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

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

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

Jesus:Real or myth?

C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
steeltoes said:
Sources please.
Click to expand...

Sources for what? People named Jesus? Crucifixion? Legends?

Maybe we should ask for proof that Jews existed before 30s.

Show me evidence that I will accept that Judah existed. It won't be difficult, I already believe it did. But show me some evidence.

A bunch of dead rocks referred to as a temple isn't going to get it. Show me evidence that some people who want to take over Jerusalem didn't make this up about a century ago.

I don't think that they did. But the evidence for Jesus' Resurrection is almost as strong as the evidence for Israel triumphant.

If there were a God who cared we wouldn't have to discuss this.

Tom
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780295 said:
Do you believe any people were crucified during the Roman occupation?

Do you believe that there were Jewish uprisings during that time?

Do you believe that leaders of those Jewish uprisings were crucified for the crime of sedition against the Roman empire?
Click to expand...

Of course I believe all of that.

Do you believe people wrote fiction?
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
"In The Jesus Myth, Wells argues that two Jesus narratives fused into one: Paul's mythical Jesus and a minimally historical Jesus whose teachings were preserved in the Q document, a hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke." wiki



There's your historical Jesus, coming from a mythical Christ proponent of all people.
Click to expand...
I think that is a reasonable hypothesis, and really all I have been trying to argue for.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
fantôme profane;3780269 said:
It is not unreasonable to evaluate part of the story as being credible, and part of it being false. We do this with every story that we hear, why should this story be treated differently?
Click to expand...

You can do that. However, you then must..

a. Backup supposed credible evidence with historical accounts
b. Show how your theory turned into a religion or "cult" in the region.
c. Present a theory of "man to mythic" evidence using text or historical evidence
d. Supply evidence that the "cult" was a logical step from existing religion/beliefs of new "occultists".
e. Supply evidence that the earliest converts held the crucifixion narrative as valuable to their religion.

Otherwise....is your speculation reasonable?
O.k. my opinion, that scenario presented doesn't make sense to me....
Why?....
a. Timeline. Far too short of a timeline for a "mythos" to arise of that nature
b. Area. There was no geographical separation, makes it far more difficult for a fictional narrative to become literally a new religion without major criticism.
c. Pre-religion. These were basically Essenic type believers with, if we believe Josephus, "Gentiles".. regardless, this new religion to all accounts was similar to our austere Protestantism, if we read early descriptions. Does that sound like a "crucifixion cult" type of environment?
d. 'Crucifixion type mythos' are not regional to that area, very different type of religion, it is doubtful these early Essenic / Nazarene believers would have "created" that sort of theology. Rather, it would more likely have been already an existant part of the beliefs ex. Christianity as we know it traditionally.
e. Narrative. All the narrative points to a religion primarily focused on the teachings of Jesus, who is even divine in nature, there is no reason for "fictional" explanations in the narrative if you believe the text to be mainly fictional anyways...why would there be a need to 'explain' a crucifixion if most of the text is made up anyway?
Again, if you aren't a "believer", it doesn't mean a scenario with simply the miracles removed makes sense, either.
 
Last edited:
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
disciple said:
You can do that. However, you then must..

a. Backup supposed credible evidence with historical accounts
b. Show how your theory turned into a religion or "cult" in the region.
c. Present a theory of "man to mythic" evidence using text or historical evidence
d. Supply evidence that the "cult" was a logical step from existing religion/beliefs of new "occultists".
e. Supply evidence that the earliest converts held the crucifixion narrative as valuable to their religion.

Otherwise....is your speculation reasonable?
O.k. my opinion, that scenario presented doesn't make sense to me....
Why?....
a. Timeline. Far too short of a timeline for a "mythos" to arise of that nature
b. Area. There was no geographical separation, makes it far more difficult for a fictional narrative to become literally a new religion without major criticism.
c. Pre-religion. These were basically Essenic type believers with, if we believe Josephus, "Gentiles".. regardless, this new religion to all accounts was similar to our austere Protestantism, if we read early descriptions. Does that sound like a "crucifixion cult" type of environment?
d. 'Crucifixion type mythos' are not regional to that area, very different type of religion, it is doubtful these early Essenic / Nazarene believers would have "created" that sort of theology. Rather, it would more likely have been already an existant part of the beliefs ex. Christianity as we know it traditionally.
Again, if you aren't a "believer", it doesn't mean a scenario with simply the miracles removed makes sense, either.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the "Cargo Cults"? Entire religions came into existence complete with rituals and belief in a returning savior that came into being withing a few short years. There was plenty of time for the Christian mythos to arise, spread and diversify.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780309 said:
I think that is a reasonable hypothesis, and really all I have been trying to argue for.
Click to expand...
The crucifixion scene is a portrayal of Paul's mythical Christ. The problem for some is that this minimally historical Jesus from Q cannot be shown to have been crucified. Q says nothing of a crucifixion.
 
Last edited:
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
Of course I believe all of that.
Click to expand...
But if you believe that then Jesus was just one of many who were crucified for sedition. I am not talking about the Superman story. I am talking about reports something happening to this person that we know happened to many other people.

steeltoes said:
Do you believe people wrote fiction?
Click to expand...
Yes, and within much of fiction writing both ancient and modern there are often factual truths. Fiction can actually be a very valuable source for historians. Even fictional stories often contain details of real places, real events, and real people.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780332 said:
But if you believe that then Jesus was just one of many who were crucified for sedition. I am not talking about the Superman story. I am talking about reports something happening to this person that we know happened to many other people.

Yes, and within much of fiction writing both ancient and modern there are often factual truths. Fiction can actually be a very valuable source for historians. Even fictional stories often contain details of real places, real events, and real people.
Click to expand...
Pilate was historical but his character and role in the gospel story is total fiction. Same with Peter and James, they were portrayed in Mark as dithering idiots, do you really think they were that stupid?
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
fantôme profane;3780321 said:
Are you familiar with the "Cargo Cults"? Entire religions came into existence complete with rituals and belief in a returning savior that came into being withing a few short years. There was plenty of time for the Christian mythos to arise, spread and diversify.
Click to expand...

Right...but that isn't the problem. The problem is the selective nature and logic of editing text to ones fancy. That is open to criticism.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
The crucifixion scene is a portrayal of Paul's mythical Christ. The problem for some is that this minimally historical Jesus from Q cannot be shown to have been crucified. Q says nothing of a crucifixion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But this is the Jesus:Real or myth? thread, not the crucifixion thread (I am getting them mixed up too). But I will say that for reasons I have already gone into I don't think the crucifixion is unreasonable (that is not the Superman story). I also think the story predates the writings of Paul, which would place it fairly close to the actual event. And I believe the Gospel of Mark got this story from a different source than Paul. So to sum that up we have two independent sources (Paul and "Mark") and one of which is reasonable close to the event. And this I find to be sufficient evidence for a non-extraordinary event that we know happened to many other people.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780341 said:
Fair enough. But this is the Jesus:Real or myth? thread, not the crucifixion thread (I am getting them mixed up too). But I will say that for reasons I have already gone into I don't think the crucifixion is unreasonable (that is not the Superman story). I also think the story predates the writings of Paul, which would place it fairly close to the actual event. And I believe the Gospel of Mark got this story from a different source than Paul. So to sum that up we have two independent sources (Paul and "Mark") and one of which is reasonable close to the event. And this I find to be sufficient evidence for a non-extraordinary event that we know happened to many other people.
Click to expand...

There is the idea that Mark did know of Paul and the Jerusalem group and when writing his fiction he had Jesus, the Son of God suffer just as the people of Israel suffered. That was symbolic. It was a Roman soldier that was the first human to recognize Jesus as being the Son of God, that too was symbolic.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
Pilate was historical but his character and role in the gospel story is total fiction. Same with Peter and James, they were portrayed in Mark as dithering idiots, do you really think they were that stupid?
Click to expand...
Careful, this is the kind of questioning that could potentially move this thread forward.:D

All I know is that the writings of Paul tell us there was a Peter. All four Gospels us there was a Peter. From this I make the modest conclusion that it is more likely that there was a Peter than it is to think that Peter is fictional. As for the actual personality of Peter I don't know how accurate the picture is. There is certainly bias evident in the Gospels and with Paul. And the Gospels writers certainly used this character for their own narrative purpose. So we can look at these stories, see where they agree, where they differ. We can try to understand what they were trying to tell us, and this might tell us something about Peter, or more likely it will tell us something about the writers of the Gospels. But now I'm blathering. The point is that it is reasonable to believe Peter and James existed.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
steeltoes said:
There is the idea that Mark did know of Paul and the Jerusalem group and when writing his fiction he had Jesus, the Son of God suffer just as the people of Israel suffered. That was symbolic. It was a Roman soldier that was the first human to recognize Jesus as being the Son of God, that too was symbolic.
Click to expand...
But there is no evidence that "Mark" got his ideas from Paul, there is nothing of Paul in the writing of the Gospel.

I am sure that Paul and Mark and the rest of them all added their own dramatic flourishes to the story for their own purposes. But still the reasons I spelled out for believing the crucifixion is reasonable stand.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780361 said:
Careful, this is the kind of questioning that could potentially move this thread forward.:D

All I know is that the writings of Paul tell us there was a Peter. All four Gospels us there was a Peter. From this I make the modest conclusion that it is more likely that there was a Peter than it is to think that Peter is fictional. As for the actual personality of Peter I don't know how accurate the picture is. There is certainly bias evident in the Gospels and with Paul. And the Gospels writers certainly used this character for their own narrative purpose. So we can look at these stories, see where they agree, where they differ. We can try to understand what they were trying to tell us, and this might tell us something about Peter, or more likely it will tell us something about the writers of the Gospels. But now I'm blathering. The point is that it is reasonable to believe Peter and James existed.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree with you that Peter and James were real people and that how Peter and James were portrayed will more likely tell us something about the writers of the Gospels than about the real Peter and James.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
fantôme profane;3780365 said:
But there is no evidence that "Mark" got his ideas from Paul, there is nothing of Paul in the writing of the Gospel.

I am sure that Paul and Mark and the rest of them all added their own dramatic flourishes to the story for their own purposes. But still the reasons I spelled out for believing the crucifixion is reasonable stand.
Click to expand...

What Mark got from Paul was Christ crucified and that he rose from the dead. Having Jesus go into Jerusalem was having Jesus enter into Paul's realm. Mark wrote an earthly counterpart to Paul's heavenly account. At least that is a very brief overall of what comes out of Christ myth theory as I understand it. Take it for what it's worth, read it for yourself if you are interested and come to your own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top