Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Emil · 03-24-2008, 03:13 AM

Consensus on Jesus

I'm interested in hearing the consensus on the historical Jesus both here and in the real academic world. The similarities between Jesus and myths at that time seem superficially convincing, and many so-called skeptics are falling for this.

I lack education & interest to read a lot on the subject. Therefore I want to believe what the consensus is among historians, but I would also like some arguments against other common positions, especially the Myth hypothesis.

Cheers, Deleet
:wave:

Acetylhexene · 03-24-2008, 03:26 AM

Quote:

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Oh wait, you said Jesus. Sorry, my mistake.

Roger Pearse · 03-24-2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Negachrist

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

In the real world, the Roman deity Mithras is referred to in the ancient sources as born from a ROCK ("rock-born"). There is no reference in antiquity associating 25 Dec. with Mithras (a confusion by some ill-educated modern who supposed that Sol Invictus was Mithras). The shepherds thing seems to be a confusion with his depiction in sculpture with 2 associates, who bear shepherd's emblems.

Quote:

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disciples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.

None of this is recorded in antiquity, and it misrepresents horribly the mythos.

Quote:

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

Mithras slaughtered the bull -- a motif for the internet, indeed!

The remainder of this is nonsense. Surely people recognise that doing things "for world peace" is a 20th century phrase?

Quote:

7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

None of these statements are found in the historical record. The mythos of Mithras was not like this.

Quote:

11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

The archaeology of Mithras suggests that his cult came into existence ca. 50 AD. I'd be most interested to see the ancient evidence that associates him with the Day of the Sun.

Quote:

12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

No.

Quote:

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

Ancient cults often had ritual meals. The cult of Mithras had seven such. No reference to any as the eucharist or lord's supper exists.

The "Mithra said..." bit is something that a couple of us have been investigating in this forum. There is no connection between this saying and Mithra (sic) at all.

The saying is attributed to Zoroaster in medieval Arabic Christian literature, as part of collections of pagan prophecies of Christ. There is so far no evidence that it existed before the 9th century, although it may derive from fictional collections of Zoroaster material in late antiquity, via a book by Aristocritus.

Quote:

14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."

No such annual sacrifice is recorded in antiquity.

Quote:

15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

Whoever this Mr. Golding may be, he is wrong.

Quote:

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

Certainly the priests of Mithras were known as 'fathers'. The remainder... is that correct?

Quote:

Oh wait, you said Jesus. Sorry, my mistake.

Um. Didn't it occur to you, for even a second, that all this was way too convenient? Or to check any of this?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 03-24-2008, 05:32 AM

Nicean troll

aa5874 · 03-24-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

[

Ancient cults often had ritual meals. The cult of Mithras had seven such. No reference to any as the eucharist or lord's supper exists.

Roger Pearse

Justin Martyr differs in First Apology.

"First Apology" by Justin Martyr

Quote:

....For the apostles in the
memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus
delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took
bread, and when he had given thanks, said, "This do ye in
remembrance of Me, this is my body," and that, after the same
manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is
My blood," and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked
devils have imitated in the mysteries of MITHRAS, commanding the
same thing to be done. For that bread and a cup of water are
placed with certain incanations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Emil · 03-24-2008, 08:15 AM

Guys. That was not my question. What is the consensus?
Is the consensus influenced by religion of whoever holds the degrees? (I can imagine that there are many more Christian historians with interest in Jesus, than atheists)

No Robots · 03-24-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

What is the consensus?

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.—William Arnal, The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity, p. 5.

mg01 · 03-24-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Guys. That was not my question. What is the consensus?
Is the consensus influenced by religion of whoever holds the degrees? (I can imagine that there are many more Christian historians with interest in Jesus, than atheists)

My impression is the majority of academic historians are of the opinion that there was a historical Jesus but at the same time recognize the writings about him as latter constructions and contain very minimal, if any, true historical details. All anyone can really say for sure about a historical Jesus is he was an apocalyptic prophet with a message of reform regarding strict adherance to the Torah who was killed by the Romans for being a troublemaker either in actuality or percieved. From this point of view, the mythological aspects were later accretions that were layered on over time by different groups.

No Robots · 03-24-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

My impression is the majority of academic historians are of the opinion that there was a historical Jesus but at the same time recognize the writings about him as latter constructions and contain very minimal, if any, true historical details.

For a contrasting view, see Birger Gerhardsson's The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition:

Gerhardsson’s contribution consists in a painstaking textual analysis of the dynamic of oral transmission in Rabbinic Judaism, which he later extended to the early Christian tradition. He developed a sophisticated typology of different categories of tradition and the complex interface between manuscript writing and orality within each type of tradition. This is then also the main contribution of the three essays included in the volume under review. He concedes that in his first works he perhaps too readily assumed that the rabbinic sources after the second century reflected practices of the previous two. He also points out that the private written notation of the Hellenistic world still need further investigation. However, his cardinal view that material could and was transmitted with great care and accuracy remains unchanged. As Hagner puts it, though we do not have the ipissima verba of Jesus, Gerhardsson’s work shows that we do have the ipissima vox.

Emil · 03-24-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

Guys. That was not my question. What is the consensus?
Is the consensus influenced by religion of whoever holds the degrees? (I can imagine that there are many more Christian historians with interest in Jesus, than atheists)

My impression is the majority of academic historians are of the opinion that there was a historical Jesus but at the same time recognize the writings about him as latter constructions and contain very minimal, if any, true historical details. All anyone can really say for sure about a historical Jesus is he was an apocalyptic prophet with a message of reform regarding strict adherance to the Torah who was killed by the Romans for being a troublemaker either in actuality or percieved. From this point of view, the mythological aspects were later accretions that were layered on over time by different groups.

That was also my idea.

My take is like this:

Given these three truths:
It's extremely/impossible that the bible is correct about Jesus.
It's implausible that someone invented Jesus out of nothing. (completely fiction)
Myths usually have some historical ground, which the myth grows upon.

Therefore it seems likely that there were an apocalyptic prophet, which caused some trouble and got killed. Mythic material was later added because the story travelled verbally.

03-24-2008, 03:13 AM	#1
Emil Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 11,369	Consensus on Jesus Consensus on Jesus I'm interested in hearing the consensus on the historical Jesus both here and in the real academic world. The similarities between Jesus and myths at that time seem superficially convincing, and many so-called skeptics are falling for this. I lack education & interest to read a lot on the subject. Therefore I want to believe what the consensus is among historians, but I would also like some arguments against other common positions, especially the Myth hypothesis. Cheers, Deleet :wave:

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

03-24-2008, 05:32 AM	#4
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Nicean troll

03-24-2008, 08:15 AM	#6
Emil Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 11,369	Guys. That was not my question. What is the consensus? Is the consensus influenced by religion of whoever holds the degrees? (I can imagine that there are many more Christian historians with interest in Jesus, than atheists)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.