outhouse

Um, except one little problem with that.

This was a Roman deity figure, more so then a Jewish created one. We all know Romans deified mortal men.

And its exactly what we see here. Roman God-fearers creating a deity to worship as they were never welcome in Judaism despite generations of worship.




This charactor was only famous after his death due to the volume of witnesses, during passover that generated decades of cross cultural oral tradition by people primed for a new religion based on Judaism.

aa5874

It must be established once and for all that the claim that Jesus did exist is NOT necessarily a claim of an historicists.

There are People who believe Gods, Angels, Demons, Devils, Holy Ghost and Sons of Gods are actual figures of history.

Essentially, they believe that Jesus, the Son of God born of a Ghost, and the Devil were actually on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple and that Jesus did really walk on water on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

Why do these people considered themselves historicists??

They do NOT accept those who believe in ZEUS, Jupiter and Apollo as historicists.

They quickly recognise Greek/Roman Mythology but fail to admit Jewish Myths.

Early Christians merely believed in Mythology that was a product of Jewish, Roman and Greek Myths.

Early Christians were NOT historicists.

Examine the words of Ignatius. This is NOT history whether or not it was believed to have occured in the recent past.

Epistle to the Ephesians 18 The "recent past" is irrelevant in Mythology.

The Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in the "RECENT PAST" before he wrote his Bible from the Golden Plates.

It is EXACTLY the very same thing in antiquity.

The Son of God appeared in the "RECENT PAST" before the unknown authors wrote their story.

It must be that all New Myth Fables have a "RECENT PAST".

Sheshbazzar

I believe we are dealing with two quite different things, The first being those messianic Jews living in Israel, collating and producing a collection of wise 'sayings documents', and a small collection of messiaic midrashim ethical 'situations' and miracle tales (many of which were 'adjusted' retellings of material from other and non-Jewish sources.)
These formed the seminal nucleus of our known Gospels. But none of these early Jews were 'Christians' as we have came to understand the term, as there would not have been at that early date any formalized writings or doctrines about their Messiah having been crucified or resurrected, that being very foreign to their still very Jewish concepts of what the Messiah of Israel would be like.

These Jewish writings circulated within the then contemorary society and very quickly become 'Hellenised' to suit what was then the linguia franka of the 'civilized' world. The 'barbaric' Hebrew names, titles, and terms were quickly replaced with well known and acceptable Greek substitutes.
With the fall of the Temple and disruption of Jewish society these writings then entered upon another stage of development. Additional 'prophetic' material was added to 'explain' the calamity suffered by the Jews and their Temple, 'Christ' now became the prophetic talking head that was retrojected into the recent past as being a living prophet and teacher had warned and foretold of the coming destruction.

Once there was a living 'Christ' so placed in the historic past, it became nescessary for 'Christ' believers to give him a 'history' (they still weren't 'Christians' and these writings were rapidly evolving into a means of conveying sectarian political views and social justice agendas.)
Heavily influenced by the many familiar virgin birth, son of god stories, the mythical tale of 'Jehoshua the Messiah' ne 'Jesus' the Christ' life and death story finally came into full flower.
People upon hearing it in that form, with the then strong contemporary creduality and belief in the exisence of God ('Elohim' or 'Theos') and in the Devil, 'Satan' and 'fallen angels' and 'demons' (Cosmic Dualisim derived from Zorosteranisim) took it on hearing as being a literal account of historcal events that had actually taken place in Israel in their recent past.

No one had ever been present to witness any of this, but the texts and their preachers all testified to it as being fact, and there was no one left that could refute the claims, not to mention, with passions and religious fever running so high, attempting to so could dramatically shorten ones life. The 'Christians' had arrived.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Sheshbazzar,

This sounds reasonable and fits the known facts.

From the incoherent, non-reflective, supernatural and frantic nature of the early texts, it seems that something spectacular must have happened to change people's way of thinking. This something would have been something like a major war where thousands were crucified, starving people turned to cannibalism and the Central Holy Temple, the one and only Home of the one and only God was destroyed.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley

It is interesting, at least to me, that all four Gospels portray Jesus as a real person who was crucified by P. Pilate.

The emphasis of the Gospels, IMHO, is to explain (away) how Jesus could have been executed as a royal pretender when he was a harmless wisdom teacher/prophet who was set up by the Jewish authorities "out of jealousy."

This was the way Christians wanted to portray Jesus to the Roman authorities when the Gospels were written (say, early 2nd century CE).

If Jesus was a myth historicised, it seems really awkward that they would chose a fictional setting that would bring the wrath of the Roman government down upon them.

If a Jesus myth was based upon an execution under Alexander Jannaeus or Queen Salome, why did the authors not portray it as occuring during the reigns of these two monarchs? Such a story would be expected to mention his rash excommunication by his mentor, Jehuda ben Tabbai (Palestinian Talmud); or Joshua ben Perachiah (Babalonian Talmud).

The latter was said to have been recalled to Jerusalem after Jannaeus' death by Simeon ben Shetach, who is said moreover to have been the brother of Jannai's wife Salome. G R S Mead says that "Joshua ben Perachiah presumably fled to Alexandria in 87 B.C., and was probably recalled by Simeon ben Shetach in 78 B.C." In Rabbinic tradition, Simeon ben Shetach and Judah ben Tabbai form the third "Pair" [of Teachers who spoke for their age (the times of Salome's reign)].

DCH

aa5874

Your statement is completely wrong. The Gospels portray Jesus as the Son of God born of the Holy Ghost and God the Creator.

The author of the short gMark claimed Jesus did miracles which were NOT possible by any human being.

No man could do and can do the miracles of Jesus in gMark. Jesus walked on water and transfigured BEFORE he was crucified in gMark. See Mark 6 and 9

Next, the author of gMatthew claimed Jesus was born AFTER his mother was Pregnant by a Ghost. See Matthew 1

Next, the author of gLuke claimed Jesus the Son of God was born AFTER Mary was overshadowed by a Ghost. See Luke 1

Next the author of gJohn claimed Jesus Existed before anything was made and was God the Creator. See John 1

The Four Gospels together contain about 32 miracles before the crucifixion and none of them are humanly possible.

It is clear that the authors of the Four Gospels established that their Jesus character was NOT human--he was God and was with God from the beginning.

maryhelena

David, if JC is a literary construct, either a historizing of a Pauline cosmic type JC, or a mythologizing of Jewish history - then this literary construct is not bound by historical niceties. This figure is not confined to historical linear progress. This figure is free from time constraints. This figure is able to be moved around to suit the moment; to suit its creators or developers game plan. Multiple birth narratives; multiple death scenarios. That is the reality of the JC story. It is not the history of a flesh and blood gospel JC.

A bit like the Scarlet Pimpernel:

We seek him here, we seek him there,
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in heaven?—Is he in hell?
That demmed, elusive Pimpernel.

What we should be considering is not questions over whether the gospel JC is a flesh and blood figure or whether that figure is a literary construct. There really is no debate here. There is no evidence for historicity. We should rather be using that gospel figure as a marker: JC marks the spot, the historical spot, of interest to the creators of that figure. That way opens up the historical landscape that is the backbone for the gospel JC story.

Duvduv

As a Roman product it would help to have a Roman backdrop like a 20th century Romeo and Juliet or Sherlock Holmes with a cell phone.
Of major interest is why the focus came to be on an obscure magician named Yeshu in the first place.

Toto

Some posts have been split off here

andrewcriddle

Hi David

Just to clarify.

I don't myself regard it as plausible that the original historical Jesus lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. (The claim doesn't seem to go back before the period of the composition of the Babylonian Talmud. The idea doesn't seem to be found in earlier rabbinic sources.)

I included it in the first option along with more conventional views because whether plausible or not I don't regard it as a form of mythicism. In effect it regards the New Testament writings as legendary and highly inaccurate accounts of the career of a real person.

Andrew Criddle