Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

[firedragon]

There is nothing written by contemporay historians about Jesus so these are the best clues I have, mate.
It is more than enough for me, but obviously not for you.

I understand that's your faith. Just that this thread is not about making faith statements which are perfectly your prerogative.

I didnt make a faith statement. It is fact. Q is a hypothesis, and Q-lite is a hypothesis based on Q which is a hypothesis by itself. So quoting it as if Jesus or someone right next to Jesus wrote it doesn't bear any validity.

 

[Marcion]

I'm satisfied that most theologians accept Q as fact. You don't have to accept that, mate. You're free to reject it.
But for me, the big difference between the Jesus of Q and the first half of gMark with the Christian Jesus Christ are enough proof that there was a historical Jesus. I'm fully convinced that Christians would have never made up that huge contrast.

 

[firedragon]

I'm satisfied that most theologians accept Q as fact.

Alright. Given that Q was fact, and the gospels were also "fact" because we have them in hand right now in hand to see and feel, what does that mean? Does that mean they are absolutely historical?

sorry Marcion. Its good for me, its not good for me, are not arguments. They are not analyses.

Mark was the earliest written account. Not written by anyone who met Jesus. Never claimed to be. As the OP states, taking a historical approach. If your standard of historicity is "because Christians say so" then you have to apply it to everything. You should believe Atanatu is true because the aborigines say so. Applies to everything everywhere. Also you should apply the same standard to everything Christians say as well. You cannot cherry pick. Unless you have a valid historical criteria.

Your prerogative.

 

[Marcion]

There are no histories about Jesus that are trustworthy.
This is the best I have. You don't have to accept it, sorry mate.

 

[firedragon]

There are no histories about Jesus that are trustworthy.
This is the best I have. You don't have to accept it, sorry mate.

Great. Thanks.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think that the evidence for Jesus' as an historical figure, is as solid as there is evidence for God himself....Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived. Here is why....

"CAN any man unquestionably be called the greatest man who ever lived? How do you measure a man’s greatness? By his military genius? his physical strength? his mental prowess?

The historian H. G. Wells said that a man’s greatness can be measured by ‘what he leaves to grow, and whether he started others to think along fresh lines with a vigor that persisted after him.’ Wells, although not claiming to be a Christian, acknowledged: “By this test Jesus stands first.”

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne (styled “the Great” even in his own lifetime), and Napoleon Bonaparte were powerful rulers. By their formidable presence, they wielded great influence over those they commanded. Yet, Napoleon is reported to have said: “Jesus Christ has influenced and commanded His subjects without His visible bodily presence.”

By his dynamic teachings and by the way he lived in harmony with them, Jesus has powerfully affected the lives of people for nearly two thousand years. As one writer aptly expressed it: “All the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully.”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101991001

I agree with this....

That last sentence is imo simply undeniable. It is undeniable even from a purely secular perspective.

That a peripatetic Galilean teacher, of humble birth, should have had such an impact on human affairs, and continue to do so two millennia later, is incredible; miraculous, even.

 

[firedragon]

That last sentence is imo simply undeniable. It is undeniable even from a purely secular perspective.

That a peripatetic Galilean teacher, of humble birth, should have had such an impact on human affairs, and continue to do so two millennia later, is incredible; miraculous, even.

That is why all the mythicists, the historians, and this very thread exist.

 

[danieldemol]

That last sentence is imo simply undeniable. It is undeniable even from a purely secular perspective.

That a peripatetic Galilean teacher, of humble birth, should have had such an impact on human affairs, and continue to do so two millennia later, is incredible; miraculous, even.

What makes you see Jesus as more influential than the Buddha, Karl Marx, Muhammad or Paul the apostle?

And why would being the most influential be miraculous, after all in any group of humans someone has to be the most influential.

Could Jesus influence not have had more to do with the strings attached charity of early Christians in the Roman empire and beyond than any miraculous intervention?

 

[RestlessSoul]

What makes you see Jesus as more influential than the Buddha, Karl Marx, Muhammad or Paul the apostle?

And why would being the most influential be miraculous, after all in any group of humans someone has to be the most influential.

Could Jesus influence not have had more to do with the strings attached charity of early Christians in the Roman empire and beyond than any miraculous intervention?

I would put Jesus of Nazareth in a select group along with the Buddha and Socrates; (something these three have on common is that not one of them wrote a single word that we know of. Yet we know of them).

I don’t consider my list comprehensive; a chap called Bill Wilson probably belongs on there, but he wouldn’t have wanted that. I have personal reservations about Marx and Paul, and don’t know much about Mohammed.

I don’t use the word miraculous lightly, but I do find myself using it a lot these days. We are all miracles imo, expressions of the will of a loving creator; that’s how I see the world. You can call me deluded if you like, I won’t be offended if you do. We each have our own unique perspective, though I do believe we all are one.

Yeah, the Romans, God bless them. What a fascinating civilisation they created; where to start with discussing that?

 

[pearl]

Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

All of the above.

 

[firedragon]

I would put Jesus of Nazareth in a select group along with the Buddha and Socrates; (something these three have on common is that not one of them wrote a single word that we know of. Yet we know of them).

In that category, there maybe many others.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

All of the above.

You mean a historical figure was turned into mythology then into legend?

 

[RestlessSoul]

In that category, there maybe many others.

Certainly. Feel free to add to it if you wish

 

[pearl]

You mean a historical figure was turned into mythology then into legend?

There is a difference between reading Scripture and understanding Scripture whether it be Christian Scripture or Hebrew Scripture. Its the reason some of us depend on sound critical scholarship to help distinguish between what is myth, legend, history, folk lore etc. Discernment does not weaken faith, knowledge does not weaken faith. Faith is weakened by a fear of knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

There is a difference between reading Scripture and understanding Scripture whether it be Christian Scripture or Hebrew Scripture. Its the reason some of us depend on sound critical scholarship to help distinguish between what is myth, legend, history, folk lore etc. Discernment does not weaken faith, knowledge does not weaken faith. Faith is weakened by a fear of knowledge.

Well. Thats a great script.

But again, do you mean Jesus was a historical figure turned into mythology, then into legend? Because you said he is all three.

Please explain with "critical scholarship" explains how a historical person could be mythology.

Thanks in advance.

 

[firedragon]

Certainly. Feel free to add to it if you wish

But that's not the topic.

 

[firedragon]

Indeed, and it is also remarkable that the fully mythical Lord Rama could have had a similar effect on so many multitudes of people.

So I don't think that the effect in itself is proof of historicity. Rather it is mostly the creative authors who brought about most of the effect. In the case of Jesus however there is an odd mismatch with the more Buddha like original teacher enclosed or should I say entombed within two of the four gospel story versions and the more edited versions of Jesus that would be used on a much greater scale by Christians (proper).

The effect is not any proof of historicity of course. But this effect creates the interest. Also with all due respect, the Lord Rama in my opinion doesnt have the influence on the world that Jesus had. I think Michael H Heart's book is a good source to understand this. Thats just a side matter.

 

[pearl]

Please explain with "critical scholarship" explains how a historical person could be mythology.

"Truth is always complicated by the human envelope in which it is enclosed. It's not only an intellectual problem, but one at the heart of the gospel itself. It was not sinners who turned Jesus off; it was the righteous religious types who felt they had all the answers."-

Included in a critical study of Scripture; form criticism, literary criticism, historical criticism, redaction criticism ( to what extent was the initial verse, passage, edited) before its final inclusion in the written Gospels. The fundamentalist or literalist approach is a form of intellectual suicide.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Indeed, and it is also remarkable that the fully mythical Lord Rama could have had a similar effect on so many multitudes of people.

So I don't think that the effect in itself is proof of historicity. Rather it is mostly the creative authors who brought about most of the effect. In the case of Jesus however there is an odd mismatch with the more Buddha like original teacher enclosed or should I say entombed within two of the four gospel story versions and the more edited versions of Jesus that would be used on a much greater scale by Christians (proper).

Well yes. I haven't attempted to answer the OPs question because I don't feel able nor inclined to do do. Nor do I think it necessary; I consider the message more important than the messenger. And the message - that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another - endures.

One can call Jesus a Messiah, a Bhodisattva, an enlightened soul, Brahman, Son of God, Son of Man, The Word. The spiritual teacher described in the Gospels is imo worthy of all those titles.

My knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism is pretty basic. But I believe all faiths share a common root. I see nothing incompatible personally, between Christ as he appears in the Gospels, and Krishna as he appears in the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[syo]

What you say?

I think, Jesus is not historical.