Elijah

I think this is definitely an argument that mythicists should avoid. What historians' texts (that survived) from the time and area have a noticeable silence about Jesus? I've had the conversation here before and there was nothing of note presented that could be used to support that position.

Also taking accounts in the narrative that can't be possible and looking for evidence of them doesn't make any sense at all. Either take it symbolically or just tall tales about the event, but looking for historical evidence of impossible acts is illogical.

Sarai

You present this as absolute when that is not the case. There are at least as many, probably more, Jewish biblical scholars who have no interest in the late 2nd temple period and the NT as there are who are interested in it. Jewish scholarship of this period (Geiger comes to mind) came about in defense of thinly veiled Christian anti-Judaism masquerading as unbiased scholarship and “history”, particularly out of the German school. Since this Jewish response was a refutation of the disguised polemic of “Christian” scholarship, they were more interested in refuting the hyperbole than in deconstructing the NT. To say that Jewish scholars believe the NT to be “as Jewish as the LXX and Josephus” isn’t saying much, since most Jews find the Septuagint and Josephus to be far more Hellenist than Jewish.
Here’s the one-size-fits-all “Jewish scholars” again. Please, recognize that there is as much variation in Jewish scholarly opinion as there is in Christian scholarly opinion.
“Radically denature the text…our own literary and cultural heritage”???? No one will argue that there aren’t Jewish aspects to be found in parts of the NT, but as a whole—a Jewish text—no way. Nor do I know of a single Jew, scholar or not, who considers the NT part of our cultural heritage, except possibly in the negative as the definitive source of the blood libel accusation.

Now for an off-topic question? Why do some Christian apologists treat Jews and Jewish scholars as if we are some sort of weird trump card to be played in their disputes that have nothing to do with Jews? It's rather annoying.

Warmly,
Sarai

aa5874

So, it is those who are looking for historical evidence who have a serious problem. After taking the events of Jesus as impossible acts, all we are left with is a myth.

It is illogical to look for an historical Jesus who participated in events that do not make sense or were symbolic.

Mythicists must use information found in the NT and church writings that clearly show Jesus was impossible or symbolic.

The human Jesus is untenable. It is unrealsitic for Peter an assumed Jew to have asked other Jews to obtain salvation from a man executed for blasphemy and to worship the blasphemer as a God.

Sacrificing humans to Gods for salvation is not a Jewish tradition.

Jews in the first century would not have worshipped a man as a God in order to obtain salvation while the very Jews were observing the Mosaic Laws for remission of sins and the Temple still standing.

Jesus appear to a legendary fable developped probably decades outside of the assumed time zone.

bacht

But this is the crux of the problem: Christians who are reasonable enough to understand arguments about historical anomalies aren't the problem, since they're likely to be tolerant of other belief systems.

Intolerant fundamentalists who have no interest in science or logic won't accept any arguments. I see no way to reach such people with carefully constructed analyses of text, myth, history etc. I think they're more likely to respond to emotional appeals such as personal testimonies.

avi

The original post expressed concern that some who believe, as I do, that the story of Jesus is mythical, employ arguments to defend their supposition, which are based on faulty logic. In response,
dog-on wrote (quite brilliantly, in my opinion):
To further clarify this notion of the "preexistent deity"
aa5874 cited the writings of the third century writer, Origen who wrote, in "De Principiis"

Thus, Arius' argument has merit.

My rationale for regarding the NT documents as fable, as myth, is to examine the internal inconsistencies within the NT itself, rather than devoting bandwidth and time exploring accordance or lack thereof between NT and LXX or any other collection of Jewish myths and fairy tales.

To me, the simplest argument is the best. How can an omnipotent "god" be crucified by mere humans? How can an omniscient "god" have committed "sin", and thus be in need of baptism? Why does the "creator" need to send ANY human or spirit object, to intercede with humans? If this "creator" can snap "his" fingers and create the universe, then, why would he need to bother "sending" his "only" "son" to "save" us?

The entire logic of NT makes sense only to those superstitious humans who have not the slightest understanding of science, and who can imagine only an anthropomorphic diety responsible for creation of the planet and other "heavenly orbs". One does not need to explore the Septuagint, looking for antecedant fables, which may or may not relate in some way to the supposed life of Jesus, in order to demonstrate the mythical character of the NT.

Elijah

Are you sure it’s not your superstitious understanding of religion you are projecting onto ancient philosophers? Jesus personifying a preexistent spiritual principal shouldn’t be that big of a deal if you are understanding it from a philosophical/metaphysical POV. Like Obama could have been considered to personify “Change” if “Change” was an actual spiritual/metaphysical/ideological aspect of the universe. I’m not saying it is, just that Jesus personifying wisdom or reason/Logos or the will of an unknowable/invisible god shouldn’t be that big of deal or any reason to claim it’s a myth, at all.

lpetrich

So we can forget about that work until F&G start discussing actual ancient texts.
I'm not surprised.

I agree.

I agree also.

But that requires arguing away a lot of what's in the Gospels, like him being a big celebrity and Herod ordering the killing of those Bethlehem baby boys and so forth.

Absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence, and sometimes not. One has to evaluate it for each type of case, rather than making blanket statements one way or another.

Why is it supposed to be such a terrible wrong for someone to propose that Jesus Christ had not been Jewish?

Or Julius Caesar, for that matter.

show_no_mercy

It doesn't matter if Jesus was Jewish or not. Christianity is not Jewish. No Robots seems unable to separate Jesus from Christianity, and seems unable to concede that there was no one uniform "Christianity" even in Paul's time.

semiopen

The rise in Jewish Messianism is important to consider.

The Chabad movement regards Lurianic Kabbalah with the same respect that it does the Torah. This theology regards a dead messiah as "normal". It also implies doctrines like redemption through sin and other whacked out stuff. Is a personal savior such an extreme step?

If these trends continue, there might be a convergence between Christianity and Judaism, and I don't think the result will be pretty.

I'm beginning to think that Messianism of any type doesn't belong in Judaism.

aa5874

Jesus believers, based on the writings of the church fathers, were intolerant of others who proposed any other Jesus than a God/man over 1800 years ago. They called one another agents of the Devil, even the supposed Jesus showed his intolerance to the Pharisees in the NT.

In any event, the human Jesus is not a credible option where a man is worshipped as a God for the salvation of Jews while the Jews themselves were under Mosaic Laws and tradition.

In the NT, the supposed Jesus asked his so-called disciples who the Jewish people thought he was. They replied that the Jews thought he was some one of the prophets.

If Jesus was human and did things as stated in the NT he would have deemed perhaps to be a prophet not a God.

Matthew 16.13-14 The human Jesus executed for blasphemy, worshipped as a God for salvation of the Jews is untenable. Jesus was just a backdated legendary fable.