To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[AmbiguousGuy]

1. No they weren't
2. The Samaritan Taheb or a Levite like Moses
3. Again there were different concepts of the Messiah
4. He may in fact just have been a descendant of David, many of the Luria family are just that. David got around.

1) Crucifixion was a common feature of godmen, so I understand.
2) I'm pretty sure that a non-Jew would have been rejected as fulfilling the prophecies. Just as he would be today.
3) Sure. The Messiah might've been some kind of SuperKing. But being a Jewish man would also qualify any applicant. See Schneerson.
4) Yes, he might've been. But the Messiah had to be, I think. So the claim that Jesus was descended from David looks to me like retro prophecy fulfillment... therefore pointing to a (mythical) Messiah moreso than to an actual, contemporary, physical man.

Just my opinion, of course. My best guess.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Huh? What are you talking about? Why would those discussions be a lie?

Perhaps I've misjudged you. Are you saying that you accept the historicity of the Jerusalem sect?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Perhaps I've misjudged you. Are you saying that you accept the historicity of the Jerusalem sect?

I don't know much about it, but I suspect there was a sect of 'Christians' in Jerusalem when Paul visited.

A religious movement beginning to organize itself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know much about it, but I suspect there was a sect of 'Christians' in Jerusalem when Paul visited.

Evolved around whom? Based on what evidence? Have you read anything (anything at all) about 2nd Temple Period Judaism?

A religious movement beginning to organize itself.

And you base this timeline on what? You simply make it up for convenience? Or do you actually have evidence suggesting that it was [just] beginning to organize itself"?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

1) Crucifixion was a common feature of godmen, so I understand.
2) I'm pretty sure that a non-Jew would have been rejected as fulfilling the prophecies. Just as he would be today.
3) Sure. The Messiah might've been some kind of SuperKing. But being a Jewish man would also qualify any applicant. See Schneerson.
4) Yes, he might've been. But the Messiah had to be, I think. So the claim that Jesus was descended from David looks to me like retro prophecy fulfillment... therefore pointing to a (mythical) Messiah moreso than to an actual, contemporary, physical man.

Just my opinion, of course. My best guess.

Well what can I say in some sources the Messiah was suposed to be a prophet like Moses and a Levite, in some he was supposed to be a descendant of Joseph. And in none of those tradition is the messiah a demi-god

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here is where me and you depart. Paul was a good Jew the idea of a demi-god would be perverse to him.

Ha! If he's a good Jew, why isn't he accepted by Jews?

He writes that he was once a good Jew, and abandoned it for the religion that he helped create (unless you reject Philippians as Pauline for some strange reason, in which Paul indicates both the divine nature of Jesus AND his abandonment of traditional Judaism).

 

[Mehr Licht]

I was reading "Christian Existentialism, A Berdyaev Synthesis Selected and Translated" by Donald A Lowrie and found this quote from Berdyaevs "Truth and Revelation" interesting and at least somewhat relevant to this discussion so I figured I would post it here:

The Problem of Jesus

The so-called mythological theory, which denies the very fact of the existence of Jesus, has at least this positive value, that it demonstrates the complete hopeless of science to solve the "problem of Jesus". It is true that no historical biography of Jesus can be written, and the Gospels cannot be considered as historical documents. But this only demonstrates that the reality of Jesus Christ is shown by the faith of the Christian community, and outside this circle it is a reality scarcely noticed by history. Historic necessity can never violate faith: faith is an act of freedom. The life of Jesus Christ can never be subjected to historical objectivization: it remains in the sphere of Christian experience, not only personal , but communal, "soborny" experience.



​

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ha! If he's a good Jew, why isn't he accepted by Jews?

He writes that he was once a good Jew, and abandoned it for the religion that he helped create (unless you reject Philippians as Pauline for some strange reason, in which Paul indicates both the divine nature of Jesus AND his abandonment of traditional Judaism).

Paul never abandoned Judaism, he was always a Jew. What he abandoned was the idea that the gentiles have to adhere to Mosaic Law in order to be pleasing to God. Like a good Jew he knew that Judaism is for the Jews and that God offered a new covenant in the spirit of the law matters more than the letter. And that the gentiles can follow the spirit without following the letter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well what can I say in some sources the Messiah was suposed to be a prophet like Moses and a Levite, in some he was supposed to be a descendant of Joseph. And in none of those tradition is the messiah a demi-god

I agree. I think it's the very reason that Christianity flourished.

Kinda hard matching him to the messiah prophecies, but 1) nothing is too difficult for a mind hungry for belief and 2) no one could ever fulfill those prophecies anyway.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And you base this timeline on what? You simply make it up for convenience? Or do you actually have evidence suggesting that it was [just] beginning to organize itself"?

Yikes. You have me confused with a guy who cares about first-century trivia.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like a good Jew he knew that Judaism is for the Jews and that God offered a new covenant ...

And like a good Jew? I'm sorry that so many of us didn't seem to make the grade,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yikes. You have me confused with a guy who cares about first-century trivia.

Trust me. I in no way have you confused with a guy who cares at all about the 1st century, much less who thinks cogently about it.

 

[fallingblood]

My responses:

1) All godmen were crucified. This strengthens my view of Jesus as myth.

Not even close. Few, if any, were actually crucified. Crucifixion places Jesus in a very specific time period (well Roman crucifixion does).

2) What else would the Messiah be other than Jewish?

Why make up a Messiah, when there were so many supposed Messiah claimants running around?

3) Ditto #3.

You don't have to be born in Judea to be a Jewish. Paul was born a Jew, and not in Judea.

4) Fulfillment of the prophecies. Evidence of Jesus-as-myth.

There were other Messianic claimants that did not claim Davidic descent. So really, not necessary.

Really, Blood, I'm kinda startled that this is all you have. Paul doesn't relate a single incident from the life of Jesus... and you still accept that he knew all about the life of Jesus? I mean, if Jesus had actually been crucified in 33 CE, and Paul had heard all about it, you wouldn't expect him to mention any details of that crucifixion?

Why mentions many details about the crucifixion? It was common knowledge. Not many really go into very great detail about crucifixion. There was no need to. People simply knew those ideas. There simply was no reason to, especially when most were not interested in the death of Jesus anyway. It was his believed resurrection that was important. It was life that was important.

Anyway, you'll agree, I hope, that none of your four points precludes a proto-Jesus?

Those weren't my only points. But anyway, why would Paul even write much biographic material about Jesus?

Let's take another example. My grandmother emails me asking me how to fix a problem with her Mac. Should I go into great detail about the life of Steve Jobs? No, that would be senseless. That would probably annoy my grandmother. And my grandmother already knows about Steve Jobs. Why? Because my grandmother and I have talked in person. What should be my response to her email? The logical response would be for me to answer the question that she had.

The same applies to Paul. Paul had already met those people he was sending letters to. He had already preached to them, and most probably, told them about Jesus. How can we know this? Primarily because Paul was spreading the Jesus movement, and thus would have logically talked about Jesus. So again, he already met the people he was writing to (with the exception of the Romans), and they were all, by the time of his writing, part of the Jesus movement. They would have inevitably heard about Jesus, and taught about Jesus. Why? Because they were part of the Jesus movement. They either converted to this movement from a pagan religion (which would have been the vast majority of them, as Paul ministered to pagans), or maybe a few Jews who switched to this new movement. So again, we can be definite the people Paul was writing to, already knew about Jesus.

So now why was Paul writing letters? It wasn't to try to convert them, or tell them about Jesus. He already had done that. Instead, he was writing those letters in order to address problems he heard about, or answer questions he had been asked. How do we know this? Because he tells us. So why doesn't he write about Jesus? Because no one was asking him about Jesus. They already knew about Jesus. There were asking questions because situations had arrived after Paul left. So, as is logical, he answered those questions, and addressed those problems. He didn't ramble off on something that wasn't relevant to the questions being asked. He didn't tell his readers something they already knew, and had been taught in person. No, as is logical, he answered their questions.

Really then, we see exactly what we would expect to see in a letter. Especially one that is used to address questions and problems.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Trust me. I in no way have you confused with a guy who cares at all about the 1st century, much less who thinks cogently about it.

You're hurting my heart, man. The pain, the pain....

 

[Quagmire]

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.

LOL! I didn't even notice that it had gotten that much until you mentioned it. Thanks for reminding me to go look. :yes:

It evolved out of Hellenistic religion

When? How? Details man.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not even close. Few, if any, were actually crucified. Crucifixion places Jesus in a very specific time period (well Roman crucifixion does).

I'm satisfied that crucifixion was a common godman feature. And it would be natural to blame Jesus' crucifixion on the current world power.

Why make up a Messiah, when there were so many supposed Messiah claimants running around?

Because a made-up Messiah actually has a chance of success. It was the genius of it all -- making up a Messiah and giving him godman features. Schneerson is easy to gainsay. People knew him in real life. But a mythical Messiah can't be soiled by the details of his earthly life.

Why mentions many details about the crucifixion? It was common knowledge.

If you don't believe that Paul would have mentioned a single incident from the life of his lord, then you don't believe it. As I say, I find it way beyond belief.

But anyway, why would Paul even write much biographic material about Jesus?

He was human. Jesus was his lord. We always talk, talk, talk about the things and people who interest us.

Let's take another example. My grandmother emails me asking me how to fix a problem with her Mac. Should I go into great detail about the life of Steve Jobs? No, that would be senseless.

Bad example. Let's say that you had an acquaintance who walked on earth as a God. And you are telling Granny about Him. You really would never mention a single incident from your friend's earthly life?

Well, OK. I think you're mistaken if you believe so, but we all have opinions.

So again, he already met the people he was writing to (with the exception of the Romans), and they were all, by the time of his writing, part of the Jesus movement. They would have inevitably heard about Jesus, and taught about Jesus.

Unless Jesus didn't exist. In that case, the Romans wouldn't have known a thing about him, just as Paul apparently didn't.

They either converted to this movement from a pagan religion (which would have been the vast majority of them, as Paul ministered to pagans), or maybe a few Jews who switched to this new movement. So again, we can be definite the people Paul was writing to, already knew about Jesus.

The Godman Jesus. Yes, I agree.

So now why was Paul writing letters? It wasn't to try to convert them, or tell them about Jesus. He already had done that. Instead, he was writing those letters in order to address problems he heard about, or answer questions he had been asked. How do we know this? Because he tells us. So why doesn't he write about Jesus? Because no one was asking him about Jesus.

If you believe it, you believe it. Me, I've known lots of preachers. They can't help grabbing stuff out of real life and using it to build some theology upon. But you think that Paul never grabbed a single incident from the life of Jesus for his sermons.

OK. It's beyond belief for me, but as you please.

Really then, we see exactly what we would expect to see in a letter. Especially one that is used to address questions and problems.

I think you're mistaken. Sorry. I can't toss aside everything I know about people just so I'll be able to accept your theory. Nothing personal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you're mistaken. Sorry. I can't toss aside everything I know about people just so I'll be able to accept your theory. Nothing personal.

But you obviously know so pitifully little. Nothing personal.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But you obviously know so pitifully little. Nothing personal.

Yeah. I'm slightly to moderately retarded. Born that way. I don't suppose I could convince you to look the other way and pretend that I'm of normal intelligence?

Just to be gracious, I mean? So the crowd won't stare so hard at me?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And like a good Jew? I'm sorry that so many of us didn't seem to make the grade,

I was taught that Judaism is for Jews.

 

[fallingblood]

I'm satisfied that crucifixion was a common godman feature. And it would be natural to blame Jesus' crucifixion on the current world power.

Based on what evidence? Zeitgeist? Because really, there is no evidence that other supposed godmen were crucified. That wasn't part of the story. So you are satisfied with fiction? With ideas not supported by anything.

Because a made-up Messiah actually has a chance of success. It was the genius of it all -- making up a Messiah and giving him godman features. Schneerson is easy to gainsay. People knew him in real life. But a mythical Messiah can't be soiled by the details of his earthly life.

So a made-up Messiah, who dies, has a chance of success? Have you studied anything about the Messiah expectation? Once Jesus died, for the vast vast majority, he was ruled out as the Messiah. So it was a foolish way to make up a Messiah. Especially when there were better possibilities.

And if he had died long before, that rules him out all that more. Any knowledge of the Messianic expectation would tell you that.

If you don't believe that Paul would have mentioned a single incident from the life of his lord, then you don't believe it. As I say, I find it way beyond belief.

And we see your reason being nothing more that a want for fantasy. That or a complete misunderstanding of Paul, Christianity, and the early Jesus movement.

He was human. Jesus was his lord. We always talk, talk, talk about the things and people who interest us.

So you didn't read rest of my statement? How many times have you heard me go into long speeches or rants about Harry Houdini? None. Yet he is someone I am very interested in. He just doesn't get brought up in a topic which doesn't deal with him.

Bad example. Let's say that you had an acquaintance who walked on earth as a God. And you are telling Granny about Him. You really would never mention a single incident from your friend's earthly life?

Well, OK. I think you're mistaken if you believe so, but we all have opinions.

If you have read Paul's letters, you would see my example is perfect here. Paul wasn't telling them about Jesus in his letters. He was answering questions. That is why my example is perfect here.

Unless Jesus didn't exist. In that case, the Romans wouldn't have known a thing about him, just as Paul apparently didn't.

That doesn't even make sense. We are talking about groups who were following the Jesus movement. We are talking about church groups, who already believed in Jesus. They thought he existed. And why were they part of the Jesus movement? Because they had already been told about Jesus. It really isn't that hard to follow.

The Godman Jesus. Yes, I agree.

You can make up whatever looney idea you want, and blindly follow it. But that doesn't make it right. What we see is Jesus being talked about as a human. Yes, maybe he has mystical ideas attached to him, but many Jewish heros also did, as well as many many other historical people.

If you believe it, you believe it. Me, I've known lots of preachers. They can't help grabbing stuff out of real life and using it to build some theology upon. But you think that Paul never grabbed a single incident from the life of Jesus for his sermons.

OK. It's beyond belief for me, but as you please.

So basically, you refuse to read Paul, and then you make ridiculous claims based on ignorance? Paul does grab ideas from Jesus. Paul was obviously more interested in the resurrected Jesus, but he still mentions ideas about a human Jesus.

I think you're mistaken. Sorry. I can't toss aside everything I know about people just so I'll be able to accept your theory. Nothing personal.

You have tossed aside all the actual evidence, all logic, and basically anything that is rational, to follow an idea that simply is based on ignorant, and delusion.

All you have shown is a blind motivation to believe something you can't support, and that simply makes no rational sense whatsoever. In order to even come to the conclusion that you do, you have to make up ridiculous ideas, and pretend that they are some how intelligible.

But I guess if you want to shut your eyes and start running around in the dark, that's your choice. Just don't expect anyone to accept an idea with no logical support to it.