Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 02-16-2010, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The name Jesus means Joshua which means Yehweh (the later Hebrew deity) Saves. Christ means anointed one or King. Thus the phrase Jesus Christ is analogous to the phrase King Yahweh Saves.

I have seen this translated also as "YHWH's anointed savior" and "YHWH's anointed salvation". I don't know which translations are valid and ordinary (possible translations that are unusual would be disfavored).

Although it's possible that a HJ would actually have been named 'Jesus', this seems to me to miss the point that 'Jesus' is his role, not his name. If there was a historical person behind a Jesus legend, then it isn't likely his name was actually Jesus - although it is possible.

What then was his name if it probably wasn't 'Jesus'? What was the actual name of the Teacher of Righteousness? What was the actual name of Pythagoras? What was Plato's real name? What was Romulus' real name?

maryhelena · 02-17-2010, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Here is a list compiled from the thread "Three Best Arguments for an Historical Jesus." It quotes or paraphrases all the submitted best arguments.
It is followed by a short summary of the arguments.

Quote:

Philosopher Jay
1. The resurrection seems an add-on to the story, so the real ending is the death of Jesus, which seems a real downbeat and realistic ending, unusual for a fiction story. Although, an unusual ending, it might have been designed that way to be more critical of the Jewish leadership.
2. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Pistis Sophia suggests a more historical model without supernatural powers. We do have the usual problems of being unsure about the origination and transmission of these texts.
3. The synoptic gospels strongly suggests the town of Capernaum for Jesus' home. Josephus apparently refers to this town as Kapharnakos in his Vita (72), so it definitely existed. There is, of course, nothing to stop a fiction writer from using a real town in a fiction.

Young Alexander:
1. Assuming that the (7) Pauline epistles do hail from the mid 1st C it would appear that there were Christians before that time. What it was & why they believed is a great deal less clear. Their existence seems to be the best argument for HJ, altho not a good one.

2. Paul clearly believed something with regard to Christ Jesus and it may have been a HJ, altho that is also unclear.

3. That Mark had some sort of motivation for writing his fictional account about Jesus may indicate an historical source, altho I doubt that he really knew.

SpamandHam
The best argument for a historical Jesus outside the TF is that it is not impossible that there was a historical Jesus, nor particularly improbable that a personality cult would be rooted in a real historical personality.

MaryHelena
1. Of course Jesus was historical.
2. Everyone believes Jesus was historical.
3. The NT scholars say Jesus was historical.

Toto:
1. The best argument for a historical Jesus is that someone founded/inspired Christianity, and we will define that person to be the historical Jesus, however he differed from the Jesus of the gospels. Therefore he existed.

MaryHelena
1. The best argument a historicist can make is that there is a historical core to the gospel story - ie that there is a historical individual that provided the impetus, inspired the christian movement.

Ynquirer
1. At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?

Clivedurdle
1. Ellegard's argument that the teacher of righteousness is the root?

Gurugeorge
1.The whole thing has to be looked at painstakingly from scratch, in a context in which "historical Jesus" is only one among a number of apriori equally plausible options.

Roger Pearse
1.Education, education and education.

2. The idea that Jesus never existed is only credible in the absence of this. Fortunately for those espousing it, we no longer live in an age when everyone reads Vergil at school.

Civil1z@tion
1. The consistent agreement of early Christians Jesus as a founder (in this case it doesn't matter whether people believed Jesus was a real person or not, the tight focus on a charismatic founder implies that there probably was one).

2. The commoness of charismatic founders in religion (from Buddha and Confuscius to Mohammed and Abraham, it should not be considered implausible that a charismatic figure would found a major religion given how often it has happened).

3. The large number of apocalyptic/reformist "prophets" in 1st century Judea (there is no reason that one of them couldn't have been Jesus).

ApostateAbe
1. Paul's writings of meeting James, the brother of Jesus, and Cephas, also known as the Apostle Peter, in the letter to the Galatians.
2. The apocalyptic prophecies in the synoptic gospels, expected of a human cult leader but not expected of a myth.
3. The historical pattern of religions, seemingly matching Christianity, being started by living human leaders who are then glorified in religious myth.
4. The complete lack of debate in antiquity, either inside the religion or from the outside, about the seeming human existence of Jesus.
5. The historical background details surrounding Jesus that the gospels apparently got correct (especially the existence of the otherwise-unknown town of Nazareth).
6. No references to Jesus or anyone much like him are found prior to the first century.

Dog-on
1. Surviving texts which purport the existance
2. Surviving texts which purport the existance
3. Surviving texts which purport the existence

show_no_mercy
1. The name "Jesus" seems to go back to the earliest traditions
2. The [public] crucifixion seems to go back to the earliest traditions

aa5874
Once it is proposed that Jesus was actually only human who virtually did not do or say anything as found in the NT, Church and Apocryphal writings then the best argument for HJ is that there was a massive evil conspiracy against Jesus by his own disciples, family, friends, followers and acquaintances.

Another argument for HJ is that his disciples destroyed all the historical records of Jesus in order to propagate their lies and then fabricated their own history of Jesus as a God and Creator and every body forgot that Jesus was human, possibly because many people were illiterate and perhaps blind, including Jesus himself.

Even in gLuke, there is a story where a man was made dumb so that he could only write what he heard and saw. Now, if many people were illiterate and blind then it must be obvious that they would not really know what was written.

Tristan Scott
I believe the best evidence would probably be the parables and sayings attributed to him.

Holly3278
the Jewish historian, Josephus, mentions His existence. His existence is also mentioned by Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius and possibly some others as well. This is not to mention that the early Church fathers attest to His existence as well.

Here is my summary of the arguments:

Quote:

Many educated people and New Testament scholars believe in the historical Jesus. It is not unusual for religions to be formed by charismatic cult leaders. Mark or whoever wrote the earliest gospels probably was inspired by somebody. From history we know that there were many messianic figures like this in First century Judea. The earliest layers of the Jesus stories seem to point to such a figure with sayings and parables attributed to him. The name “Jesus” and the fact that he was crucified seem to go back to this earliest layer, and are found no where outside this layer.

There was no or little debate about the historicity of Jesus in ancient times.

The textual evidence includes unusual apocalyptic prophesies in the gospels and possibly some factual details such as the existence of Nazareth and/or Capernaum. It also includes Paul meeting figures from the gospels according to his “Galatians” and apparently knowing of Jesus’ crucifixion. Furthermore, Josephus and other ancient writers talk about Jesus as an historical person, as do the church fathers. It is probable that some of his followers mythologized a great deal of his life.

The teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls might also be evidence for an historical Jesus.

Mythicists do not make a coherent case against these things.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Just a little nitpick re your quote from my second post on this topic. By leaving out my qualifier - which was: 'However, that is not the argument the historicist are making' - the whole thrust of my point is not being given...

So here is my point in full:

"The best argument a historicist can make is that there is a historical core to the gospel story - ie that there is a historical individual that provided the impetus, inspired the christian movement. However, that is not the argument the historicists are making..."

That is the best argument a historicist can make - but they do not make this argument. The argument a historicist makes is this one: Jesus in the gospel story is a historical figure. Two completely different propositions.

maryhelena · 02-17-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The name Jesus means Joshua which means Yehweh (the later Hebrew deity) Saves. Christ means anointed one or King. Thus the phrase Jesus Christ is analogous to the phrase King Yahweh Saves.

I have seen this translated also as "YHWH's anointed savior" and "YHWH's anointed salvation". I don't know which translations are valid and ordinary (possible translations that are unusual would be disfavored).

Although it's possible that a HJ would actually have been named 'Jesus', this seems to me to miss the point that 'Jesus' is his role, not his name. If there was a historical person behind a Jesus legend, then it isn't likely his name was actually Jesus - although it is possible.

What then was his name if it probably wasn't 'Jesus'? What was the actual name of the Teacher of Righteousness? What was the actual name of Pythagoras? What was Plato's real name? What was Romulus' real name?

I think you hit the nail on the head here...

'Jesus' is the 'role', the storyboard, the holdall, for a re-telling of the origin story of early christianity.

To quote once more from Eric Reitan, on McGarth's blog.

Quote:

“(3) There was an historic king of the Britons named Artur whose impact was sufficiently great to prompt storytelling about him. This storytelling became quickly severed from actual historic events, becoming interwoven with the creative fancies of bards whose interest lay more in telling colorful tales than in preserving history. Eventually these stories evolved into the legendary figure we now know as King Arthur. But the King Arthur we encounter in the inherited legends has little similarity to the historic figure that inspired the original storytelling.....

The case of (3) is interesting. If we accept it, is there a sense in which there is an “historic Arthur”? I’d say yes, but only in the sense that there is an historic figure who prompted the storytelling—and I’d be quick to add that the character in the stories bears little resemblance to the historic figure.”

An historical figure who prompted the storytelling - a historical figure that was the inspiration, the spark, that led to storytelling - mythology, theology, prophecy, symbolism etc. Ultimately, of course, such a figure only has interest as far as re-constructing early christian history - the storytelling is really where things begin for 'meaning' etc. Thus, early christians would have no motive to continue with any bloodlines - children, brothers, sisters, could well prove problematic baggage for the context of the storytelling.

If one goes along with this line of thinking - there is something in it for both the historicists and the mythicists - perhaps a meeting ground?
The mythicist would be satisfied that there is no historical Jesus. The historicists would be satisfied that there is a historical core to the gospel story - albeit one without the Jesus, carpenter from Nazareth that got crucified, tag.

Ideas, dreams, visions, are all very well - but without some relevance to reality, some grounding, they will never have the 'legs' to run....

MarkA · 02-17-2010, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I have seen this translated also as "YHWH's anointed savior" and "YHWH's anointed salvation". I don't know which translations are valid and ordinary (possible translations that are unusual would be disfavored).

Although it's possible that a HJ would actually have been named 'Jesus', this seems to me to miss the point that 'Jesus' is his role, not his name. If there was a historical person behind a Jesus legend, then it isn't likely his name was actually Jesus - although it is possible.

What then was his name if it probably wasn't 'Jesus'? What was the actual name of the Teacher of Righteousness? What was the actual name of Pythagoras? What was Plato's real name? What was Romulus' real name?

I think you hit the nail on the head here...

'Jesus' is the 'role', the storyboard, the holdall, for a re-telling of the origin story of early christianity.

To quote once more from Eric Reitan, on McGarth's blog.

Quote:

“(3) There was an historic king of the Britons named Artur whose impact was sufficiently great to prompt storytelling about him. This storytelling became quickly severed from actual historic events, becoming interwoven with the creative fancies of bards whose interest lay more in telling colorful tales than in preserving history. Eventually these stories evolved into the legendary figure we now know as King Arthur. But the King Arthur we encounter in the inherited legends has little similarity to the historic figure that inspired the original storytelling.....

The case of (3) is interesting. If we accept it, is there a sense in which there is an “historic Arthur”? I’d say yes, but only in the sense that there is an historic figure who prompted the storytelling—and I’d be quick to add that the character in the stories bears little resemblance to the historic figure.”

An historical figure who prompted the storytelling - a historical figure that was the inspiration, the spark, that led to storytelling - mythology, theology, prophecy, symbolism etc. Ultimately, of course, such a figure only has interest as far as re-constructing early christian history - the storytelling is really where things begin for 'meaning' etc. Thus, early christians would have no motive to continue with any bloodlines - children, brothers, sisters, could well prove problematic baggage for the context of the storytelling.

If one goes along with this line of thinking - there is something in it for both the historicists and the mythicists - perhaps a meeting ground?
The mythicist would be satisfied that there is no historical Jesus. The historicists would be satisfied that there is a historical core to the gospel story - albeit one without the Jesus, carpenter from Nazareth that got crucified, tag.

Ideas, dreams, visions, are all very well - but without some relevance to reality, some grounding, they will never have the 'legs' to run....

A lot of ink has been spilt in trying to attribute the Arthur legend to a historical figure.

I think the point being made by some contributors to this debate is that there need not be a historical core or a historical figure to inspire the stories. Superman as a superhero is not based on any historical figure it is simply a manifestation of a wish fulfillment like the Golem of Prague. Frankenstein's monster and other fictional figures in literature need not have a historical character at their core. Some like Dracula do of course, but the point is they need not have a historical basis. The onus is on the supporters of a historical character to provide the evidence just as historians have to provide the evidence for Vlad the Impaler being the historical basis for Dracula.

Thre is no evidence that Sherlock Holmes or James Bond, for example, are based on any particular figure or even a mixture of several individuals. They are a pastich of sterotypes, rather like the gods and demi gods of antiquity who embodied charateristics of general human traits.

maryhelena · 02-17-2010, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I think you hit the nail on the head here...

'Jesus' is the 'role', the storyboard, the holdall, for a re-telling of the origin story of early christianity.

To quote once more from Eric Reitan, on McGarth's blog.

An historical figure who prompted the storytelling - a historical figure that was the inspiration, the spark, that led to storytelling - mythology, theology, prophecy, symbolism etc. Ultimately, of course, such a figure only has interest as far as re-constructing early christian history - the storytelling is really where things begin for 'meaning' etc. Thus, early christians would have no motive to continue with any bloodlines - children, brothers, sisters, could well prove problematic baggage for the context of the storytelling.

If one goes along with this line of thinking - there is something in it for both the historicists and the mythicists - perhaps a meeting ground?
The mythicist would be satisfied that there is no historical Jesus. The historicists would be satisfied that there is a historical core to the gospel story - albeit one without the Jesus, carpenter from Nazareth that got crucified, tag.

Ideas, dreams, visions, are all very well - but without some relevance to reality, some grounding, they will never have the 'legs' to run....

A lot of ink has been spilt in trying to attribute the Arthur legend to a historical figure.

I think the point being made by some contributors to this debate is that there need not be a historical core or a historical figure to inspire the stories. Superman as a superhero is not based on any historical figure it is simply a manifestation of a wish fulfillment like the Golem of Prague. Frankenstein's monster and other fictional figures in literature need not have a historical character at their core. Some like Dracula do of course, but the point is they need not have a historical basis. The onus is on the supporters of a historical character to provide the evidence just as historians have to provide the evidence for Vlad the Impaler being the historical basis for Dracula.

Thre is no evidence that Sherlock Holmes or James Bond, for example, are based on any particular figure or even a mixture of several individuals. They are a pastich of sterotypes, rather like the gods and demi gods of antiquity who embodied charateristics of general human traits.

Sure, there does not need to have been a historical figure to inspire the gospel storyline. It could all just be someone's imagination - or possibly the imagination of a whole lot of collaborators, a whole committee voting on what should be. On the other hand...:constern01:.

aa5874 · 02-17-2010, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...Although it's possible that a HJ would actually have been named 'Jesus', this seems to me to miss the point that 'Jesus' is his role, not his name. If there was a historical person behind a Jesus legend, then it isn't likely his name was actually Jesus - although it is possible.

What then was his name if it probably wasn't 'Jesus'? What was the actual name of the Teacher of Righteousness? What was the actual name of Pythagoras? What was Plato's real name? What was Romulus' real name?

Well, this clearly highlights the fundamental problem for HJ.

HJers are trying to assure us that they have historical sources for one whose very name they do not even know.

HJers are on a quest to find the unknown.

How is it even remotely possible to find credible data about an unknown character? Where do you look for the historical records of "JOHN/JANE DOE" whose parents were "MR and MRS JOHN DOE"?

HJers have always said they have an abundance of evidence for this unknown character but it is simply not true.

storytime · 02-17-2010, 06:47 PM

Ok, the best case for a mythical Jesus that would fit into the times of the ancient Jewish Christ development up into the days of Rome would be successionism of that figure in characterization implied.

The virgin birth story was most likely invented to show the purity of no sin in the created god-man Jesus. It was, after all, extremely important that Jesus be perfect. Inventing gods required particular attention be paid to the supernatural, and all the gods invented before Jesus held supernatural qualites in whatever formula's instituted by the inventors.

Borrowing attributes from past gods was a common element of construction which provided the base or foundation for another god, as well as those past beliefs that accompanied the god or goddess.

Names were also provided in the extension of new gods and goddesses. The "sons of gods" extending the name further in tradition of its being the standard whereby the ancients worshiped. Everything became an extension out of what was and what was to be. There was not one god who survived without this method of extension, and by which method we see existing today.

Jesus is constantly being changed and extended through the many new beliefs Christians invent about his person, his power, his everlasting forgiveness, his perfection,etc. Hundreds of new formed denominations prove this extension of the god-man as he is pushed into ever wider interpretations. This New World Ordered Jesus is now no longer the same NT Jesus of the past. The ancient NT Jesus is being forced into the backseat with Yahweh as a new world ordered god-man takes his place on center stage.

Just as in the ancient Hebrew god stories that have taken a backstep to time, Jesus the god-man is now being re-examined not for his historicity but for the myth of Christ that men of history created. And..even though both Yahweh and Jesus will continue to be worshiped as the gods they were created to be, their valued worth to society and the world is becoming less and less believed as truth, even by the ones who preach his name.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that successive storytelling eventually wipes out the past tall tales so that we end up with a consistent running of new ones. The new gods are here. And we as humans become the better equiped to deal with survival on a grander scale.

Loomis · 02-18-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Ok, the best case for a mythical Jesus that would fit into the times of the ancient Jewish Christ development up into the days of Rome would be successionism of that figure in characterization implied.

The virgin birth story was most likely invented to show the purity of no sin in the created god-man Jesus. It was, after all, extremely important that Jesus be perfect. Inventing gods required particular attention be paid to the supernatural, and all the gods invented before Jesus held supernatural qualites in whatever formula's instituted by the inventors.

Borrowing attributes from past gods was a common element of construction which provided the base or foundation for another god, as well as those past beliefs that accompanied the god or goddess.

Names were also provided in the extension of new gods and goddesses. The "sons of gods" extending the name further in tradition of its being the standard whereby the ancients worshiped. Everything became an extension out of what was and what was to be. There was not one god who survived without this method of extension, and by which method we see existing today.

Jesus is constantly being changed and extended through the many new beliefs Christians invent about his person, his power, his everlasting forgiveness, his perfection,etc. Hundreds of new formed denominations prove this extension of the god-man as he is pushed into ever wider interpretations. This New World Ordered Jesus is now no longer the same NT Jesus of the past. The ancient NT Jesus is being forced into the backseat with Yahweh as a new world ordered god-man takes his place on center stage.

Just as in the ancient Hebrew god stories that have taken a backstep to time, Jesus the god-man is now being re-examined not for his historicity but for the myth of Christ that men of history created. And..even though both Yahweh and Jesus will continue to be worshiped as the gods they were created to be, their valued worth to society and the world is becoming less and less believed as truth, even by the ones who preach his name.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that successive storytelling eventually wipes out the past tall tales so that we end up with a consistent running of new ones. The new gods are here. And we as humans become the better equiped to deal with survival on a grander scale.

Wtf does all this mean?

402 words and you didn’t really say anything. It’s complete masturbation. :frown:

Loomis · 02-18-2010, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Here is my summary of the arguments:

Quote:

The earliest layers of the Jesus stories seem to point to such a figure with sayings and parables attributed to him. The name “Jesus” and the fact that he was crucified seem to go back to this earliest layer, and are found no where outside this layer.

What does this mean?

Anything?

What layer are you talking about?

You seem to be saying that the earliest layer (whatever that means) goes back to the earliest layer.

How profound.

Loomis · 02-18-2010, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

....The entire NT is a myth making project that took many years to develop, progress and become believed as truth. I don't think educated men of Rome were stupid but I think they were as men are now who hold high public office, teach in universities, etc., they submit their minds to rising and dying hero's as they have been told to do. Why can't they let go of the myth of Christ?

And to reinforce your point Justin Martyr would declare "What we propose is nothing different."

If you can believe in the Sons of Jupiter you can believe in Jesus the Son of God.

This is Justin Martyr with his "nothing different Jesus" in First Apology"XXI.

Quote:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus....

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Jesus was a story no different to existing stories.

Good post. You demonstrated that you understand the issues.

I am particularly fond of the way you accompanied your opinions with compelling facts and arguments.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-17-2010, 06:47 PM	#27
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Ok, the best case for a mythical Jesus that would fit into the times of the ancient Jewish Christ development up into the days of Rome would be successionism of that figure in characterization implied. The virgin birth story was most likely invented to show the purity of no sin in the created god-man Jesus. It was, after all, extremely important that Jesus be perfect. Inventing gods required particular attention be paid to the supernatural, and all the gods invented before Jesus held supernatural qualites in whatever formula's instituted by the inventors. Borrowing attributes from past gods was a common element of construction which provided the base or foundation for another god, as well as those past beliefs that accompanied the god or goddess. Names were also provided in the extension of new gods and goddesses. The "sons of gods" extending the name further in tradition of its being the standard whereby the ancients worshiped. Everything became an extension out of what was and what was to be. There was not one god who survived without this method of extension, and by which method we see existing today. Jesus is constantly being changed and extended through the many new beliefs Christians invent about his person, his power, his everlasting forgiveness, his perfection,etc. Hundreds of new formed denominations prove this extension of the god-man as he is pushed into ever wider interpretations. This New World Ordered Jesus is now no longer the same NT Jesus of the past. The ancient NT Jesus is being forced into the backseat with Yahweh as a new world ordered god-man takes his place on center stage. Just as in the ancient Hebrew god stories that have taken a backstep to time, Jesus the god-man is now being re-examined not for his historicity but for the myth of Christ that men of history created. And..even though both Yahweh and Jesus will continue to be worshiped as the gods they were created to be, their valued worth to society and the world is becoming less and less believed as truth, even by the ones who preach his name. I guess what I'm trying to say is that successive storytelling eventually wipes out the past tall tales so that we end up with a consistent running of new ones. The new gods are here. And we as humans become the better equiped to deal with survival on a grander scale.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.