Jesus: Myth, legend, or historical?

[firedragon]

Bishop simply means overseer. There are many records of James being the overseer of the church in Jerusalem. The English word bishop comes from the Greek word episokopos.

What history says that if you don’t mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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existence of Jesus the man who claimed to be the Messiah we only have Josephus as one of the most recognised historical documents mentioning Jesus when calling out James as "the brother of Jesus the one they called Messiah".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

I voted for "nobody really knows", because actually, nobody really knows.

My personal opinion is that it's probable that the myth is based on a historical character, or perhaps even multiple ones.

 

[Heyo]

I voted for "nobody really knows", because actually, nobody really knows.

My personal opinion is that it's probable that the myth is based on a historical character, or perhaps even multiple ones.

Then it's not a myth, it's a legend.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What history says that if you don’t mind?

To begin with, James wrote his own letter. He is documented in the book of acts as the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and also by the church fathers. I am no longer that familiar with the information. This really is not something that is disputed by historians.

Best book on James is JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS by Robert Eisenman.

 

[firedragon]

To begin with, James wrote his own letter. He is documented in the book of acts as the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and also by the church fathers. I am no longer that familiar with the information. This really is not something that is disputed by historians.

Best book on James is JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS by Robert Eisenman.

So your history is the NT.

Alright. Cheers.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So your history is the NT.

Alright. Cheers.

The parts that are considered non-mythological, yes.

And the church fathers.

 

[alypius]

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.

If the canonical gospels date from that period, then couldn't they be of service from the historical viewpoint?

 

[firedragon]

If the canonical gospels date from that period, then couldn't they be of service from the historical viewpoint?

Maybe a thread on the historicity and historical accuracy of the 4 canonical gospels can be taken up in a new thread.