"Was Jesus a Myth?"

[Estro Felino]

Jesus doesn't have to be the product of a conspiracy to be unhistorical.
.

Many of us here don't intend to affirm Jesus' existence as irrefutable historical fact. We just want to affirm that historically, it is impossible to prove he didn't exist.
Because, the number of conspirators and rebels crucified by Roman authorities was so high in that period.

Besides, analyzing the political context, it was very common that a heroic insurgent (a slave, also) who was martyred by the Romans , was heroized and divinized, after his death.
This is a typical Hellenistic attitude: to adore martyrs as gods and to start inventing extraordinary stories about them (like miracles, divination, etc). Not to mention that the anti-Roman sentiment was very high among Greeks, so they praised whoever stood against the Empire.
That's why Christianity at first was more a political. social movement than a religious one.

Even Eunus, the rebellious slave protagonist of the first servile war, was considered a great psychic...endowed with magical powers. This doesn't exclude his existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many of us here don't intend to affirm Jesus' existence as irrefutable historical fact. We just want to affirm that historically, it is impossible to prove he didn't exist.

Why would you set the bar for the mythic Jesus as high as “prove?”

The idea that Jesus was entirely mythic is plausible enough... it’s just not the only - or arguably most parsimonious - plausible option.

And why would you set the bar for a literal Jesus as low as “it is impossible to prove he didn’t exist?” You’d need a lot better than that to rationally accept that he did exist, to say nothing of adopting a religion founded on the idea that he was real.

 

[pearl]

One has to wonder why gospels took so long to be produced?

One reason being if Jesus was an
eschatological Jewish prophet, he preached the end times which may or may not have been believed to occur within his lifetime. If the original apostles also believed this there was no urgency in writing for a future generation. With the realization the apostles are dead, Jesus has not returned, this, now present, future generation, there is need to write and hand down the apostolic tradition through generations to come.

If you're into the consensus of scholars, then you must love the Jesus Seminar, right?

The problem with the Jesus Seminar is the attempt to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith by examining each pericope to determine its authenticity as spoken by Jesus. In the end it was pretty much of a flop as it pertained to faith. It is now understood that the Gospels were written from and for a faith perspective, the historical and biographical was of secondary importance.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you're into the consensus of scholars, then you must love the Jesus Seminar, right?

Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia

I do indeed! I'm always excited when leaders in academia vote as to whether Bible doctrines are true rather than actually doing extra research. I think all academic conference should be majority rules, don't you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No I didn't read it. It's 3,083 words long, (I did a word count) and I wasn't about to go digging for whatever you thought was germane. If you won't bother to construct your argument yourself, I'm certainly not going to do it for you.

So, as it stands, I didn't think you had any such witnesses. Just a lot of empty talk.

.

You can start with reading the first two paragraphs I posted, which said virtually all scholars disagree. I disagree, too, and my opinion carries extra weight, as I am a servant of Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is your basis for 1% of ANE scholars. The majority do not take your view of Bible scholarship. If you are referring to the number of scholar that believe no such person as Jesus (Yeshua) existed you may be closed, but many of not most scholars consider the Divine miracle working Jesus Christ is a mythical person.

Why do you believe it is that most ANE scholars do not consider Jesus divine? Does that match the general pop who do not consider Jesus divine or is there more to be said?

 

[sealchan]

One reason being if Jesus was an
eschatological Jewish prophet, he preached the end times which may or may not have been believed to occur within his lifetime. If the original apostles also believed this there was no urgency in writing for a future generation. With the realization the apostles are dead, Jesus has not returned, this, now present, future generation, there is need to write and hand down the apostolic tradition through generations to come.

Yes, but this also opens up a great deal of who Jesus was to be recorded as as a work performed without the direct input of himself or his apostles. Even Paul didn't know Jesus directly. Why are we left with such indirect "witnessing" to the Good News?

It is highly likely that Paul and the gospel authors were creating as much as they were retelling--and their sources also--as far as what we have today as the teaching of Jesus. We can see this in the stories of the conflicts within the church as well. Historical or no, Jesus has been filtered through the sincere and devout but varied perspectives of his disciples and biographers.

I have no doubt that some portion of what we know about Jesus is myth. Just how much...that is not fully known. However, I have some background in studying other myths and have seen some signs in the Gospel of Matthew that this author's own hand and mind were definitely at work and being influenced by other mythic traditions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do you believe it is that most ANE scholars do not consider Jesus divine? Does that match the general pop who do not consider Jesus divine or is there more to be said?

A little typo corrected:

What is your basis for 1% of ANE scholars. The majority do not take your view of Bible scholarship. If you are referring to the number of scholar that believe no such person as Jesus (Yeshua) existed you may be close, but many of not most scholars consider the Divine miracle working Jesus Christ is a mythical person.

Problem with your general pop. I said many if not most, and not necessarily most. If you consider the secular Biblical and Middle East historians it is decidedly most.