Jesus - historical or mythic?

[maxfreakout]

Do the stories about 'Jesus' refer to a single, real historical individual (like Julius Caesar), or are they mythic-religious tales (like Dionysos, Krishna, Adam and Eve etc.)?


I always used to think that Jesus was a real person, but since i looked closely at the issue, i now think it is absurd to suggest that 'Jesus' was a historical person, the way i look at it the bible stories are *obviously* symbolic, and not literal. I would be very interested to know what other people think.

This kind of thinking can also be applied to characters like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and St Paul, are these characters best understood as flesh-and-blood historical individuals, or is it all mythic symbolism?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Do the stories about 'Jesus' refer to a single, real historical individual (like Julius Caesar), or are they mythic-religious tales (like Dionysos, Krishna, Adam and Eve etc.)?


I always used to think that Jesus was a real person, but since i looked closely at the issue, i now think it is absurd to suggest that 'Jesus' was a historical person, the way i look at it the bible stories are *obviously* symbolic, and not literal. I would be very interested to know what other people think.

This kind of thinking can also be applied to characters like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and St Paul, are these characters best understood as flesh-and-blood historical individuals, or is it all mythic symbolism?

Paul and Mohammed shouldn't be included in that list.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think your idea of what constitutes "looking closely at the issue" could benefit from some sober reexamination.

 

[McBell]

So you are able to get some background on what has already been discussed:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...28259-historical-jesus-issue-not-settled.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ontrast-discussion-jesus-mere-mortal-man.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/117427-josephus-jesus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94384-jesus-myth.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/117371-proof-jesus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/109231-do-you-believe-jesus-existed-not.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/107541-josephus-jesus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-discuss-historical-jesus-mythical-jesus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/98618-historical-jesus.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/94614-historical-jesus.html
​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would be far more enlightening to get some background on what he's already read.

 

[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.

 

[Caladan]

Do the stories about 'Jesus' refer to a single, real historical individual (like Julius Caesar), or are they mythic-religious tales (like Dionysos, Krishna, Adam and Eve etc.)?


I always used to think that Jesus was a real person, but since i looked closely at the issue, i now think it is absurd to suggest that 'Jesus' was a historical person, the way i look at it the bible stories are *obviously* symbolic, and not literal. I would be very interested to know what other people think.

This kind of thinking can also be applied to characters like Buddha, Moses, Mohammed and St Paul, are these characters best understood as flesh-and-blood historical individuals, or is it all mythic symbolism?

There seems to be a consensus among scholars that Jesus was a historical man. but the question is still relevant, because unlike Julius Caesar or other historical figures from antiquity there is no abundance of sources about Jesus. one reason may be obvious, Jesus was not an emperor, or part of the Roman Imperial system, as far as the Roman authorities stand Jesus was a local Judean who came to face their legal system, much like many other locals throughout the Mediterranean and their empire.
the consensus among scholars about a historical existence of Jesus largely draws on the material written by his followers. the gospels in this regard, although containing a portion of theological material also provide historical context to the specific events around Jesus.

 

[Quintessence]

Better question to ask, I think, is "does it matter?" Given we constantly mythologize historical characters, the line between "historical" and "mythological" isn't as clear cut as we might like. History becomes mythos, mythos becomes history. In many cases, the value is in the story itself, the manner we choose to tell it, and the lessons about life we learn from them. I do not care of Jesus was historical or not. I can learn lessons from the stories about him regardless of his historicity.

 

[maxfreakout]

ive read as much as i possibly can around this subject, and the picture i get, is that the idea of historical Jesus is unexamined academic dogmatism, - we believe that Jesus was a real person, because we cannot comprehend the alternative (Jesus as mythic symbolism)

ive been thinking about this for years, i need a place to discuss this. What im most interested in, is concrete arguments for the existence of single historical Jesus, such as "Josephus briefly mentioned him so therefore Jesus existed", or "we find the name 'chrestus' on a rock, so therefore Jesus existed", why do people believe these arguments?


I interpret all religion strictly mythically, religion *is* mythic symbolism. It is a further issue, what is the meaning of mythic symbolism

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

these characters best understood as flesh-and-blood historical individuals, or is it all mythic symbolism?

Why can't he be both? A real person who a myth has grown up around?

 

[McBell]

Why can't he be both? A real person who a myth has grown up around?

Because false dichotomies are so much more fun.

 

[maxfreakout]

Paul and Mohammed shouldn't be included in that list.

all of these characters are essentially the same, they are not different people, they are equivalent mythic archetypes that describe mystical death and rebirth, the transformation of the Godman

Paul met God, and was transformed, just as Mohammed met God and was transformed - equivalent archetypes, 2 different versions of the single, underlying mythic template

 

[maxfreakout]

Because false dichotomies are so much more fun.

it isnt a false dichotomy, mythology and history are ontologically distinct from each other, the 2 categories logically preclude each other, you can't be both

 

[McBell]

Paul met God,

Source please.

just as Mohammed met God

Source please.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

all of these characters are essentially the same, they are not different people, they are equivalent mythic archetypes that describe mystical death and rebirth, the transformation of the Godman

Paul met God, and was transformed, just as Mohammed met God and was transformed - equivalent archetypes, 2 different versions of the single, underlying mythic template

The thing is smarty pants, Paul left behind correspondence, so we can be absolutely sure that he was historical.

 

[maxfreakout]

the value is in the story itself, the manner we choose to tell it, and the lessons about life we learn from them.

But these ^ issues are distinct, from the issue of the truth or falsity of the historical Jesus hypothesis

I do not care of Jesus was historical or not. I can learn lessons from the stories about him regardless of his historicity.

but you don't deny that Jesus historicity is a real issue, with a definite answer to it, Jesus either was or wasnt a single historical individual

 

[maxfreakout]

Paul left behind correspondence, so we can be absolutely sure that he was historical.

we can be absolutely sure that the 'correspondence' was written by somebody (because letters dont write themselves), but that is a separate claim entirely from saying that we can be absolutely sure of the details of their authorship.

 

[maxfreakout]

Source please.


Source please.

The Bible, and the Koran

 

[McBell]

The Bible, and the Koran

If that is the best you can do then you have failed miserably.

I do not recall a single verse in the Bible where Paul meets jesus or god.

I do not recall a single verse in the Koran where Mohammad meets allah.


perhaps you can present some actual verses?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

we can be absolutely sure that the 'correspondence' was written by somebody (because letters dont write themselves), but that is a separate claim entirely from saying that we can be absolutely sure of the details of their authorship.

For a good majority of the Pauline epistles Biblical scholars are very certain that they are written by a guy name Paul who was dealing with church issues in the 1st century.