered Jesus his lord, I think he would have pumped them relentlessly for such details. He would have known a lot of stuff about Jesus' physical life.

Yet Paul never really mentions any such details. So I conclude that he didn't know them. Which means that he didn't hear about them from the desciples. Which means that Jesus' ministry didn't happen around 30 CE.

I think it was all based on a proto-Jesus who may have lived much earlier.

I also suspect that the gospels were written as fiction, and I point to the synoptics and to the tradition of creating religious relics, like the Shroud of Turin. A cottage industry of sorts. The synoptics seem like rewrites, not independent accounts. I've only seen that kind of language-tracking in rewrites of fictional works.

My best guess is that there were stories and gospels circulating in the early first century and that Paul had some kind of conversion experience in which he embraced the Lord-Jesus stories.

It's just my best guess. It ain't gospel.

American folklore says that Davy Crocket was so charismatic that he could make a raccoon fall out of tree spellbound just by smiling at it. We know that's impossible, therefore...obviously Davy crocket never existed. See what I mean?

Yes, I do. But that sort of thinking isn't a part of my own view of Jesus. I don't discount him based on the fabulous stories told about him. As you say, we'd have to discount most everyone who lived earlier than 50 years ago or so.

When we're trying to determine facts about historical figures---including whether or not they ever existed---whatever folklore or mythology that's risen up in connection with them shouldn't have much bearing on our conclusions one way or the other.

I agree. But I would say that it's easier for me to believe in a secular figure like Alexander than a religious one like Jesus. I think there's less reason and bias in constructing a military or political leader than a religious one. So I'll admit to a skeptical bias against the historical Buddha moreso than such a bias against an historical Nero.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I tend to agree..the Jesus Mythists are just hiding their heads in the sand.
Mark, tradition holds was dictated by Peter, in simple Greek. The earliest gospel.
John..makes it clear he was an eye witness.
Luke..polished Greek. Makes it clear he never met Jesus but goes out on a fact finding mission.
Some believe that Luke/Acts was a two part brief to be used as Paul's defense before the Emperor.
Matthew by Matthew.
Paul a christian terrorist does a 180 and after several beatings..still refuses to recant. Paul is educated. Speaks several languages.
Christianity survives the Roman Empire who in its infancy attempted to crush it more than once.
In a world of Gods and Temple, Christianity rises to the top.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think the question should be: "If there was a physical man upon whom the Jesus Story was built, what are the most likely facts of his life?" In my opinion, such a man couldn't have existed in first-century Judea. That consclusion is based mostly on Paul's silence regarding any details of Jesus' physical life.

OMG

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes, I agree with that. To me, the question, "Did Jesus exist?"... doesn't make good sense -- not in a close discussion of the business.

I think the question should be: "If there was a physical man upon whom the Jesus Story was built, what are the most likely facts of his life?"

In my opinion, such a man couldn't have existed in first-century Judea. That consclusion is based mostly on Paul's silence regarding any details of Jesus' physical life. Supposedly Paul had the opportunity to question Jesus' desciples in close detail, when he was in Jerusalem around 35 CE (?). As someone who considered Jesus his lord, I think he would have pumped them relentlessly for such details. He would have known a lot of stuff about Jesus' physical life.

Yet Paul never really mentions any such details. .

Paul wasn't silent. He knew the man's own brother for Christ's sake!

 

[cablescavenger]

Your theory has no scholarship, no science and no backing to it whatsoever, yet you persist like people who deny that the earth is round to perpetuate your nonsense.

Snap!

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OMG

OMG OMG.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Paul wasn't silent. He knew the man's own brother for Christ's sake!

If you believe it, then you believe it.

For myself, I find it curious that a mere mention of knowing Jesus' brother would trump all of the other silence from Paul. But people think differently about things, I guess.