jesus and the gospels

[jasonlong]

I was wondering why the community stood on this. More than any other topic, this is probably the one where I change my mind the most. My vote is for Legendary/Mythical.

[Guest JP1283]

I too voted legendary/mythical. I'm not sure if Jesus existed or not, so I won't go as far as to say that his existence was a rumor or lie.

[Asimov]

mythical, baby

[♦ ficino ♦]

I have no problem with supposing that there was a Jesus who was a religious leader/rabble rouser who was believed to work miracles. I think the infancy narratives and other features of the gospels are theological invention. That's why I voted legendary/mythical.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Mythical, used as basis for scaring those weak minded enough to require *salvation*...

 

n

[Totallyatpeace]

Historical.

 

For those who understand their need of salvation.

 

TAP

[Ro-bear]

Legendary/historical. Real people and events are depicted in the bible, along with a bunch of other less credible stuff.

[chefranden]

Mythical for those that understand there is nothing to be saved from.

[- AUB -]

Very hot topic right now among my debate pals, Mythical for me as there's no reason to think jesus existed, too many clues saying he didn't.

The only loose end i have is how someone confused a pagan salvation spirit with the jewish messiah, as they are different concepts. His teachings more than anything else can be debunked as the local ideas of the churches at the time each gospel was compiled, given to jesus to say for a sense of authority, common practice. (you might notice his "words" arrive long after the church is established) His life is pagan motifs, his name greek, the rest apologetic spin, i just need to sort out Paul's, motives. The further back you go the murkier it gets.

[-Demona-]

Legendary/mythical. I won't entirely rule out the possibility that Jesus existed, and I believe that there is something to be gained or learned from from old legends. It gives us a glimpse of where we were, which can help us figure out where we're going.

 

Just my $0.02.

[phoenix]

mythical.

[fortunehooks]

i vote legendary/mythical. i mean, i am sure a guy named yeshua was around some centuries back, but is this guy a son of a god. well, no, that's purely faslehood. did this said guy, walk on water, falsehood. now for the clincher, did this said guy, come back to life. not a chance.

[Clearview]

Mythical. I'm no scholar, but none of the searching I have done has come up with anything that even suggests to me that Jesus did exist. The gospels appear to be a poorly knit compilation of stories already told elsewhere, and attributed to Jesus.

[Karl-777]

My vote was for choice #4: 'Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life'

 

I agree with Gerald Massey's perspective:

.....The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod." That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels!

 

But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 B.C., although the point is not of much consequence here. Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin -- the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 B.C. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 B.C., and that it could hardly be later than 100 B.C. when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 B.C. If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 B.C. But twenty years are a matter of little moment here.

 

According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover.

 

This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover). The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. He was succeeded in the government by his widow Salomè, whom the Greeks called Alexandra, and who reigned for some nine years. Now the traditions, especially of the first "Toledoth Jehoshua," relate that the Queen of Jannæus, and the mother of Hyrcanus, who must therefore be Salomè, in spite of her being called by another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her; but that during her reign, which ended in the year 71 B.C., he was put to death.

 

The Jewish writers and Rabbis with whom I have talked always deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the Gospels. "This," observes Rabbi Jechiels, "which has been related to Jehoshua Ben-Perachia and his pupil, contains no reference whatever to him whom the Christians honour as God!" Another Rabbi, Salman Zevi, produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jehoshua of the Talmud was not he who was afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth (and of the Canonical Gospels) was unknown to Justus, to the Jew of Celsus, and to Josephus, the supposed reference to him by the latter being an undoubted forgery.

 

The "blasphemous writings of the Jews about Jesus," as Justin Martyr calls them, always refer to Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, and not to the Jesus of the Gospels. It is Ben-Pandira they mean when they say they have another and a truer account of the birth and life, the wonder-working and death of Jehoshua or Jesus. This repudiation is perfectly honest and soundly based. The only Jesus known to the Jews was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who had learnt the arts of magic in Egypt, and who was put to death by them as a sorcerer.

 

This was likewise the only Jesus known to Celsus, the writer of the "True Logos," a work which the Christians managed to get rid of bodily, with so many other of the anti-Christian evidences. Celsus observes that he was not a pure Word, not a true Logos, but a man who had learned the arts of sorcery in Egypt. So, in the Clementines, it is in the character of Ben-Pandira that Jesus is said to rise again as the magician. But here is the conclusive fact: The Jews know nothing of Jesus, the Christ of the Gospels, as an historical character; and when the Christians of the fourth century trace his pedigree, by the hand of Epiphanius, they are forced to derive their Jesus from Pandira! Epiphanius gives the genealogy of the Canonical Jesus in this wise:--

 

Jacob, called Pandira, Mary - Joseph -- Cleopas, Jesus.

 

This proves that in the fourth century the pedigree of Jesus was traced to Pandira, the father of that Jehoshua who was the pupil of Ben-Perachia, and who becomes one of the magicians in Egypt, and who was crucified as a magician on the eve of the Passover by the Jews, in the time of Queen Alexandra, who had ceased to reign in the year 70 B.C.--the Jesus, therefore, who lived and died more than a century too soon.

 

Thus, the Jews do not identify Jehoshua Ben-Pandira with the Gospel Jesus, of whom they, his supposed contemporaries, know nothing, but protest against the assumption as an impossibility; whereas the Christians do identify their Jesus as the descendant of Pandira. It was he or nobody; yet he was neither the son of Joseph nor the Virgin Mary, nor was he crucified at Jerusalem.

 

It is not the Jews, then, but the Christians, who fuse two supposed historic characters into one! There being but one history acknowledged or known on either side, it follows that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Jehoshua of the Talmud, or is not at all, as a Person.....

 

The Madonna and Child were borrowed from Pagan Egypt and placed as human literalizations/embellishments in the gospel Dramas, which also are similar to other more ancient savior Myths, along with some of the sayings. In addition to Celsus, whose writings were destroyed by the church at every opportunity, Heraclitus of Ephesus also wrote on The Logos in Pagan Greece c.500BCE:

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it -- not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos , men seem to be quite without any experience of it -- at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth.

We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each had a private intelligence of his own.

This passage is important, because it suggests the Internal Unity/Spirituality of all, as opposed to the emphasis on religion (external framework), associated fundamentalist legalistic idiocy, and guilt/control-mongering, which have done nothing but ruin humanity. And:

Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.

 

Where is the documented demonstration of John 14:12 and Mark 16:18 by believers?

 

The approximate 10-year gap between the death of Herod in 4BCE and the c.6CE rule of Quirinius renders the Luke account historically impossible. If that part is not accurate, how do we know what parts are actually accurate, if any? There is also not one shred of valid extra-biblical corroboration of a god-man named "Jesus" of "Nazareth". (the "James Ossuary" being one of the more recent forgeries: an attempt to prop up the indefensible)

 

There is certainly nothing wrong with Philosophical passages in the bible such as "love your neighbor as yourself", etc; however, in light of the claims of "divine inspiration" by "perfect" biblegod, and other errors such as the incorrect identification of Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar in Daniel (written c.165BCE), incongruity, literalized Myth, and self-contradiction, there is no reason to believe that much of the bible and the alleged god-man are anything more than constructs.

 

K

[Vixentrox]

Legendary/Mythical: fictional stories inspired by a man's life

 

I dont doubt there was some cult leader that existed that had his status eleveated to god-man and miralce worker. But the story got mixed with so much legend and mythology that the most of what the true cult leader was got lost.

[Japedo]

Mythical: based on rumors and/or lies Is my vote.

 

Reason, Most of all Christianity is Reinvented from Other pagan religions.

 

From Birth, to Life, to death. There's a little bit of everything from everywhere in that religion. Nothing new under the sun.

[Asimov]

Historical.

 

For those who understand their need of salvation. 

 

TAP

 

need of salvation??

[Merlinfmct87]

Legendary/Mythical. Jesus might have existed, but it's my belief that Paul mutilated the truth... then put it through a telephone.

 

Merlin

[Thurisaz]

I was wondering why the community stood on this.  More than any other topic, this is probably the one where I change my mind the most.  My vote is for Legendary/Mythical.

 

I can imagine very well that a radical wandering preacher called Jesus really existed in those bygone times, and he may well have been executed for his radical views too.

However, about all the supernatural stuff...

[nirrti]

Legendary/Mythical (or was it a legendary myth?)

 

I believe a man named Yeshua, who taught that all human beings were connected to the divine existed. Unlike most that see him as literally "God", he was using himself as an example of the potential we all had. According to scripture, he said whatever things he did others could do also so it wasn't like he was elevating himself as being this almighty god as latter Christians saw him.

 

Didn't he also tell his disiples "ye are gods"? And if he was God (capital G) why would he be in so much anquish in anticipation of his crucifixion and why did he cry out to God asking him "Why have you forsaken me?" Sounds like a typical human response to feeling abandoned in such a horrendous situation.

 

Apparantly, he was just another human, albeit an enlightened one. He was just trying to lead people to who he called "the father" whom he perceived as a loving, forgiving god. His wish was for everyone to see God as their "abba" or "daddy", not the vengeful, wrathful god in the OT.

 

Personally, I believe you can thank later sects who embellished stories to hide his humanity making him so otherworldly it would make it impossible for people to obtain the kind of "oness" with the divine Yeshua had. Ultimately, Christianity becoming Rome's state religion and its use to control the populace further bastardized and ultimately distorted Yeshua's message.

[Christopher Carrion]

Historically, there is no more evidence to support the gospels than there is the Christian "creation" myth, i.e, none that is not the product of some fundy-whackjob forcibly interpreting existing data to coincide with their preconceptions. THEY ARE STORIES. They are not even written as historical accounts; that much is evident just from a cursory reading. And even if they are not, let us assume for the moment that they were inspired by some shred of historical fact, the very fact that the writers in question A) Evidently are not writing from first-person experience of these events and have very, very particular socio-cultural, religious and political intentions prohibits the historical accuracy of the documents they produce. Furthermore, one must take into consideration that the gospels function as fiction; they are not a list of facts, but are mechanically speaking no different from something written by Stephen King or Tolkien; whatever meaning or significance one derives from them is a by-product of personal itnerpretation, therefore relies upon the personal prejudices, preconceptions and intentions one brings to one's reading. Although there will inevitably be common factors that most can agree upon, the minutiae will always differ from individual to individual, as will the emphasis or significance of certain factors.

 

Read the bible first as literature, second as historical document, third as philosophy. You'll be atheist in less time than it takes to cry "Hallelujah!"

[- AUB -]

Christopher Carrion

 

Bang on, although I think they we're meant to be seen as history.

 

nirrti

 

Interesting interpretation, indeed you have (selectively of course) quoted correctly, (and that may have been certain writers intentions) but what do you base your position that he was historical on?

 

Thurisaz

 

My position as well till recently, you can see it happening minus all the theological junk, but he'd have to have been very obscure not to leave any evidence.

 

Karl

 

The Pandira Theory is a good one, (certainly there was no jesus of Nazereth, the gospels just picked a date to stick him in for plot purposes) he may have been a proto-jesus or mearly vageuly similer, but how did he go from sorcerer to Pauls saviour? Was it an unconscious mutation or detail added to a deliberate artificaly fashioned personality?

[Reach]

The only loose end i have is how someone confused a pagan salvation spirit with the jewish messiah, as they are different concepts. His teachings more than anything else can be debunked as the local ideas of the churches at the time each gospel was compiled, given to jesus to say for a sense of authority, common practice. (you might notice his "words" arrive long after the church is established) His life is pagan motifs, his name greek, the rest apologetic spin, i just need to sort out Paul's, motives. The further back you go the murkier it gets.

AUB, just curious. How did you draw the conclusion that "someone confused a pagan salvation spirit with the jewish messiah, as they are different concepts?" This could have been the marriage of different, and sometimes opposing concepts for ease in cultural assimilation, for propagandistic purposes. An arranged marriage, if you will. A marriage of convenience.

 

A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

 

Be careful not to drown in those murky waters. 'Tis true that the farther back you go, the worse it gets.

 

I voted Mythical.

[TruthWarrior]

Could have been a bit of Buddhism too. Or anything you want.

 

It all depends on if you want Jesus to exist.

[Guest acorn]

JP, there are documents by the roman government for that time period, not the Christian body, that Jesus Christ was crucified, or in that precept, death sentence, for blasphemy, proclaiming to be God, the sad part is that His own people put Him to death, but it fullfilled the word of God in the old testament. Alot of athiest type groups, believe all this was a fixed type event, but my only question is if this is true, it was the most herrofic, and lying scheme that ever took place in this worlds history> In that, the question is who have you or I ever known to go to death, a herrific, and grueling death, for a scheme, or a lie?