• 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: Myth, legend, or historical?

Was Jesus Historical?

  • Historical

  • Myth

  • No one really knows

  • Legend


Results are only viewable after voting.

firedragon

Veteran Member
Rather than taking any theological approach to this question but a completely historical approach, what are your thoughts on the subject?

As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.

It is not like there aren't other mentions in some other writings that scholars and historians do take into account, this is the most recognised to be authentic and independent. Josephus was a Jew, not very good with the Jews of course but a historian on the Roman side of the fence. The fact that Josephus mentions many other Christ claimants who are much bigger and more important to Rome as bandits is further affirmation that he had no special interest in mentioning Jesus and/or deifying him. He never did. It is a random mention. As a matter of fact. Tu legomenos kristu.

The Mythicists of course seem to reject this part of Josephus and his antiquities because at some latter stage the antiquities was "OF COURSE" tampered with and Christians inserted some forgeries into his work about Jesus mentioning him as a miracle working man which if you read through smells bad. IT is like an advertisement in the middle of an interesting movie. No flow. No relevance. Just an ad. Thus the mythicists do have a good case to say that this is false, so the other part is also false.

Is this mythicists stand a slipper slope fallacy or is it a valid stand? The problem is in the writing flow of Josephus, the mention of James the brother of Jesus they call Christ does not look like an advertisement. It goes with the flow.

Some of the mYthicists wrote books saying Jesus was a complete myth created by the Romans for their political gains.

What you say?
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
One thing I had to do was to look at the title, listing three possibilities and the survey which listed only two. I then had to review my understanding of the difference between legend and myth:

A legend contains some facts and becomes exaggerated to the point that real people or events take on a "larger than life" quality. In contrast, a myth isn't based on fact, but is symbolic storytelling that was never based on fact.

The first and preferable approach is to examine the historical evidence and derive a factual conclusion from it. The second is to believe that the story of Jesus is pure myth (symbolic storytelling never based on fact). To me neither are the case which leaves legends.

If one looks at legends, there are some that Jesus was in India. Meher Baba who asserted he was Jesus in a past life identified a location in India where Jesus is buried which is in rough agreement with the Quran's assertion that Jesus' death did not happen as Christians believe.

So if legend was one of the poll choices, that would have been how I voted.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
One thing I had to do was to look at the title, listing three possibilities and the survey which listed only two. I then had to review my understanding of the difference between legend and myth:

A legend contains some facts and becomes exaggerated to the point that real people or events take on a "larger than life" quality. In contrast, a myth isn't based on fact, but is symbolic storytelling that was never based on fact.

The first and preferable approach is to examine the historical evidence and derive a factual conclusion from it. The second is to believe that the story of Jesus is pure myth (symbolic storytelling never based on fact). To me neither are the case which leaves legends.

If one looks at legends, there are some that Jesus was in India. Meher Baba who asserted he was Jesus in a past life identified a location in India where Jesus is buried which is in rough agreement with the Quran's assertion that Jesus' death did not happen as Christians believe.

So if legend was one of the poll choices, that would have been how I voted.

Legend also means a person was historical. Legend is a latter development. In my opinion.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
As I understand it, scholars of antiquity are agreed about three aspects of the life of Jesus:
1/ He was an itinerant Jewish preacher
2/ He was baptised by John the Baptist
3/ He was crucified

I agree with that assessment. There are also a number of theological narratives that have led to Jesus the man becoming mythologised.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Rather than taking any theological approach to this question but a completely historical approach, what are your thoughts on the subject?

As evidence for the historical existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah". Thats it.

It is not like there aren't other mentions in some other writings that scholars and historians do take into account, this is the most recognised to be authentic and independent. Josephus was a Jew, not very good the Jews of course but a historian on the Roman side of the fence. The fact that Josephus mentions many other Christ claimants who are much bigger and more important to Rome as bandits is further affirmation that he had no special interest in mentioning Jesus and/or deifying him. He never did. It is a random mention. As a matter of fact. Tu legomenos kristu.

The Mythicists of course seem to reject this part of Josephus and his antiquities because at some latter stage the antiquities was "OF COURSE" tampered with and Christians inserted some forgeries into his work about Jesus mentioning him as a miracle working man which if you read through smells bad. IT is like an advertisement in the middle of an interesting movie. No flow. No relevance. Just an ad. Thus the mythicists do have a good case to say that this is false, so the other part is also false.

Is this mythicists stand a slipper slope fallacy or is it a valid stand? The problem is in the writing flow of Josephus, the mention of James the brother of Jesus they call Christ does not look like an advertisement. It goes with the flow.

Some of the mYthicists wrote books saying Jesus was a complete myth created by the Romans for their political gains.

What you say?
As @sun rise keenly observed, the poll is missing an option the headline promised. I also would have chosen that.
While the mysticists (namely Dr. Carrier) have good arguments for the lack of historical records, the conclusion of a mythical Jesus requires a conspiracy theory I can't buy. A legend is much more probable. A historical Jesus is out of the question as there is no history (historical records).
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
As I understand it, scholars of antiquity are agreed about three aspects of the life of Jesus:
1/ He was an itinerant Jewish preacher
2/ He was baptised by John the Baptist
3/ He was crucified

I agree with that assessment. There are also a number of theological narratives that have led to Jesus the man becoming mythologised.

Historically, what are the evidences to all three of those points you had mentioned?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What about Josephus I cited in the OP? Do you dismiss it as false or do you have another theory?
Not false, just hearsay and not enough to identify anyone by. It is more in support of a legend than a historical person.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Historically, what are the evidences to all three of those points you had mentioned?

Its a good question.

1/ Contemporary sources that were not written by Christians of which there are few within the first century of Jesus being crucified. Josephus is the main one but Tactitus as well.
2/ The New Testament Canon
3/ The plausibility of each narrative from what we know of history and science. Eg Romans tended to crucify criminals but people as a general rule don’t rise from the dead.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
One thing I had to do was to look at the title, listing three possibilities and the survey which listed only two. I then had to review my understanding of the difference between legend and myth:

A legend contains some facts and becomes exaggerated to the point that real people or events take on a "larger than life" quality. In contrast, a myth isn't based on fact, but is symbolic storytelling that was never based on fact.

The first and preferable approach is to examine the historical evidence and derive a factual conclusion from it. The second is to believe that the story of Jesus is pure myth (symbolic storytelling never based on fact). To me neither are the case which leaves legends.

If one looks at legends, there are some that Jesus was in India. Meher Baba who asserted he was Jesus in a past life identified a location in India where Jesus is buried which is in rough agreement with the Quran's assertion that Jesus' death did not happen as Christians believe.

So if legend was one of the poll choices, that would have been how I voted.
Personally, For me to vote I would either need the "multiple answers allowed" option or an "all of the above" option.
 
Top