Jesus - historical or mythic?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

right that's what i was getting at, that the bible is a collection of myths, it is not a report of actual historical events

....

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

right that's what i was getting at, that the bible is a collection of myths, it is not a report of actual historical events

OK you do realize that this statement:

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

the bible is indistinguishable from any other work of mythology, we could compare it to Homer's Odyssey, or Hesiod's theogony

Is the complete opposite of this statement (I used your words for crying out loud):

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I mean that no sane person could fail to distinguish the bible from other mythological stories - or for that matter, other mythological stories from each other.

Is English your first language? I can see how you could misread it if your first language is Chinese or something - this is an international forum, so that's happened before.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

(id be very interested to know who decided that is what Josephus was doing, he doesnt refer to himself as a historian)

THOSE who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. For some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to show their skill in composition, and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely: others of them there are, who write histories in order to gratify those that happen to be concerned in them, and on that account have spared no pains, but rather gone beyond their own abilities in the performance: but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity; nay, there are not a few who are induced to draw their historical facts out of darkness into light, and to produce them for the benefit of the public, on account of the great importance of the facts themselves with which they have been concerned. Now of these several reasons for writing history, I must profess the two last were my own reasons also; for since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw that others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings.

[Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 1]

Carry on ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically ...

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

Regarding Josephus, are you suggesting that everyone he wrote about were real people? He devotes several pages to writing about Adam and Eve ...

I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.

[Preface to the Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 2]

(it's almost embarrassing)

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

the bible is indistinguishable from any other work of mythology, we could compare it to Homer's Odyssey, or Hesiod's theogony

So you haven't read either then? The Bible is a collection of books spanning a variety of different genres. It includes history, myth, poetry, genealogies, laws, letters, etc. So you can't distinguish the Odyssey from a letter?

Regarding Josephus, are you suggesting that everyone he wrote ....

Jay already answered this, and did so wonderfully.

The word 'Jesus' means 'saviour', the word 'Christ' means 'anointed one' (look them up), these are descriptions, not proper names

You stated before that Jesus meant anointed one. So you are admitting you were wrong before? Also, in what language does Jesus mean savior? Because in both Greek and Hebrew it doesn't (it actually isn't even a Hebrew name. It is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name; Yeshua. Just like nearly all names have a meaning (why else would they sell name books that explain the meanings?), Yeshua meant something like to rescue. Not savior). It doesn't mean savior in any language I can think of, unless we're just making things up. And it seems like you're doing just that.

Plus, if Jesus was just a title (again, that is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name), why was it such a popular name? Why do we see it being used as a name? Basically, you only have an argument from ignorance. Especially since the name Jesus is never used as a title. There is no such case of that happening.

It doesnt 'make' Jesus mythical, rather Jesus is already mythical, and you interpret a myth by identifying what it symbolises

Okay, so you have to begin with the idea that Jesus is mythical, and then shove everything into that understanding. So basically, no argument.

I agree that the people you mention here are historical, and not mythic, so we agree on that, I am saying that the characters from religious scriptures were mythical, none of these ^ people are mentioned in the holy scriptures.

Yet they follow the same vague idea that you use to argue that Jesus is mythical.

Paul has a religiously transformative experience on the road to Damascus, his name changes from Saul to Paul, and he is 'converted' to antinomianism. This is thoroughly described in the book of Acts, and he mentions it himself briefly in his letters to corinthians.

Or in other words, you've never read Paul. Not to surprising. And it doesn't answer what I was saying. We have letters from Paul's hand. We have others (possibly even his followers) who wrote about him. Yet, some how he is mythical because he has some sort of religious experience (transformative, even though if you read Paul, you will see it wasn't that transformative), just like say Malcolm X did. You're argument makes no sense.

Christianity is centrally based upon (and originates from) the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus, that is why the crucifix is the prominent symbol of christianity, put on central display. So in that sense you could say that Jesus 'started' christianity, christianity is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus

Nope. Read L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity. It is an easy read, and would help you greatly here.

Also, the crucifix was not always a prominent symbol. More so, this movement Jesus started remained a part of Judaism for quite some time after. It only became a separate religion later because of necessity.

These are 2 fundamentally different paradigms (assumption-sets), 1mythic Jesus and 2historical Jesus.....

So you haven't read any work on the historical Jesus then? Really, you seem to be just making things up, and presenting them in ways that you think they will sound intelligent. But they only betray a lack of research on your part. Especially when there are certain scholars that take both historical ideas and mythical ideas and keep them with the Historical Jesus idea. Not to mention, I don't take all information as evidence of the Historical Jesus. I don't think any scholar does. That simply would be shoddy scholarship.

Really, you need to actually do some research.

I dont affirm the historical reality of Augustus, I dont know if he existed or not and I dont particularly care, i've always assumed he did but i've never looked into it. But I think that in order to understand the meaning of Christianity (and by extension, the meaning of religion itself), it is crucial to realise that Jesus and Paul are not historical men, any more than Odysseus or Arjuna.

Well, you think wrong. And really, if it is a baseless assumption that is driving your conclusion, then really, there is no reason to assume that anything you say is reliable.

There is no reason why it would be crucial to see Jesus or Paul as not historical. We can see them as purely historical humans, and strip away the mythical ideas, and be just fine. Many Christians have. There is no reason not to see them as historical.

You could argue, that because Odysseus was written about by Homer, that therefore Odysseus was a real man, but that is an invalid argument. Only someone who didnt recognise Homer's writings as works of mythology would make such a mistake

What? That has nothing to do with what I said. My argument was based on this, and I quote from you: "The existence of Augustus is historically verifiable, he wrote things, and people who met him wrote things."

Okay, now, we can simply change Augustus to Paul (as all that is true of Paul), and Paul should logically (by what you're saying), be historically verifiable. It really seems that you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper.

All of these descriptions, such as 'seeing a divine light', or 'becoming enlightened' or 'being crucified then resurrected', 'being impregnated by an angel', 'ascending to the One' etc etc are all equivalent metaphors for transformative religious experience. The Buddha is depicted having such an experience when he sits under the Bodhi tree, an experience which reveals to the Buddha the transcendental philosophy which forms the basis of Buddhism.

And Joseph Smith, who we know existed, stated something similar as well. Constantine, who we know existed, had a similar experience. They in no way suggest one is not historical. And really, they can almost apply to anyone, since your description was incredibly vague.

Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree and became enlightened, that is a transformative experience, he changed from being unenlightened to enlightened. Jesus expericened death and resurrection. The point is, these events (the enlightenment of buddha, and death/resurrection of Jesus, and other similar transformative events like the impregnation of Mary) are the origin and essence of Buddhism and Christianity, religion is *about* mystical transformation.

And many atheists have had similar experiences. It doesn't need to have anything to do with religion. They don't even necessarily have to be mystical. They can be symbolic of something else. And really, if that is what defines one who is mythical, then the list of mythical people is extremely large, and includes some of the greatest people who have lived.

you seem intent on trying to trip me up over minor details, instead of looking at what I am presenting. Buddha had an experience under the Bodhi tree which transformed him from an unenlightened person to an enlightened person. Paul had an experience on the road to Damascus which transformed him from the christian-persecuting 'Saul' to the christian-sympathetic 'Paul'. In both cases, these experiences of personal transformations are of major, central importance to the religions which followed them (they are depicted in the sacred art of Buddhism and Christianity)

I am looking at what you're presenting, and both the minor and major details simply are wrong. They show a complete lack of understanding of religion, of Christianity, of Buddhism, and Paul, and of Jesus. They show nothing more than an immense amount of ignorance.

[maxfreakout]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Yeshua meant something like to rescue. Not savior).

Jesus means 'saviour', and christ means 'anointed one', look it up - these are descriptions, they are not proper names of inividuals

you correctly say that Jesus means 'something like 'rescue'', - and the definition of 'saviour' is 'a person who rescues another person or a thing from danger or harm' - in the specific case of Jesus, he rescues people from the danger of eternal damnation

so Jesus means 'rescuer' or 'saviour' or 'deliverer', this is not like calling someone 'Steve' or 'Dave', this is like calling someone 'saviour', ie it isnt a name, it is a reference to an ability/tendency (to rescue people from hell)


Of course, people often have names with meanings, but what i am saying is that with Jesus (insofar as Jesus is relevant to Christianity) this is not the case, because 'Jesus' is not a single person, but rather a description of a type of person (ie a 'saviour', a person who rescues people from harm), it is not a name of a particular person. Jesus is named 'Jesus' precisely because he is 'Jesus' ie he is a saviour, it is not simply a coincidence that 'Jesus' means 'saviour', they named him Jesus because he IS a saviour.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Plus, if Jesus was just a title (again, that is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name), why was it such a popular name?

It is a title when it is used to describe the archetype of a 'saviour', this is how it is used in the bible, it is Jesus Christ the divinely anointed saviour, Jesus Christ the man designated by God to rescue souls, NOT Jesus Christ who just happens by pure coincidence to have a name which means 'divinely anointed saviour'. It is a name if it is used simply to name someone like 'Steve' or 'Dave'. Im sure the rise of christianity boosted its popularity.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Especially since the name Jesus is never used as a title. There is no such case of that happening.

Except every time the word is used to denote Jesus Christ, the divinely anointed saviour of Christianity

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Yet, some how he is mythical because he has some sort of religious experience (transformative, even though if you read Paul, you will see it wasn't that transformative)

the experience Paul had on the road to damascus was thoroughly, unambiguously transformative, it completely changed Paul's life, set him on an entirely new path, that is why it is known as 'the conversion of Paul' (transform means the same thing as convert). It isnt just another ordinary day in the life of Paul, it is a profoundly transformative event.

his name transforms/converts from Saul to Paul
he transforms/converts from a christian-persecutor, to a christian sympathiser
his value system is transformed/converted to christian antinomianism (the view that salvation is achieved through faith alone)

all essentially because of his vision of the risen christ on the road to Damascus


im not saying that Paul is mythical 'because' he has a religious transformation, rather i am saying that Paul is mythical, and the central function of all myth is to allegorically describe the experience of religious transformation.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Nope. Read L. Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity

that book doesnt even mention the christ-myth idea, it is firmly based in the historicist paradigm. If you are trying to suggest that Christianity isnt based on the life (and especially the death) of Jesus Christ, then why is the religion named 'Christ'ianity? It's because christianity is all about christ.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

I don't take all information as evidence of the Historical Jesus. I don't think any scholar does.

So what evidence do you take as evidence against Historical Jesus? It's very strange to ask for evidence that Jesus didn't exist, what evidence could show that a particular man didn't exist 2000 years ago? Non-existent evidence? The same issue arises around Socrates

Originally Posted by fallingblood

There is no reason why it would be crucial to see Jesus or Paul as not historical. We can see them as purely historical humans, and strip away the mythical ideas, and be just fine. Many Christians have. There is no reason not to see them as historical.

If you interpret the scriptures as history, you are stuck in the most superficial level of interpretation, you havent even begun to see the deeper meaning of religious symbolism, such as the profound meaning of the 'crucified false king-claimant saviour'.

Originally Posted by fallingblood

And Joseph Smith, who we know existed, stated something similar as well. Constantine, who we know existed, had a similar experience. They in no way suggest one is not historical.

Joseph Smith and Constantine are 2 people who experienced religious transformations, Jesus and Paul and all the prophets, heros and and sages of ancient religion are mythic symbols for those kinds of experience.

[Me Myself]

Originally Posted by dyanaprajna2011

I won't answer for Jesus, Mohammed, or the others, but I will say this: who cares if the Buddha actually existed or not? He might have, he may not have. It's insignificant to the Buddhist teachings.

And most importantly.

The tales are cool

[fallingblood]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

Jesus means 'saviour', and christ means 'anointed one', look it up - these are descriptions, they are not proper names of inividuals

You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true. Especially when we see many people being named Jesus. Not to mention, Jesus is never used as a description. There are no examples of that. So you can make up whatever you want, but really, it doesn't make it true.

It is a title when it is used to describe the archetype of a 'saviour', this is how it is used in the bible, it is Jesus Christ the divinely anointed saviour, Jesus Christ the man designated by God to rescue souls, NOT Jesus Christ who just happens by pure coincidence to have a name which means 'divinely anointed saviour'. It is a name if it is used simply to name someone like 'Steve' or 'Dave'. Im sure the rise of christianity boosted its popularity.

In other words, this is nothing more than special pleading.

Except every time the word is used to denote Jesus Christ, the divinely anointed saviour of Christianity

Again, special pleading. Especially since there is no suggestion of it being a title, unless one wants to just make things up.

the experience Paul had on the road to damascus was thoroughly, unambiguously transformative, it completely changed Paul's life, set him on an entirely new path, that is why it is known as 'the conversion of Paul' (transform means the same thing as convert). It isnt just another ordinary day in the life of Paul, it is a profoundly transformative event.

You may want to actually read a little bit about Paul before you start making things up. Paul never converted. Paul doesn't even really make a big deal of it. Again, read Paul. Pick up a Bible, and read Paul. Until you do that, you really have no argument. Speaking from ignorance is not a good argument.

that book doesnt even mention the christ-myth idea, it is firmly based in the historicist paradigm. If you are trying to suggest that Christianity isnt based on the life (and especially the death) of Jesus Christ, then why is the religion named 'Christ'ianity? It's because christianity is all about christ.

Of course it doesn't mention the Christ-myth idea, as the Christ-myth idea is not part of scholarship. It is intellectual dishonesty, and really, just a waste of time.

And what I'm suggesting is that you take some time to do some actual research instead of just making things up, and relying on shoddy ideas that are not held by anyone in the field.

So what evidence do you take as evidence against Historical Jesus? It's very strange to ask for evidence that Jesus didn't exist, what evidence could show that a particular man didn't exist 2000 years ago? Non-existent evidence? The same issue arises around Socrates

Why should I take any evidence against the Historical Jesus? That doesn't even relate to what I said. Just because I don't take all evidence as support for a Historical Jesus, it doesn't mean that I take evidence to support the opposite. It means that I have actually done the research to know what supports the idea of a Historical Jesus, and what doesn't support that idea (as in, myth doesn't support such an idea, but that doesn't mean it supports the opposite).

If you interpret the scriptures as history, you are stuck in the most superficial level of interpretation, you havent even begun to see the deeper meaning of religious symbolism, such as the profound meaning of the 'crucified false king-claimant saviour'.

Who says I interpret scripture as history? It isn't an either or. I interpret scripture in regards to what genre it falls in. I don't just discredit all scripture though.

Like I said, it isn't either or, as you are trying to make it. That is why some actual study in the field would be worth your time.

Joseph Smith and Constantine are 2 people who experienced religious transformations, Jesus and Paul and all the prophets, heros and and sages of ancient religion are mythic symbols for those kinds of experience.

So you are cherry picking. Anyone who fits your vague idea, but yet existed, you dismiss them.

When it comes down to it then, your argument is ignore everything that disagrees with your idea, use a lot of shoddy research, and make a lot of special pleading.

[maxfreakout]

Originally Posted by fallingblood

You can repeat this nonsense as many times as you want. It doesn't make it true.

Which part are you disagreeing with? You already acknowledged that 'Jesus' means 'something like rescue', i was just pointing out that 'rescuer' is the same concept as 'saviour', so unless you disagree with the dictionary definition of 'saviour', we are in full agreement

'Jesus' means 'saviour', ie a person who saves/rescues. That is a description of what Jesus does, not a meaningless name (or a name which just happens by coincidence to have a meaning)

Analogously - 'Smith' in the sense of 'professional metalworker', not 'Smith' in the sense of 'popular surname'

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Paul never converted.

Paul's revelation was inherently transformational, it was a religious transformation. if Paul remained exactly the same person after his revelation experience, then why is the event on the road to damascus popularly referred to as 'the conversion of Paul'? Why did his name change? Why did he stop persecuting christians and begin to proclaim the risen Jesus? These are all instances of major personal conversion/transformation, if you are unable to see that, i dont think i can make it any clearer, the catholic encyclopedia calls the experience 'the conversion of St Paul'. Have a look here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Paul

Paul is described in Galations as:
"The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy"

This is a reference to Paul's conversion, before his experience he persecuted christians, after his experience he proclaimed faith in the risen saviour Jesus, so the event of the experience was a major pivotal conversion point in his life, and the bible clearly confirms this

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Paul doesn't even really make a big deal of it. Again, read Paul. Pick up a Bible, and read Paul. Until you do that, you really have no argument. Speaking from ignorance is not a good argument.

I have quoted from the Paul, and from the catholic encyclopedia (you have quoted nothing, and offered no argument except blanket denial), if you disagree with what both those sources clearly express (that this was a major transformational/conversion event in the life of Paul and in the history of christianity), then it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation about christianity with you


there are many great works of art which depict the religious conversion of St Paul, this event is a very big deal indeed

Originally Posted by fallingblood

Of course it doesn't mention the Christ-myth idea, as the Christ-myth idea is not part of scholarship. It is intellectual dishonesty, and really, just a waste of time.

it isnt part of scholarship, because it threatens to undermine the basic fabric of christianity and so it is firmly suppressed (follow the money), you are a poor deluded victim of this suppression, the modern-era has made a massive error interpreting religion as history instead of mythology/symbolism.

Are you being intellectually honest when you claim that Paul was not converted by the event which has become known as 'the conversion of Paul'?

It is plain logical self-contradiction

You are claiming - 'At Paul's conversion, Paul was not converted'

this is logically equivalent to - 'p, and not p'

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by maxfreakout

You already acknowledged that 'Jesus' means 'something like rescue', i was just pointing out that 'rescuer' is the same concept as 'saviour', so ...

... so, therefore, Jesus was a fabrication. Brilliant!