Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?


orlando

Recommended Posts

 

 

The idea of an "apologetic" response to the crucifixion is weak. The entire story, start to finish, does not exist *as-is*, in the OT. It's all apologetics. A virgin born hybrid god/man from Bethla(hem)-(Naza)reth? Does this exist in the OT? Nope. Nowhere. It's made up. Patch worked from "prophecy." John the Baptist and his origin story? Same. The various "miracles?" Count them in. Just go on through G.Matthew and he'll let you know because he likes to state when some "prophecy" is getting done. So adding a crucifixion to all this? No problem. Just dig around until you find a "hit" in the old books. It's not "embarrassing" or a "problem" but a "fulfillment" because the author(s) decided what "created" their messiah and what didn't. Anyone who did not agree was in error...not them. The misunderstanding was on the part of those who failed to "see" what they "saw" in the OT. The "revelation" from the pages of the scriptures as given to them by their Lord God through the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

 

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Like if there wasn't a historical Jesus, why would the gospel writers invent two entirely different and opposing virgin birth myths for the purpose of trying to figure out how to get Jesus into Bethlehem? Instead of Matthew's author making up some prophecy that exists nowhere else about Jesus being from Nazareth and then making up a roundabout fairytale to figure out how to get Jesus to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy, why didn't they just have Jesus be from Bethlehem from the start unless there was a historical Jesus who didn't live in Bethlehem that they were trying to figure out how to make him get there? Why would they then turn around in the same myths and make two contradictory genealogies if they were purposely writing about a purely mythological character? It just seems so unnecessarily roundabout for a fictional character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mwc

    40

  • orlando

    32

  • Neon Genesis

    27

  • Shyone

    9

Like if there wasn't a historical Jesus, why would the gospel writers invent two entirely different and opposing virgin birth myths for the purpose of trying to figure out how to get Jesus into Bethlehem? Instead of Matthew's author making up some prophecy that exists nowhere else about Jesus being from Nazareth and then making up a roundabout fairytale to figure out how to get Jesus to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy, why didn't they just have Jesus be from Bethlehem from the start unless there was a historical Jesus who didn't live in Bethlehem that they were trying to figure out how to make him get there? Why would they then turn around in the same myths and make two contradictory genealogies if they were purposely writing about a purely mythological character? It just seems so unnecessarily roundabout for a fictional character.

 

I agree -- I think there was a historical figure, who was not the "messiah", and they dug around in the OT to try to explain away various unexpected things (born illegimitely?? -- lived in Nazareth --- got crucified...). There is also the "argument from embasassment" about the likely historicity of some other gospels passages - Jesus's family saying he was crazy, Jesus associating with prostitutes and tax collectors etc, the disciples running away when Jesus was arrested, Peter denying him...

 

I also agree the similarities with Mithras are exaggerated -- eg. the "virgin birth" that turns out to have been being borm as a fully-formed adult from a rock. Also some people claim he had 12 disciples, the only proof for which apparently is a depiction of him with 12 markings around him - more likely representing the signs of the zodiac. And there are repeated references to him as a dying and rising god, whereas he didn't die, he is noted for killing a bull.

 

I also think the Jesus Myth is a bit like an atheist fundamentalism, in that it sounds appealing to atheists and a lot seem ready to believe anything they read about it and repeat it. To be fair, I was impressed with Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries when it first came out, a long time ago, but I have read around the subject a bit more since then and I see now how they invented a composite fiugure they call "Osiris-Dionysus" , who no ancients worshipped, and to whom they just attach every myth that sounds a bit like Jesus.

 

I think there is enough in the OT to explain most of the embroidering and mythologising of the Jesus story that seems to have gone on, but I still think there was a preacher there to start with, though it's possible that other mythologies influenced both Christianity and in 1st Century Judaism to some extent - after all Greek culture and Zoroastrianism had had a great influence in the middle east in those times.

 

re. Justin Martyr, the main reason he compared Jesus to Pagan gods was he was trying to convince the Roman emperor of the reasonableness of Christianity and the unreasonableness of persecuting Christians' for their beliefs "which are not all that different from yours anyway" (though he probably put his foot in it a bit by adding that the Pagan beliefs were lies inspired in the minds of poets by the Pagan gods, who are demons..).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Like if there wasn't a historical Jesus, why would the gospel writers invent two entirely different and opposing virgin birth myths for the purpose of trying to figure out how to get Jesus into Bethlehem? Instead of Matthew's author making up some prophecy that exists nowhere else about Jesus being from Nazareth and then making up a roundabout fairytale to figure out how to get Jesus to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy, why didn't they just have Jesus be from Bethlehem from the start unless there was a historical Jesus who didn't live in Bethlehem that they were trying to figure out how to make him get there? Why would they then turn around in the same myths and make two contradictory genealogies if they were purposely writing about a purely mythological character? It just seems so unnecessarily roundabout for a fictional character.

Do you mean Nazareth because in one birth narrative (G.Matthew) he is from Bethlehem and moves to Nazareth and in the other (G.Luke) they have to go from Nazareth, to Bethlehem, back to Nazareth because of the census?

 

So if I'm to understand your argument correctly you're stating that creating a "fake identity" for a fictional character should have been easy and consistent but recording the "real identity" for a real human is hard and inconsistent?

 

I don't see where anyone is making two contradictory anything in the stories unless you can demonstrate the authors of these two items were hanging around one another. My claim is that they weren't in the same community and these items were specific to their community/sect. They wouldn't be contradictory since they wouldn't be sitting around comparing them. It would be unlikely (read: heretical) for them to use another version of their "good news." They may know about it (plenty of documents attest to groups having knowledge of other groups messing around with the texts but who did what first is unknown to us...we only know what we have as our texts and assume them to be the "pure" versions for some reason) but that didn't mean they got copies and used them for themselves (at least until later on).

 

A group that had one birth narrative that differed from another would not see a contradiction but would see the other group in error. Just like the groups that had no birth narrative at all and vice-versa. Likewise the genealogies. This aren't issues when you're dealing with individual sects. They do become problems if you treat early xians as some largely homogeneous group (that we know they weren't) and try to harmonize things.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Luke aware of other gospels from his opening?

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,* to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree -- I think there was a historical figure, who was not the "messiah", and they dug around in the OT to try to explain away various unexpected things (born illegimitely?? -- lived in Nazareth --- got crucified...). There is also the "argument from embasassment" about the likely historicity of some other gospels passages - Jesus's family saying he was crazy, Jesus associating with prostitutes and tax collectors etc, the disciples running away when Jesus was arrested, Peter denying him...

The criterion of embarrassment is bullshit. Tell me what things embarrass me and what I might do to explain them away. Since I can only make guesses at what might embarrass you and your responses I'm hoping you can see this exercise is generally futile. There are obviously some sweeping generalizations we can attempt to make for some activities (ie. affairs, etc.) but our actions today would not be a good pattern to use to build a model for someone in the same situation two thousand years ago considering society viewed many of these things differently.

 

So how should we view the death of this "jesus?" First you must tell me how they saw him *prior* to anything we know of him in the bible. When they just hung out and took shits with him. Can you do this? Were there *any* expectations he would ever be anyone or do anything important? If not then his death wouldn't be a problem for anyone other than maybe sad. Are we to use the bible as a model so that he *was* someone important but just less important than what we're told? So we invent a level of importance that we feel comfortable with? How much is that? Enough so his followers would be very upset because they *knew* he'd be someone and do great things but not enough that anyone would notice? That much? Exactly that much? It's a fine line. But we'll dole out that exact amount. How? Not from anywhere except our imaginations. So his followers never expected anything much from the guy until he knocks over the tables in the temple one day and then they decide he's going places but unfortunately that turns out to be the cross so their hopes and dreams of the past week are dashed?

 

I also agree the similarities with Mithras are exaggerated -- eg. the "virgin birth" that turns out to have been being borm as a fully-formed adult from a rock. Also some people claim he had 12 disciples, the only proof for which apparently is a depiction of him with 12 markings around him - more likely representing the signs of the zodiac. And there are repeated references to him as a dying and rising god, whereas he didn't die, he is noted for killing a bull.

So?

 

I also think the Jesus Myth is a bit like an atheist fundamentalism, in that it sounds appealing to atheists and a lot seem ready to believe anything they read about it and repeat it. To be fair, I was impressed with Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries when it first came out, a long time ago, but I have read around the subject a bit more since then and I see now how they invented a composite fiugure they call "Osiris-Dionysus" , who no ancients worshipped, and to whom they just attach every myth that sounds a bit like Jesus.

Another so?

 

I must be slow because I don't see how the above two figure in to "jesus" being a myth exactly (it doesn't matter...no need to go off on these tangents).

 

I think there is enough in the OT to explain most of the embroidering and mythologising of the Jesus story that seems to have gone on, but I still think there was a preacher there to start with, though it's possible that other mythologies influenced both Christianity and in 1st Century Judaism to some extent - after all Greek culture and Zoroastrianism had had a great influence in the middle east in those times.

Everything influenced Judea in those times. The entire region was pretty heavily Hellenized. Jerusalem was less so but not by much.

 

re. Justin Martyr, the main reason he compared Jesus to Pagan gods was he was trying to convince the Roman emperor of the reasonableness of Christianity and the unreasonableness of persecuting Christians' for their beliefs "which are not all that different from yours anyway" (though he probably put his foot in it a bit by adding that the Pagan beliefs were lies inspired in the minds of poets by the Pagan gods, who are demons..).

As I said he was acting as an apologist and not writing to other xians. However if he could see the similarities then others likely did as well.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Luke aware of other gospels from his opening?

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,* to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

It's unclear what he's aware of.

 

What is clear from this is that Theophilus has been taught something and the author of this text wants to give him some "truth" about it (v4). What was he taught? We don't know. How was he taught it? We also don't know. But this text is to augment/correct/clarify that teaching.

 

So in v1 we're told that "many" have tried to create an account of these things. How many is "many?" We have 4 gospels including G.Luke so is 3 "many?" It wouldn't seem like it but maybe to this author it is. Since G.John is foreign to the synoptics I'd have to ask is 2 "many?" I'd really say no to that but I can't say what the author of G.Luke would answer. From the way he talks it almost sounds like there have been a number of failed attempts at the process. If this is the case then incomplete "gospels" are floating about. What do they say? Who wrote them? For what purpose? We don't know. The author of G.Luke is going to try his hand at the process.

 

His sources (v2) are unknown. It could be a combination of oral and written tradition. Since he references what appears to be only written tradition in v1 and is making a written account for himself it isn't unreasonable to think he would be using a largely written tradition but if he added what he has heard into the mix I can't imagine that would be surprising. The whole idea that I see in v2 is to pass along the account but that doesn't specify a method.

 

Then in v3 he states he will go ahead a write an ordered account for this Theophilus. This would seem to imply that the author thought other accounts were not ordered but maybe that was not what he was inferring? Maybe he was just stating this so the other person would be assured that this account was in "good order" and simply correct and trustworthy. To write entirely new gospel rather than writing a simple letter to address his concerns is a massive undertaking. The author of G.Luke must have had a reason.

 

Which brings us back to v4 and the point that this still would leave us to wonder if this meant the other accounts were to be considered less than entirely trustworthy...this entire exercise seems to indicate that all accounts to this point may be, by this author, suspect (and/or didn't fulfill the needs of his community).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since the author of Luke says he is writing an orderly account of eyewitness events, doesn't this show the author believed Jesus was a real historical figure and that he wasn't inventing a mythical hero out of thin air as some sort of secret conspiracy plot for Rome to take over the world or whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since the author of Luke says he is writing an orderly account of eyewitness events, doesn't this show the author believed Jesus was a real historical figure and that he wasn't inventing a mythical hero out of thin air as some sort of secret conspiracy plot for Rome to take over the world or whatever?

When did I state that the author of G.Luke invented anything? He apparently wrote what he was taught and believed.

 

If you were to write an "orderly account" of events I imagine it would include some form of an real historical figure and this would not be based on any first-hand experience nor do I think you would simply just make things up to support some "conspiracy." These don't have to be the only two options. Certainly when I believed, not simply in a human "jesus," but just in the religion itself, if I were to write a gospel (or an account of the gospel for someone), I know I wouldn't have been doing it as some sort of plot and it would have included a real life human.

 

But that's because my background in the church required it. Had I been from a background that stated "jesus" was a phantom then I would have written an account that would have been just as honest but proclaimed this earthly "jesus" to be something not so human. Something else. This, as we both know, also happened but wasn't in the mainstream orthodoxy (and I didn't bring it up to debate what all these various things were but rather it wasn't a conspiracy or otherwise to think a different way and we don't accuse people of this).

 

Getting back to the point, that the author of G.Luke thought that his "jesus" was a real historical figure doesn't speak to more than that. It was what he thought. Perhaps he wrote the entire text so that Theophilus would also think this way? We have no idea what he thought but it seemed important enough that an entire gospel, nearly identical to G.Mark, be penned. The striking difference is the birth and resurrection narratives that actually make a possibly ambiguous case in G.Mark into a solid case for a god-human in G.Luke (as humans generally aren't the magical offspring of virgins and spirits except in ancient myths...which the "Greeks" of the day would have had no problem creating and enjoying).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that you had claimed Luke didn't believe in the historical Jesus but it's a common claim of Jesus Mythers like jesusneverexisted.com that early Christianity knew all along there was no historical Jesus but they made up the character as some sort of conspiracy and biblical scholars have purposely covered up the Truth! for 200 years so they can make money off of gullible people. Only jesusneverexisted.com knows the real truth and can save you from the evil scholars and their money-stealing lies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean that you had claimed Luke didn't believe in the historical Jesus but it's a common claim of Jesus Mythers like jesusneverexisted.com that early Christianity knew all along there was no historical Jesus but they made up the character as some sort of conspiracy and biblical scholars have purposely covered up the Truth! for 200 years so they can make money off of gullible people. Only jesusneverexisted.com knows the real truth and can save you from the evil scholars and their money-stealing lies!

That may be so but I try to discount conspiracy theories. Now I will contradict myself by stating that I think that religion is one big conspiracy theory. ;) In that I mean that conspiracy theories are "easy" and "comfortable." Then tend to have "knowledge" that isn't widely available that fill in "gaps" in our general information. This is true about the Kennedy assassination (Is it suspicious? Yes. Strange things happened that day. A conspiracy? No. No "invisible hand(s)."). But thinking this gives the illusion of some grand scheme or control that really isn't present and is actually rather comforting. That a "god" is present and at the reigns is a nice thought and that there was some initial "plan" surrounding this religion is also a nice thought too I guess. ;)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MWC

 

I wasn't going off on tangents, I was just commenting on several different points from different previous posts in one post. Some people claim Jesus can be proved to be a myth because they claim there are exact paralells to him in previous god figures like Mithras (who it is claimed, the early Christians were inspired by in inventing their man-god), but when you look at what is actually know about these figures then their similarity to Jesus generally falls apart.

 

I'm a bit unclear now as to whether you think Jesus existed or you don't think he did, or you just think we can't tell and it's not of interest to speculate. Maybe I have misunderstood you, but at the start of this thread I was responding to people like qadeshet who said that there was not a shred of evidence Jesus existed and he was mythical. I said I thought there was some evidence he was historical, and you then weighed in to criticise the points I made.

 

I don't see what's wrong with scholars trying to use things like the "embarrassment"idea for historicity - I'm not saying it's conclusive, but it is a good question to ask why the early church , of they were just inventing things, would put in stuff like Peter denying Jesus, Jesus' family saying he was mad etc.

 

I think personally that the disciples thought he was the messiah - expected to usher in the new Kingdom of God, and that they were shocked when he got executed and they had to find new theological explanations for it. I think that he probably had quite a few followers eventually, but did not make a big enough impact in his 1 - 3 years of preaching to become hugely famous and make it into those contemporary writings that have come down to us - for him to have done so we would have to have texts by someone making an exhaustive history of Judea and Galilee in in around 30-33 ad or so, and even then he might not have stood out enough from other preachers and would-be messiahs. I think he may have started to become reasonably popular without becoming world famous, and without doing the miraculous things the gospels later claim for him that you would have expected would have made him more widely famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going off on tangents, I was just commenting on several different points from different previous posts in one post. Some people claim Jesus can be proved to be a myth because they claim there are exact paralells to him in previous god figures like Mithras (who it is claimed, the early Christians were inspired by in inventing their man-god), but when you look at what is actually know about these figures then their similarity to Jesus generally falls apart.

I wasn't stating you were off on tangents I just wasn't wanting any clarification on those points so the thread didn't derail onto those tangents (as they tend to do).

 

I'm a bit unclear now as to whether you think Jesus existed or you don't think he did, or you just think we can't tell and it's not of interest to speculate. Maybe I have misunderstood you, but at the start of this thread I was responding to people like qadeshet who said that there was not a shred of evidence Jesus existed and he was mythical. I said I thought there was some evidence he was historical, and you then weighed in to criticise the points I made.

If it helps you any I'm firmly in the mythical jesus camp after having been in the others. The only "jesus" that exist are the ones that are created by others. You want a human jesus you will create the one you like. He will be an apocalyptic of some sort, or maybe he'll be a healer, or some type of preacher...maybe you prefer the combo pack where you choose a little from all the above but you'll be the one that "creates" your own "jesus." Then you'll ignore what the bible, and everyone else, tells you about "jesus," about his birth, his life, his death, and go with whatever you prefer. You'll do the same for his followers. How and why they stayed around and why the leaders of the Romans and the Jews decided to leave them, and only them, alone as opposed to the other xians. Then you will decide which parts of the stories should be fleshed out into real events and which should be dropped. Once done your "jesus" will be assembled and ready to roll off the line. It has no basis in reality nor in the texts that we have available but it's comfortable since it will be a sensible version that you will be able to wrap your head around.

 

On the other hand it makes no sense whatsoever that people could ever start a religion around something that doesn't exist. That's crazy. Just ask Moses. It makes no sense that the Exodus didn't happen and thousands went to the desert to talk to their "god" first hand when it came down upon a mountain top. Except almost no one thinks Moses is little more than some character in allegory these days. So the "god" and the man who spoke to that very "god," creating that religion, apparently are both fictional and fading from history. Pretty much everyone in Genesis through Joshua, from the dawn of biblical time up to at least King David (beyond actually but they're not willing to let him go quite yet) is heading for this same fate. Maybe we'll get lucky and something will turn up in the deserts to show this isn't the case? But until then that's the way the wind is blowing. The mythical position isn't unreasonable except when you speak of certain characters...then it seems to become taboo.

 

I don't see what's wrong with scholars trying to use things like the "embarrassment"idea for historicity - I'm not saying it's conclusive, but it is a good question to ask why the early church , of they were just inventing things, would put in stuff like Peter denying Jesus, Jesus' family saying he was mad etc.

Because "scholars" don't use it. Biblical "scholars" do. Historians don't use this criterion. It's bogus. Do even a little digging and you'll see it's just an invention used in this field of study to try to make the junk science used for biblical research, mainly the junk related to the gospels, credible.

 

You might think these are good questions, perhaps they are, but they're not good criteria with which to judge anything legitimate or not because you cannot tell me what someone of that time would have considered embarrassing. This is not knowable to us. We can speculate all we like but that's it.

 

Peter denying "jesus?" Is this embarrassing? You apparently think so. Who is it embarrassing for? The "church?" What church might that be? There was *NO* church. It wasn't by committee. So which author will you blame for putting it in there? Maybe this author *DID* want to have Peter look like a moron. Or maybe this author wanted Peter to deny "jesus" in this way to teach a lesson that isn't in the text. Or maybe this was an allegorical lesson, since we're told that all teachings were done by parables in seems that the entire text could be one giant parable, and on the surface it has one meaning (the denial) and on another level it has another meaning (we're not privy to since those were given to the disciples in secret). So many options we can take right from the texts themselves and yet it must be literal and it must be embarrassing to the entire church which was a later invention (unless we're counting those small house-churches we're told existed as this "church" entity whole).

 

The same basic thing applies to the family of Jesus stating he's mad. Is this embarrassing? He does say we have to ditch out families to be right with his "god." Perhaps it's because families aren't very supportive? Perhaps it's because this Jesus needs to fall low and suffer, even to death, alone, before rising to the greatest glory of all and this is a part of that? (Same with the denial of Peter above) Is that then embarrassing? No. It's a requirement. He's from meager origin. Goes through a lot of crap but yet rises to glory as (a) god. Follow him and do likewise. Those pitfalls in your life won't be too bad when you too rise up in glory. There's nothing embarrassing here. Is this what they, the actual authors, meant? I'm left to speculate using this method along with everyone else. Maybe some xians were embarrassed by these things but that's a different issue. If your sect was a huge follower of Peter I imagine you'd be upset and use a "Peter friendly" set of texts but if you liked James and didn't like Pete so much then you may prefer those stories about Pete being a loser especially if your sect was into literalism.

 

I think personally that the disciples thought he was the messiah - expected to usher in the new Kingdom of God, and that they were shocked when he got executed and they had to find new theological explanations for it. I think that he probably had quite a few followers eventually, but did not make a big enough impact in his 1 - 3 years of preaching to become hugely famous and make it into those contemporary writings that have come down to us - for him to have done so we would have to have texts by someone making an exhaustive history of Judea and Galilee in in around 30-33 ad or so, and even then he might not have stood out enough from other preachers and would-be messiahs. I think he may have started to become reasonably popular without becoming world famous, and without doing the miraculous things the gospels later claim for him that you would have expected would have made him more widely famous.

Considering someone who was going to be an actual "messiah" most likely would have been wanting to "cleanse" the Jewish homeland this would have meant he was playing with fire from the day he first got that notion into his head. If his disciples truly though he was that guy then, unless their messianic expectations *at that moment in time* were already in-line with what we find in the NT texts, there should have been little "shock" when their guy got wasted. Sadness and disappointed would surely be there but for a would be "messiah" to get taken out, well, that was just part of doing business.

 

But the disciples didn't write the gospels and so they didn't create the explanations for anything. Some anonymous guys made it up. Paul, if he spoke directly to anyone that knew anything, sure didn't bother to make any excuses for anything, so if we assume he knew anyone involved with anything at all then there's no hint of any problems from him. Surely the persecutor of the church would let something slip about the unexpected demise? Maybe not. He stuck to the story. Everyone did. I'm starting to smell a conspiracy only it's not about creating a mythical jesus...oh wait...it is. That mythical human jesus. The "jesus" we all know was forged from a conspiracy to cover up the real truth about the "real" Jesus.

 

I can't recall but I'm pretty sure there was 1 or 2 actual histories of Judea from that time. They're are lost. I wonder why the xians didn't preserve or quote from them? Would have been nice having all that 3rd party info on this movement.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the disciples should have been unsurprised that Jesus got "wasted" - or do you mean they probably were just "hoping" he was the messiah, but not sure, and when he got killed they just thought "oh well, he wasn't the one then"?

 

re. Moses etc, there is a difference in that - probably - those legends were written down many centuries after the times when they were supposed to have taken place, whereas people believed stuff about Jesus a few years after he is supposed to have died, when there should have still been eye-witnesses around etc (and Paul indeed says he met such eye-witnesses).

 

You make some good points, but on the other hand, just because we might lack much solid evidence/information about him, is that a good reason to therefore conclude he didn't exist? Isn't it a bit of a leap? I am quite familiar with the mythicist view though, and know there are some reasonable arguments for it and was more or less convinced by it at one point, but I now tend more towards a minimalist historical view (a preacher existed and got executed etc). I think both are arguable and I don't think you can be very dogmatic about it either way. However do you know of any other examples where a religious figure who never existed as a human at all was then believed to have really existed within a few years of the times when he was meant to have lived (as opposed being supposed to have lived in some legendary past)? One thing that swayed me was I went thorough all the letters of Paul that are agreed by most people to be genuine and found numerous passages which logically sounded like he believed Jesus was a recent historical figure, and I found this contradicted the mythicist view of people like Earl Doherty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If it helps you any I'm firmly in the mythical jesus camp after having been in the others. The only "jesus" that exist are the ones that are created by others. You want a human jesus you will create the one you like. He will be an apocalyptic of some sort, or maybe he'll be a healer, or some type of preacher...maybe you prefer the combo pack where you choose a little from all the above but you'll be the one that "creates" your own "jesus." Then you'll ignore what the bible, and everyone else, tells you about "jesus," about his birth, his life, his death, and go with whatever you prefer. You'll do the same for his followers. How and why they stayed around and why the leaders of the Romans and the Jews decided to leave them, and only them, alone as opposed to the other xians. Then you will decide which parts of the stories should be fleshed out into real events and which should be dropped. Once done your "jesus" will be assembled and ready to roll off the line. It has no basis in reality nor in the texts that we have available but it's comfortable since it will be a sensible version that you will be able to wrap your head around.

 

 

And Jesus Mythers aren't just as biased? Zeitgeist is one of the most biased movies ever. The movie is essentially a libertarian one-world government conspiracy plot with 15 minutes of a religious documentary tacked on at the beginning which has nothing to do with the rest of the film simply because that's the only way they would get anyone to watch it otherwise with the most ridiculous arguments. "OMG, Christians and pagans had holidays on December 25th, therefore Jesus isn't real!" Like, we didn't already know Christmas was stolen from the pagans? Yeah, that's a real shocker. The God Who Wasn't There documentary has an obvious anti-religious bias to it rather than taking an objective historical approach. Jesusneverexisted.com opening its site with "Welcome to Enlightenment!" is totally not biased at all, right? It accuses biblical scholars of being involved in a secret conspiracy plot to cover up the truth that they've really known about all along for 200 years so they could steal your money while at the same time, plastering its site with ads for its own books. They might sound a lot more convincing if they weren't promoting their own books all over the site. "We just want to save you and your money from those evil scholars that are trying to steal your money (but psst, make sure you buy our books instead)! Biblical scholars who believe in the historical Jesus are evil and trying to steal your money but Robert Price totally has non-selfish reasons in writing his books and has the TRUTH. It smells to me like some people have been reading too much Dan Brown. I find biblical scholars who have researched this subject their whole lives like Bart D Ehrman to be more trustworthy than Internet fansites that jerk off to Zeitgeist, but if you'd rather trust them, that's your prerogative I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the disciples should have been unsurprised that Jesus got "wasted" - or do you mean they probably were just "hoping" he was the messiah, but not sure, and when he got killed they just thought "oh well, he wasn't the one then"?

The answer would depend on what I was told the disciples believed. In this case I was told that the disciples thought he was the messiah so I went with that.

 

re. Moses etc, there is a difference in that - probably - those legends were written down many centuries after the times when they were supposed to have taken place, whereas people believed stuff about Jesus a few years after he is supposed to have died, when there should have still been eye-witnesses around etc (and Paul indeed says he met such eye-witnesses).

People a couple thousand years ago thought the stories were written by Moses during those particular times. It's only now that we're moving away from those ideas and moving the whole thing into the category of myth and allegory where it belongs. Maybe it will take another 1000 years for the "jesus" stories to make the same move?

 

You make some good points, but on the other hand, just because we might lack much solid evidence/information about him, is that a good reason to therefore conclude he didn't exist? Isn't it a bit of a leap? I am quite familiar with the mythicist view though, and know there are some reasonable arguments for it and was more or less convinced by it at one point, but I now tend more towards a minimalist historical view (a preacher existed and got executed etc). I think both are arguable and I don't think you can be very dogmatic about it either way. However do you know of any other examples where a religious figure who never existed as a human at all was then believed to have really existed within a few years of the times when he was meant to have lived (as opposed being supposed to have lived in some legendary past)? One thing that swayed me was I went thorough all the letters of Paul that are agreed by most people to be genuine and found numerous passages which logically sounded like he believed Jesus was a recent historical figure, and I found this contradicted the mythicist view of people like Earl Doherty.

I conclude there was no human jesus based on the lack of evidence for him. Yes. That's what I do. I do not conflate references with "jesus" and "christ" to create a singular entity. I do not accept references to "christians" and the like to point to a "jesus" since it is known that "christians" could be the followers of non-jesus cults. I do not confuse these ideas so I can have a human jesus figure.

 

Accurately date Paul's letters for me.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is reasonable to think Paul's letters are mid-1st C and that his evangelising is mainly reponsible for the rapid spread of Christianity around the Mediterranean - or do you have a better explanation for it? Acts and various writings by 2nd C church fathers attest to him having been important and his letters were being read in churches in the 2nd C. I have a book of ante-Nicene fathers to hand - take Clement's 1st Epistle, considered authentic and dating to the latter 1st C -- he mentions Paul, saying that "after preaching both in the east and west he gained an illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom".

 

RE. Moses again, the equivalent would be if people had written down the epistles and gospels in around the 8th Century based on traditions about things supposed to have happened in the 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Jesus Mythers aren't just as biased? Zeitgeist is one of the most biased movies ever. The movie is essentially a libertarian one-world government conspiracy plot with 15 minutes of a religious documentary tacked on at the beginning which has nothing to do with the rest of the film simply because that's the only way they would get anyone to watch it otherwise with the most ridiculous arguments. "OMG, Christians and pagans had holidays on December 25th, therefore Jesus isn't real!" Like, we didn't already know Christmas was stolen from the pagans? Yeah, that's a real shocker.

Everyone has to "create" a "jesus" of some sort and that's part of the problem. The only, one and true, Jesus that we have is the one from the bible and that one, even with the various problems, was conceived by a virgin with the help of the Holy Spirit, performed many miracles, died on a cross and then rose again after three days. This is the basic story of Jesus we do have. Anything else is made up.

 

As for Zeitgeist, attack it all you wish, I'm pretty sure you haven't seen me hanging my hat on any of what it says.

 

The God Who Wasn't There documentary has an obvious anti-religious bias to it rather than taking an objective historical approach. Jesusneverexisted.com opening its site with "Welcome to Enlightenment!" is totally not biased at all, right? It accuses biblical scholars of being involved in a secret conspiracy plot to cover up the truth that they've really known about all along for 200 years so they could steal your money while at the same time, plastering its site with ads for its own books. They might sound a lot more convincing if they weren't promoting their own books all over the site. "We just want to save you and your money from those evil scholars that are trying to steal your money (but psst, make sure you buy our books instead)! Biblical scholars who believe in the historical Jesus are evil and trying to steal your money but Robert Price totally has non-selfish reasons in writing his books and has the TRUTH. It smells to me like some people have been reading too much Dan Brown. I find biblical scholars who have researched this subject their whole lives like Bart D Ehrman to be more trustworthy than Internet fansites that jerk off to Zeitgeist, but if you'd rather trust them, that's your prerogative I guess.

Where have I cited these items? In your mind? Because you're the one that repeatedly injects them into the conversation. Just because you *must* draw upon what others have concluded doesn't mean that I do the same. I've read literally hundreds, if not thousands, of (translated) source documents starting with the Sumerians and working my way forwards. I've not simply read what Ehrman, or a Zeitgeist, has said and came to agreement with it. Since I've been sick and at home I have spent as many as 10-12 hours per day for the past 5 years reading these items. How about yourself? I've invested great time and effort and I haven't made a dent in the volume of texts history has to offer. What I have decided, based on these items to date, is that I can't seem to locate a human Jesus for all my efforts.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

This is not me arguing against the the jesus myth hypothesis, but a genuine question.

 

Why would people die for someone that didn't exist in some form?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not me arguing against the the jesus myth hypothesis, but a genuine question.

 

Why would people die for someone that didn't exist in some form?

Hal Bop Comet cult. Why would people kill themselves for an alien spacecraft in the comets tail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I have decided, based on these items to date, is that I can't seem to locate a human Jesus for all my efforts.

 

mwc

 

All we can do is say there was probably a historical Jesus or probably not, but you seem to say that unless we can have 100% proof and 100% know exactly what he said and did or didn't then you are going to believe he didn't exist. The fact that there are obviously legendary aspects to some of the writings about him doesn't prove he didn't exist - people later making up exaggerated legends about people who existed as historical figures happened in lots of cases in the past. What evidence would you need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not me arguing against the the jesus myth hypothesis, but a genuine question.

 

Why would people die for someone that didn't exist in some form?

 

To be fair, there is not all that much evidence as to what happened to most of the disciples (ProfMTH did a good video on this on Youtube), though there does seem a reasonable amount for Paul, James and Peter for starters, I would say. But in any case as far as I can see from the earliest times we have records for, Christians DID think Jesus existed as a real person. So it seems to me improbable that there was a point where he was just made up, because why did the very first Christians do that? and where is the evidence for this fabrication taking place? and why did other Christians very soon believe this invented character had lived as a man? If the inventors were just very convincing and pretended their invented character had been real, what was the point of that? On the other hand if you think the first Christians just believed in a non-physical legendary or supernatural figure that was later on mistakenly thought to have lived as a man, I have not seen any source material from the 1st Century suggesting that this was their belief. Arguments I have seen on the net suggesting the latter did not seem to hold water for me -- eg. "Paul didn't believe in a human Jesus" - yes he did, he said he was born of David according to the flesh, he described the last supper, he quoted teachings of Jesus, he said he was crucified and buried, he said he met his brother James etc. Or "some branches of early Christianity didn't believe in a human Jesus" - true, there were some people that thought he was not a real man, but a materialised divine being - but that was just an argument about his real nature, not whether he was historical or not.

 

@MWC It is impressive that you have been doing up to 12 hours reading a day of early Christian texts for 5 years (you should write a book) but eg. Ehrman says he has studied every Christian text for the first 300 years in their original languages, and he seems convinced there was a historical Jesus, so I don't see how you can be so sure your opinion is right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is reasonable to think Paul's letters are mid-1st C and that his evangelising is mainly reponsible for the rapid spread of Christianity around the Mediterranean - or do you have a better explanation for it? Acts and various writings by 2nd C church fathers attest to him having been important and his letters were being read in churches in the 2nd C. I have a book of ante-Nicene fathers to hand - take Clement's 1st Epistle, considered authentic and dating to the latter 1st C -- he mentions Paul, saying that "after preaching both in the east and west he gained an illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom".

"It is reasonable to think" is not what I asked for. I asked for an accurate dating. We need to know when they were written, with some degree of accuracy, so we can have an understanding of what is meant by your statement of "numerous passages which logically sounded like he believed Jesus was a recent historical figure."

 

If I accept what wikipedia says:

The traditional date for Clement's epistle is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or c. 96 AD, which was arrived at by taking the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Confirmation of the date was derived from the factual details that the church at Rome is called "ancient", that the presbyters installed by the apostles are said to have died (44:2), and that a second ecclesiastical generation has also apparently passed on (44:3).

So we assume a persecution under Domitian. Then we assume that we had a start date of roughly 30 CE and Clement gets its dating. Perfectly sound. Without the assumption of ~30 CE then persecution can move to many time frames so it's vital to anchor the start generations otherwise we can't get a decent date from this.

 

I have no doubt this vital letter, which establishes apostolic succession (among other things), is very early and that Peter himself made Clement one of those destined to be Pope. There's no reason to think otherwise.

 

RE. Moses again, the equivalent would be if people had written down the epistles and gospels in around the 8th Century based on traditions about things supposed to have happened in the 1st.

I saw your point when you first made it. Does Moses become real if the story would have been penned in the 1500's (or 1200's or whatever date people wish to attach to the story these days)? No. If there is no historical jesus then it wouldn't matter if the stories got written in 40 CE (or 39, 38 or 37 CE). Writing closer to a mythical event doesn't make the event any more real or accurate. It just makes the story slightly older.

 

What I was saying is that people in the 1st century did not know that the Moses stories were written in the 8th century (or even if they were written 100 years prior for that matter). They accepted they were written at some ancient time (1200-1500 BCE?) and that Moses wrote them. That's all that mattered to them. They were authentic to that audience. Times have changed since then. For us. Likewise, these gospel stories. If the current audience wishes to see them as some authentic story then that's what they are. It makes no difference when they were written or how. You wish to see a historical jesus of some sort, as opposed to an allegorical one, then that's what will be there. Whether they were written in the 30's CE or much later that is what will be there.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we can do is say there was probably a historical Jesus or probably not, but you seem to say that unless we can have 100% proof and 100% know exactly what he said and did or didn't then you are going to believe he didn't exist. The fact that there are obviously legendary aspects to some of the writings about him doesn't prove he didn't exist - people later making up exaggerated legends about people who existed as historical figures happened in lots of cases in the past. What evidence would you need?

And now we're in church...

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

 

@MWC It is impressive that you have been doing up to 12 hours reading a day of early Christian texts for 5 years (you should write a book)

i would definitely read it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MWC It is impressive that you have been doing up to 12 hours reading a day of early Christian texts for 5 years (you should write a book) but eg. Ehrman says he has studied every Christian text for the first 300 years in their original languages, and he seems convinced there was a historical Jesus, so I don't see how you can be so sure your opinion is right

I never said I read only early xian texts. I started out like most people, what NG accused me of doing, and that was going to various web sites and so forth. I started to see that they wrote a bunch of conflicting stuff and citing things that I didn't know. So I decided to see for myself. I started digging up these texts and reading them. I had no plans to learn history but I realized I needed to learn about all these cultures to understand what they were talking about otherwise they were so many words on a page. So I learned the histories of these places. I figured I'd start at the beginning and work my way forwards so I could see the "evolution" of things. I had very limited resources but lots and lots of time since I was going to doctors all the time and just sitting around. So I started at the first written ancient near east culture and kept on going. I picked up bits and pieces of the various languages along the way but I take some meds that make hanging onto things rather tough so I focuses on just getting through it with as much understanding as possible. It's taken a long time and I've read many of these texts multiple times (since I couldn't recall reading them thanks to the meds) but I went through most all the ancient texts I could get access to (and I know there are many that exist that I couldn't get my hands on).

 

So that's the story in a nutshell. Does that make me more or less right that someone like Ehrman? He's an expert. I defer to him when it comes to analyzing texts but that doesn't mean he's any better at figuring out if someone existed that I am. Based on the texts he figured out that his brand of belief was in error.

 

I took offense at the idea that I base my ideas on the like of some movie or a website rather than going through piles of source texts myself. Drawing my own conclusions. Looking at the history behind the texts. The people. The places. Trying to understand them and the cultures. Not just some simplistic take that someone else has come to and offered up for me to either accept or reject based on whether or not I like their presentation and it agrees with what I already tend to think. I've changed my opinion several times since I've started this process and it's been extremely enlightening for me. It hasn't been simple and it hasn't been taken lightly. I don't care to be put off with a bunch of cranks.

 

In this thread I have asked questions pertaining to the actual texts that are in the bible and things that have been offered up related to them. You guys are the ones that have offered unfounded theories and dodges based on what you simply believe. You have invented the "jesus" you have desired and went on to tell me that I was being unreasonable.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.