• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Yeah but the disagreement is not whether they existed or not. They all agree they DID exist, except Jesus Christ....

Among experts in relevant fields, there is no disagreement about whether jesus existed. The only reason we must be subjected to various popular books and websites touting mythicist claims is because of Jesus' current significance, which means you get extremes on both sides. You don't see a lot of people going around saying "apollonius didn't exist!" or "pythagoras is a myth" even though we have far less information for these people than for jesus, and it too is filled with myth and legend. But the popular media and larger population doesn't care.
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Will the real Jesus please stand up?


That's actually the title of a book which published a debate (and several follow up responses by other experts) between W. L. Craig and JD Crossan. Only, again, that's history. People disagree about historical figures. Hell, I could go into any book store and find different accounts of modern events and persons (e.g. Bush or Obama). They are still alive, and yet we have widely divergent views. With ancient figures, the problem is a scarcity of material. Certainly, with Jesus we have far more than for most, but less than some, and less than we might want. This is hardly indicative of a lack of any historical figure behind the different accounts.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
.


Historical Jesus Theories


Just to list a few, no doubt there are many more:




Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero

Jesus the Revolutionary

Jesus the Wisdom Sage


Jesus the Man of the Spirit


Jesus the Prophet of Social Change


Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet


Jesus the Savior


 

Politesse

Amor Vincit Omnia
.


Historical Jesus Theories


Just to list a few, no doubt there are many more:




Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero

Jesus the Revolutionary

Jesus the Wisdom Sage


Jesus the Man of the Spirit


Jesus the Prophet of Social Change


Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet


Jesus the Savior


You realize those aren't all mutually exclusive, right?
 
Recently, we have had a few threads sprout up about whether or not Jesus existed. A few members on this forum have argued that Jesus is nothing more than a myth. The basis of that idea though, as we will see, is completely illogical.

There is a little background that is needed. First, Jesus was a Jew. The earliest writer we have that mentions him, Paul, was a Jew. The Gospel writers, with the exception of Luke, were Jews. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus within Judaism. More so, he is in Israel, the Jewish homeland. Jesus is firmly in Judaism. That is important.

Now, if we are to believe that Jesus was simply created, we have to ask why. Is there a logical reason for any Jew to create Jesus? I would have to say there isn't.

The reason is quite simple. When we look at Jesus, a couple of things pop out. Jesus was being portrayed as the Messiah and Jesus died on the cross. Here is the problem. As soon as Jesus died, according to Judaism, Jesus was a failed Messiah. Not a very logical story for a group trying to prove a Messiah.

At the same time though, there was no lack of supposed Messiahs, or failed Messiahs. There was no reason to create another figure who was a failed Messiah and was not anything wholly unique. His message was the same message others were preaching. He was just one more faith healer. And he was just one more supposed Messiah who was crucified.

There are a couple of other illogical reasons to assume it is made up. First, the story is flawed. Early Christians were trying to claim that Jesus was sinless, perfect. Yet, at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, we see Jesus being baptized by John. There would be no reason for this if Jesus was perfect. It's an embarrassing story, which would have been better left out.

Another is that Jesus was from Nazareth. Some Jesus mythers claim that Nazareth didn't even exist during that time so the idea is that the creators of Jesus also created a city to fit him. The problem is that we know Nazareth existed in the first century. We have archeological records from that time showing that Nazareth was a village in the first century. However, it was a village that was of little importance. It was of such little importance it wasn't mentioned in literature until well after Jesus died. It had no religious significance, no political significance, really no significance at all. Instead though, we see Matthew and Luke going through work just to show that this Jesus of Nazareth actually was born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was created, one would assume they would just have had him from Bethlehem instead of putting him in an obscure village and then creating a story how he had to go to Bethlehem to be born.

The most embarrassing aspect of the life of Jesus though is that he died. When he died, he was proven to be a failed messiah. There is no logical reason that the Jews would have created a story about a failed messiah who died such a humiliating death.


One final thing though. Many of the Jesus mythers claim that Jesus was copied from other god men. But lets look at Augustus quickly. He was considered to be the son of a god. He was considered to be a god, at least in Egypt. He was considered the savior, redeemer of the world. I mention that because he has the same similarities with Jesus as other claim that these god men do, yet no one doubts that Augustus lived.

The idea that Jesus was simply a myth is illogical.
He had 2 B baptised 4 the holyspirit 2 fill him and it stayed with him till he joined god.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
You realize those aren't all mutually exclusive, right?

Exactly. For example, JD Crossan would most certainly place Jesus in the social change category, JP Meier wouldn't deny Jesus' importance as a wisdom teacher, and so on.

Also noteworthy is that of the four authors who argue Jesus was a myth, not a one is a professional historian of any type. Of the two who are scholars, one is a professor of German studies and the other was a professor of english.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
What happens to scholars that don't tow the line.




Gerd Lüdemann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gerd Lüdemann (born 5 July 1946 in Visselhövede), is a German New Testament scholar. He taught this subject from 1983 to 1999 at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Göttingen. Since 1999 he has taught there with a special status as Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity. He is married with four children and seven grandchildren.


After periods of teaching and research at McMaster University (1977–79) and Vanderbilt University (1979–82), he was appointed in 1983 to the Chair in New Testament Studies in the Theological Faculty of the University of Göttingen. Following a series of historically critical publications culminating in the publication of his book Der große Betrug: Und was Jesus wirklich sagte und tat (The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did) in 1999, in which he argued that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, the Confederation of Protestant Churches in Lower Saxony called for his dismissal from the Chair of New Testament Studies. Lüdemann stated that his studies convinced him that his previous Christian faith, based as it was on Biblical Studies, had become impossible: 'the person of Jesus himself becomes insufficient as a foundation of faith once most of the New Testament statements about him have proved to be later interpretations by the community'.[1]


Although the call for his dimissal was rejected by the state government of Lower Saxony, the members of the faculty, under pressure from the Church, complained to the University President that Professor Lüdemann had "fundamentally put in question the intrinsic soundness of Protestant theology at the University". As a result the Chair of New Testament was renamed the Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity, his research funding was cut and his teaching was no longer part of the curriculum. Ludemann complained that 'most of my colleagues have long since left the principles of the Church behind them yet still seek to attach themselves to this tradition by symbolic interpretation and by other interpretative skills'.
 

Oberon

Well-Known Member
What happens to scholars that don't tow the line.




Gerd Lüdemann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gerd Lüdemann (born 5 July 1946 in Visselhövede), is a German New Testament scholar. He taught this subject from 1983 to 1999 at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Göttingen. Since 1999 he has taught there with a special status as Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity. He is married with four children and seven grandchildren.


After periods of teaching and research at McMaster University (1977–79) and Vanderbilt University (1979–82), he was appointed in 1983 to the Chair in New Testament Studies in the Theological Faculty of the University of Göttingen. Following a series of historically critical publications culminating in the publication of his book Der große Betrug: Und was Jesus wirklich sagte und tat (The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did) in 1999, in which he argued that only about five per cent of the sayings attributed to Jesus are genuine and the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity, the Confederation of Protestant Churches in Lower Saxony called for his dismissal from the Chair of New Testament Studies. Lüdemann stated that his studies convinced him that his previous Christian faith, based as it was on Biblical Studies, had become impossible: 'the person of Jesus himself becomes insufficient as a foundation of faith once most of the New Testament statements about him have proved to be later interpretations by the community'.[1]


Although the call for his dimissal was rejected by the state government of Lower Saxony, the members of the faculty, under pressure from the Church, complained to the University President that Professor Lüdemann had "fundamentally put in question the intrinsic soundness of Protestant theology at the University". As a result the Chair of New Testament was renamed the Chair of History and Literature of Early Christianity, his research funding was cut and his teaching was no longer part of the curriculum. Ludemann complained that 'most of my colleagues have long since left the principles of the Church behind them yet still seek to attach themselves to this tradition by symbolic interpretation and by other interpretative skills'.

If you teach a a christian university, you run the risk of being at odds with university philosophy. Yet, somehow, there is a massive amount of scholarship which runs counter to mainstream christian belief. There are all kinds of writings which argue that the NT distorts Jesus' message, written by professors who have subsequently been promoted.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Theories of the historical Jesus

Current North American scholarship is dominated by the scholars of the so-called "third quest" for the historical Jesus. wiki



We wish them better luck this time. Those of the last two quests met with mysterious deaths, some say a curse was set upon them.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Theories of the historical Jesus

Current North American scholarship is dominated by the scholars of the so-called "third quest" for the historical Jesus. wiki



We wish them better luck this time. Those of the last two quests met with mysterious deaths, some say a curse was set upon them.

are you serious? :eek:
maybe they found the holy grail and were killed by the priory of sion and the knights templar :p
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
are you serious? :eek:
maybe they found the holy grail and were killed by the priory of sion and the knights templar :p
I was thinking something along the same lines, the holy grail. Perhaps those of the second quest came across something that could prove the historicity of Jesus once and for all, something even more convincing than the Shroud of Turin itself, or the dubious Josephus references. And then tragedy befell them yet again, just as with those of the first quest. I hope the same fate doesn't meet up with those of this third quest. I wish them good luck, they can use it.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Exactly. For example, JD Crossan would most certainly place Jesus in the social change category, JP Meier wouldn't deny Jesus' importance as a wisdom teacher, and so on.

Also noteworthy is that of the four authors who argue Jesus was a myth, not a one is a professional historian of any type. Of the two who are scholars, one is a professor of German studies and the other was a professor of english.

Actually, J.P. Meier would concur that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, while J.D. Crossan rejects that view.
 

Ilisrum

Active Member
Personally, I think the myth thesis relies too heavily on speculation. Proponents of the theory may claim, "there's no evidence that he existed" but can't point to anything saying he didn't. I've read Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle", and although he puts up a strong argument in support of the non-historicity of Jesus, I'm not convinced. His interpretations of Paul's supposed references to an earthly Jesus are speculative and questionable, and by his methods his "smoking guns" can't stand up to the test. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just feel there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Jesus figure is modeled on a historical man.
 

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Personally, I think the myth thesis relies too heavily on speculation. Proponents of the theory may claim, "there's no evidence that he existed" but can't point to anything saying he didn't. I've read Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle", and although he puts up a strong argument in support of the non-historicity of Jesus, I'm not convinced. His interpretations of Paul's supposed references to an earthly Jesus are speculative and questionable, and by his methods his "smoking guns" can't stand up to the test. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just feel there's enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the Jesus figure is modeled on a historical man.
I wasn't convinced after reading Doherty's Jesus Puzzle either. After reading Crossan's Birth of Christianity and Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament and The Lost Gospel, Funk's The Acts of Jesus to name a few, I came to doubt the possibility that we can know anything about an historical Jesus might there be one.
 
Last edited:

Oberon

Well-Known Member
I wasn't convinced after reading Doherty's Jesus Puzzle either. After reading Crossan's Birth of Christianity and Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament and The Lost Gospel, Funk's The Acts of Jesus to name a few, I came to doubt the possibility that we can know anything about an historical Jesus might there be one.
Which is odd, considering Crossan, Mack, and Funk all argue that we can know a fair amount about Jesus and that he is certainly a historical figure.
 
Top