Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86, Matt8819, amok

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33261  Postby Stein » Apr 25, 2013 5:16 pm

dogsgod wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:It would seem (if this bit accurately reflects Schmidt's view) that Karl Ludwig Schmidt regards the Synoptics as creative works of theology and not biography or history:

"[T]he Johannine proclamation of the Logos, who became flesh and dwelt among us...is also the hidden theme of the Synoptic Gospels. They do not contain stories of an individual who was the founder and originator of Christianity, but consist of numerous individual reflections on the theme of the incarnation of the Logos."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JBljk6 ... ry&f=false

This would seem to be in line with the indicators referred to earlier which would appear to indicate the gospels as a kind of folk literature or 'cult legend'.

This is not to say that Schmidt was necessarily a 'mythicist' - I'm given to understand Schmidt accepted that there was an historical Jesus whose teachings were passed on. It's just that the written record is not a biography or history of that person.

Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, I'm not trying to show that the Gospels were biographies or a history. My point is that they were presented as events that actually happened. Whether they are folk literature or 'cult legend' is irrelevant to my point. Let's put it this way. For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?


These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?


This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

Address that.

Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 1914

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33262  Postby Clive Durdle » Apr 25, 2013 6:19 pm

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"


As we have several points when Jesus became god - at his birth, at his baptism, always, at his resurrection, at his ascension, could we be looking at several different plots about where and when the sacrifice happened or how the logos became flesh??

The basic plot is Emmanuel - God with us.

OK, how do we achieve this?


Born of a virgin
Made from David
In the heavens continually
wandering around galilee
Logos with us

These variuos stories have been collected together and because of the idea of heresy, attempted to make coherent.

But they are not.

They are all different attempts to bring together god and man. There isn't a common pattern. We have at least a sacrifice in the heavens and at Calvary. Are there more in other non canonical stories?

And there definitely is not a historical core to these various attempts to describe how god becomes man, takes away the sins of the world and creates a new heaven and earth.
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4027

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33263  Postby Clive Durdle » Apr 25, 2013 7:41 pm

Why do the Gospels of Mark and John not have birth narratives? Because he wasn't born?
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4027

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33264  Postby RealityRules » Apr 25, 2013 9:18 pm

proudfootz wrote:Hey! We're talking about the single most important human ever!
Epicure wrote:If it be lawful to call him a human... :grin:
Corky wrote:Yeah...and why wouldn't it be?
Stein wrote: Because mythers will soon make it illegal ... Stein


Hah! The supreme authority made it illegal - i.e. The Church !!

It is heresy and blasphemy to refer to Jesus 'the Christ' as human.
.
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 1410

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33265  Postby Stein » Apr 25, 2013 9:43 pm

RealityRules wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Hey! We're talking about the single most important human ever!
Epicure wrote:If it be lawful to call him a human... :grin:
Corky wrote:Yeah...and why wouldn't it be?
Stein wrote: Because mythers will soon make it illegal ... Stein


Hah! The supreme authority made it illegal - i.e. The Church !!

It is heresy and blasphemy to refer to Jesus 'the Christ' as human.
.


And it will be a thought crime again once the mythers are in charge. You heard it here first.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 1914

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33266  Postby proudfootz » Apr 25, 2013 10:08 pm

Stein wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:It would seem (if this bit accurately reflects Schmidt's view) that Karl Ludwig Schmidt regards the Synoptics as creative works of theology and not biography or history:

"[T]he Johannine proclamation of the Logos, who became flesh and dwelt among us...is also the hidden theme of the Synoptic Gospels. They do not contain stories of an individual who was the founder and originator of Christianity, but consist of numerous individual reflections on the theme of the incarnation of the Logos."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JBljk6 ... ry&f=false

This would seem to be in line with the indicators referred to earlier which would appear to indicate the gospels as a kind of folk literature or 'cult legend'.

This is not to say that Schmidt was necessarily a 'mythicist' - I'm given to understand Schmidt accepted that there was an historical Jesus whose teachings were passed on. It's just that the written record is not a biography or history of that person.

Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, I'm not trying to show that the Gospels were biographies or a history. My point is that they were presented as events that actually happened. Whether they are folk literature or 'cult legend' is irrelevant to my point. Let's put it this way. For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?


These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?


This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

Address that.


You'll realize I have been addressing that question should you ever decide to read my posts. :coffee:

A 'biography' or a 'history' are accounts of things that actually happened in the sense meaningful to answer the question this thread is addressing.

If Schmidt agrees with GDon that these are not biographies or histories and are instead meditations on some manifestation of an aspect of the godhead in story form then they are of little use as matters of history or biography.

Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?


GDon didn't ask a 'myther' - the question was in response to the article I posted showing the genre of the gospel tales doesn't fit in with either history or biography.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4375

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33267  Postby RealityRules » Apr 25, 2013 10:26 pm

Stein wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Hey! We're talking about the single most important human ever!
Epicure wrote:If it be lawful to call him a human... :grin:
Corky wrote:Yeah...and why wouldn't it be?
Stein wrote: Because mythers will soon make it illegal ... Stein


Hah! The supreme authority made it illegal - i.e. The Church !!

It is heresy and blasphemy to refer to Jesus 'the Christ' as human.
.


And it will be a thought crime again once the mythers are in charge. You heard it here first.

Stein

Glad you admit it's a thought crime. It's still a 'thought crime' except for those christians trying to have two bites at the Jesus-narrative cherry (i.e. those happy to have the believers of 'Jesus-the-human-prophet' in their churches putting money in their donation plates).

Except no-one will be burnt at a stake or put to death by another method as has been done in the past.
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 1410

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33268  Postby dejuror » Apr 26, 2013 12:45 am

At this point we have been through virtually all the so-called arguments of HJers and they are fatally flawed.

These are the facts.

1. No writer outside of Apologetics claimed they actually met Jesus of Nazareth and personally interacted with him.

2. No writer of the Canon claimed that they met Jesus of Nazareth and actually and personally interacted with him.

3. No writer in antiquity claimed that Jesus personally converted them to Christianity.

4. No writer in the Canon claimed they were personally converted by Jesus of Nazareth.

5. The author of Acts admitted that it was the Holy Ghost that started the Jesus cult--Jesus was already dead and resurrected and was NOT on earth when the Holy Ghost came to earth. See Acts 1-2

6. The authors of the Jesus stories who mentioned the birth of Jesus claimed he was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

7. The author of John even claimed Jesus was God the Cretor.

8. The author of gMark claimed Jesus was a Son of a God.

9. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus was the Son of a God.

10. Ignatius claimed Jesus was God but by a Ghost.

11. Aristides claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

12. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was the Son of God.

13. Irenaeus publicly declared Jesus was born of a Ghost.

14. Tertullian publicly declared that Jesus was born of a Ghost and had no human father.

15. Origen publicly declared Jesus was born of a Ghost.

The Jesus character was a Myth like Adam or Romulus.

Adam, like Jesus, was made by God.

Jesus and Adam are Myths.
dejuror
 
Posts: 3685

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33269  Postby GakuseiDon » Apr 26, 2013 3:27 am

proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:
Yes, but as I have repeatedly said, I'm not trying to show that the Gospels were biographies or a history. My point is that they were presented as events that actually happened. Whether they are folk literature or 'cult legend' is irrelevant to my point. Let's put it this way. For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?


These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?


This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

Address that.


You'll realize I have been addressing that question should you ever decide to read my posts. :coffee:

A 'biography' or a 'history' are accounts of things that actually happened in the sense meaningful to answer the question this thread is addressing.

If Schmidt agrees with GDon that these are not biographies or histories and are instead meditations on some manifestation of an aspect of the godhead in story form then they are of little use as matters of history or biography.

You don't actually answer my question. Would you like to now? Here is my question again:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

It seems to me that you see it as "if it is not a biography, then it doesn't contain biographical details" or "if it is not a history, then it doesn't contain historical details". But my point is whether or not the accounts were being presented (either fraudently or sincerely) by earliest Christians as events that actually happened. AFAICT, the Gospels were always thought to be about events that actually happened.

proudfootz wrote:
Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?


GDon didn't ask a 'myther' - the question was in response to the article I posted showing the genre of the gospel tales doesn't fit in with either history or biography.

Actually I thought you posted your quote from Vridar in response to my earlier post about the Gospels talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ and Paul talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ?
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33270  Postby proudfootz » Apr 26, 2013 4:02 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
dogsgod wrote:

These gospels could have sat on shelves collecting dust for several decades, when were they presented, in the last part of the second century?


This is not answering Gakusei Don's question:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

Address that.


You'll realize I have been addressing that question should you ever decide to read my posts. :coffee:

A 'biography' or a 'history' are accounts of things that actually happened in the sense meaningful to answer the question this thread is addressing.

If Schmidt agrees with GDon that these are not biographies or histories and are instead meditations on some manifestation of an aspect of the godhead in story form then they are of little use as matters of history or biography.

You don't actually answer my question. Would you like to now? Here is my question again:

"For the Johannine proclamation of the Logos, that it "became flesh and dwelt among us": is this describing something that the author is presenting as actually happened?"

It seems to me that you see it as "if it is not a biography, then it doesn't contain biographical details" or "if it is not a history, then it doesn't contain historical details". But my point is whether or not the accounts were being presented (either fraudently or sincerely) by earliest Christians as events that actually happened. AFAICT, the Gospels were always thought to be about events that actually happened.


It would seem that if it's not the story of a man who existed (biography) or events that happened in real life (history) then it's something which isn't going to help much in establishing things that happened or people who lived.

Now it may be that these are things that are supposed to have 'happened' in some metaphorical or metaphysical sense - but I am starting to lean towards the notion that per Schmidt the narrative supplied by gMark is a meditation on the Logos or a 'cult legend' and not a literal account of 'these things really happened'.

proudfootz wrote:
Here's a rhetorical question to go with it: Why am I not surprised at no myther here bothering to address Gakusei Don's question?


GDon didn't ask a 'myther' - the question was in response to the article I posted showing the genre of the gospel tales doesn't fit in with either history or biography.

Actually I thought you posted your quote from Vridar in response to my earlier post about the Gospels talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ and Paul talking about a crucified Jew called Jesus Christ?


I keep trying to drag the thread away from 'HJers' are ______' and 'MJers are _______' by going back to discussions of things like 'what genre are the gospels?' so we can get back to the issues.

As far as the gospels and the epistles talking about a Jesus - perhaps I was subconsciously influenced by your post and it was pure synchronicity that that was the discussion at Vridar at that time...
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4375

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33271  Postby proudfootz » Apr 26, 2013 4:07 am

RealityRules wrote:
Stein wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Hey! We're talking about the single most important human ever!
Epicure wrote:If it be lawful to call him a human... :grin:
Corky wrote:Yeah...and why wouldn't it be?
Stein wrote: Because mythers will soon make it illegal ... Stein


Hah! The supreme authority made it illegal - i.e. The Church !!

It is heresy and blasphemy to refer to Jesus 'the Christ' as human.
.


And it will be a thought crime again once the mythers are in charge. You heard it here first.

Stein

Glad you admit it's a thought crime. It's still a 'thought crime' except for those christians trying to have two bites at the Jesus-narrative cherry (i.e. those happy to have the believers of 'Jesus-the-human-prophet' in their churches putting money in their donation plates).

Except no-one will be burnt at a stake or put to death by another method as has been done in the past.


Apparently thinking this Jesus may have been a myth is a thought crime now, as Ehrman states no one who admits such a heresy will get hired and we have some evidence that those who are found to be 'mythers' are likely to get fired.

But it's better to fret about a state of affairs that doesn't exist than face the reality that does exist. Much less scary!
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4375

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33272  Postby GakuseiDon » Apr 26, 2013 4:52 am

proudfootz wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:It seems to me that you see it as "if it is not a biography, then it doesn't contain biographical details" or "if it is not a history, then it doesn't contain historical details". But my point is whether or not the accounts were being presented (either fraudently or sincerely) by earliest Christians as events that actually happened. AFAICT, the Gospels were always thought to be about events that actually happened.


It would seem that if it's not the story of a man who existed (biography) or events that happened in real life (history) then it's something which isn't going to help much in establishing things that happened or people who lived.

I would agree with you on this. Did the early Christians like Justin Martyr believe that the Logos incarnating was a story about a man who existed or an event that happened in real life (history)?

proudfootz wrote:I keep trying to drag the thread away from 'HJers' are ______' and 'MJers are _______' by going back to discussions of things like 'what genre are the gospels?' so we can get back to the issues.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm not assuming anything at this time.
If Acharya S has seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of Pygmies. "The Pygmy Christ was born of a virgin, died for the salvation of his people, arose from the dead, and finally ascended to heaven." -- Acharya S
User avatar
GakuseiDon
 
Posts: 1033

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33273  Postby proudfootz » Apr 26, 2013 5:13 am

GakuseiDon wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:It seems to me that you see it as "if it is not a biography, then it doesn't contain biographical details" or "if it is not a history, then it doesn't contain historical details". But my point is whether or not the accounts were being presented (either fraudently or sincerely) by earliest Christians as events that actually happened. AFAICT, the Gospels were always thought to be about events that actually happened.


It would seem that if it's not the story of a man who existed (biography) or events that happened in real life (history) then it's something which isn't going to help much in establishing things that happened or people who lived.

I would agree with you on this. Did the early Christians like Justin Martyr believe that the Logos incarnating was a story about a man who existed or an event that happened in real life (history)?


I can't quite get a handle on Justin Martyr - it would take me some study to feel adequate to offer an opinion about the meaning of his work.

But I'll try to get up to speed! :cheers:

proudfootz wrote:I keep trying to drag the thread away from 'HJers' are ______' and 'MJers are _______' by going back to discussions of things like 'what genre are the gospels?' so we can get back to the issues.

I'm doing the exact same thing. I'm not assuming anything at this time.


Of course I don't mean to say you indulge yourself in this HJ/MJ stuff (I myself sometimes succumb to temptation).
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4375

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33274  Postby angelo » Apr 26, 2013 7:49 am

The ideas of gods and any other superstitious nonsense comes to us from the stone age. All talk of gods, and mortals becoming gods can be safely ignored as none of it has any substance.
Why can some see a mortal HJ at the core of this superstitious nonsense? Can a historical person be traced from the tales of any of the gods of the ancient past? Why is the tale of Jesus any different? Could it be because a certain Emperor decided it was in his interest to make this cult the official religion of the Roman Empire?
If so, how the hell can rational people in the 21st century still insist that this particular tale had a founder?
User avatar
angelo
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20198
Age: 66
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33275  Postby Clive Durdle » Apr 26, 2013 10:49 am

Jesus Christ


Interestingly, we don't actually have a consistent name in the new testament and related documents. Paul for example uses various permutations of Lord, Jesus and Christ.

Would someone kindly check what names are used, where and by whom?

Now why would the name of the most important person ever be uncertain?
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4027

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33276  Postby angelo » Apr 26, 2013 10:55 am

Clive Durdle wrote:
Jesus Christ


Interestingly, we don't actually have a consistent name in the new testament and related documents. Paul for example uses various permutations of Lord, Jesus and Christ.

Would someone kindly check what names are used, where and by whom?

Now why would the name of the most important person ever be uncertain?

It's another nail on the coffin of the HJ.
User avatar
angelo
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20198
Age: 66
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33277  Postby lpetrich » Apr 27, 2013 2:02 am

Richard Carrier has recently delivered some very interesting talks on why he now thinks that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels was a myth.

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind - YouTube
He has the slides for his talk online in this file: Historicity of Jesus

He had at first thought that Jesus mythicism was crackpottery, but after discovering Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, he changed his mind. He notes several trends in Hellenistic religion that Christianity fits very well: syncretism, monotheist tendencies, individual salvation, and cosmopolitanism, including being initiated rather than being born into the religion. Also that at least three dying and rising savior gods have documentation older than Christianity: Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. But he took pains to point out that Mithras did not die and get resurrected.

These Hellenistic savior gods have several things in common: They are sons of gods, and sometimes daughters, they go through a "passion", they defeat death and share their victory with their followers, and they have earthly stories told about them. Just like Jesus Christ.

RC discussed how Paul describes JC as celestial, just as some people had described Osiris as being. He also made analogies with the origins of Islam, Mormonism, and the Roswell ET mythos. That last one is a story that grew rather greatly in the telling, and RC proposes that the New Testament is much like that.

Why the Gospels Are Myth: The Evidence of Genre and Content - YouTube

His criteria for myth include:
  • Meaningful emulation of prior myths.
  • Historical improbabilities that are frequent and central to the story: miracles, remarkable coincidences, people who act in unrealistic ways.
  • No external corroboration of central characters, though peripheral ones may be.
After noting a lot of fakery in the Jewish and Christian religious literature of around 2000 years ago, he noted various improbabilities in the Gospels, like people immediately becoming JC's followers.

RC then got into what he calls the Rank-Raglan mythic-hero profile. He gave a nod to Otto Rank and The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, as well as to Lord Raglan. Jesus Christ scores *very* high, alongside people whose existence we nowadays do not accept. I remember scoring some recent well-documented heroes, like George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler (a negative hero), John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Muammar Khadafy (another negative hero), and they all scored very low, about 5 or so. Tsar Nicholas II is unusual in scoring 14 (Nicholas II).

He followed that with "the ascension mythotype", something where Romulus is very similar to JC, complete with a "Great Commission".

Then a lot of stuff on chiasms and inclusions and parallels and their abundant presence in the Gospels. Real historians who try to write that way, like Suetonius, end up departing from chronological order.

RC concluded by noting some counterarguments, like using various historicity criteria. He claims that they are all either fallacious or fallaciously applied. It seems to me that this question ought to be addressed empirically, by comparing originals with mythicized versions whenever both are available.
lpetrich
 
Posts: 465
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33278  Postby proudfootz » Apr 27, 2013 3:14 am

lpetrich wrote:Richard Carrier has recently delivered some very interesting talks on why he now thinks that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels was a myth.

Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist: A Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His Mind - YouTube
He has the slides for his talk online in this file: Historicity of Jesus

He had at first thought that Jesus mythicism was crackpottery, but after discovering Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, he changed his mind. He notes several trends in Hellenistic religion that Christianity fits very well: syncretism, monotheist tendencies, individual salvation, and cosmopolitanism, including being initiated rather than being born into the religion. Also that at least three dying and rising savior gods have documentation older than Christianity: Romulus, Osiris, and Zalmoxis. But he took pains to point out that Mithras did not die and get resurrected.

These Hellenistic savior gods have several things in common: They are sons of gods, and sometimes daughters, they go through a "passion", they defeat death and share their victory with their followers, and they have earthly stories told about them. Just like Jesus Christ.

RC discussed how Paul describes JC as celestial, just as some people had described Osiris as being. He also made analogies with the origins of Islam, Mormonism, and the Roswell ET mythos. That last one is a story that grew rather greatly in the telling, and RC proposes that the New Testament is much like that.

Why the Gospels Are Myth: The Evidence of Genre and Content - YouTube

His criteria for myth include:
  • Meaningful emulation of prior myths.
  • Historical improbabilities that are frequent and central to the story: miracles, remarkable coincidences, people who act in unrealistic ways.
  • No external corroboration of central characters, though peripheral ones may be.
After noting a lot of fakery in the Jewish and Christian religious literature of around 2000 years ago, he noted various improbabilities in the Gospels, like people immediately becoming JC's followers.

RC then got into what he calls the Rank-Raglan mythic-hero profile. He gave a nod to Otto Rank and The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, as well as to Lord Raglan. Jesus Christ scores *very* high, alongside people whose existence we nowadays do not accept. I remember scoring some recent well-documented heroes, like George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler (a negative hero), John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Muammar Khadafy (another negative hero), and they all scored very low, about 5 or so. Tsar Nicholas II is unusual in scoring 14 (Nicholas II).

He followed that with "the ascension mythotype", something where Romulus is very similar to JC, complete with a "Great Commission".

Then a lot of stuff on chiasms and inclusions and parallels and their abundant presence in the Gospels. Real historians who try to write that way, like Suetonius, end up departing from chronological order.

RC concluded by noting some counterarguments, like using various historicity criteria. He claims that they are all either fallacious or fallaciously applied. It seems to me that this question ought to be addressed empirically, by comparing originals with mythicized versions whenever both are available.


Yes, it would seem the merging of hellenistic and judaic notions fits right in with the trend at the time of the creation of personal salvation cults by syncretism.

Why christianity should be an exception to this historical process is rather a mystery. :whistle:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4375

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33279  Postby dejuror » Apr 27, 2013 3:41 am

We have gone through Justin Martyr's writings and it is clear that Justin stated Jesus was born without sexual union.

Justin believed Jesus of Nazareth existed just as he believed Adam and Eve existed.

Justin believed Jesus of Nazareth existed just the Romans believed Romulus and Remus existed.

It must be that people in the Roman Empire believed that the Holy Ghost was a figure of history and it was for that very reason it was accepted as the truth that Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost without blemish.

Examine Acts of the Apostles.

It clearly states that the Promised Holy Ghost did actually come to earth on the day of Pentecost.

If people of antiquity did NOT believe the Holy Ghost was a figure of history then it would not have made sense.

See Acts 2.
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come......suddenly there came a sound from heaven....and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.


The Father of Jesus, the Holy Ghost, started the Jesus cult.

We have before us a compilation of Mythological Fables just like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

The Marcionites were a competing cult and their story was of the same Myth.

People of antiquity accepted Marcion's Mythology as the Truth just as others accepted the Holy Ghost story of Jesus.

This is Justin's Jesus.

"First Apology"
....And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.


People of antiquity believed the Devil was a figure of history.

People of antiquity laughed at Justin and claimed Marcion's Gods were True.

First Apology
And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us...


It is clear to me that those who argue for an historical Jesus do NOT understand that Adam and Jesus are products of the Words of God.

Adam and Jesus are products of Mythology.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV
And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


Jesus was a Spirit. Jesus was pure Myth even purer than Adam.
dejuror
 
Posts: 3685

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#33280  Postby RealityRules » Apr 27, 2013 3:59 am

It seems Bart Ehrman is addressing development of the Jesus narrative in his next book "How Jesus Became God".

On his blog he has described working on a chapter ...
" ... which deals with the Christological controversies of the second and third centuries, as some Christians insisted that Jesus was human but not divine (e..g, the Ebionites and the Roman Adoptionists), others maintained that he was divine but not human (the opponents of 1 John and Ignatius, and then Marcion), others claimed he was two entities, a human Jesus who was temporarily inhabited by a divine being from the heavenly realm (the Gnostics), and others who claimed he was just one entity who was both divine and human.

That final choice won the debates, but all that did was start up a whole other round of debates. Some church leaders insisted that the man Jesus was God, and that God was God, and that therefore Jesus the Son was also God the Father – one God who was both son and father (kind of like I myself am both a son and a father – depending on whom I am relating to). That view was wildly popular for a time – it apparently was the majority view around the beginning of the third century – but it got trounced by theologians like Hippolytus and especially Tertullian. But then Origen came along with his theory of how it all worked – which also made sense to some people at the time, but later also came to be declared a heresy."

http://ehrmanblog.org/explaining-myself/
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 1410

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Christianity, Jesus

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 13 guests