steve_bnk

Barring a credible detailed histroy discoverd in a sealed clay pot somewhere, we will never know.

Modern comminicatins makes it difficult for a JC type of myth to grow,

My point of George Washington is, myth or fact, and we can not know for sure. It is an obviously an exmaple of a current myth.


We can look at current religious events, like Scientology, to understand how the JC story started and grew. Is that too deep to fathom?

aa5874

But, why must you assume without no way of knowing if your assumption can ever to shown to be historically accurate?

The Jesus story as it is found did NOT need an actual figure of history.

There is ZERO need to make assumptions when we have the Extant Codices.

People can only ADDRESS the evidence that they have.

The EVIDENCE that WE have SHOWS quite CLEARLY that it was NOT NECESSARY at all for Jesus to have existed.

In fact, a PUBLICLY KNOWN HUMAN Jesus RETARDS or DESTROYS the Credibility and Veracity of the NT.

It is FAR more reasonable that the Jesus stories were invented well AFTER the Fall of the Temple and were BELIEVED to be true than for the disciples of Jesus and Paul to have KNOWINGLY and PUBLICLY LIED for decades and then were EXECUTED for their own LIES which was ALREADY known by the Public to be false.

Based on gMark, it was a STORY of a Phantom that INITIATED the Jesus cult.

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

Mayoi in Zen Buddhism may IIUC serve as an obstacle to spiritual liberation.

You are more familiar with this material than I am. Am I correct in my understanding ?

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Here's how c.361 CE Emperor Julian summarised the "Good News of Jesus" ....





Ammianus tells us that Constantius "obscured the plain and simple religion of the Christians with a dotard's superstition" in the years after his mafia-style execution of many family members. It's historical issues like these that deserve to be clarified.

Whatever it may have been before the appearance of Constantine, after Nicaea the centralised Roman state monotheistic cult cannot be separated from a racket of war, spread by the Divine authority of the emperor and the integrity of his army. The state religion was characterized during the 4th and 5th centuries by its persecution and intolerance, by its tourism trade and dealings with the bones of apostles and relics of saints and martyrs and by its distinctive architecture and imperial legislation. With very few exceptions, all post Nicaean christians may be classed as heresiologists - they were more concerned with classifying heresies and heretics for more than a generation after Nicaea than they were about agreeing on the canon of the books of the new testament and how Constantine's edition had to be slightly modified.

Solo

We might be a bit at cross purposes, here, Andrew. My original reaction was to the poster who positioned 'Maya' as something of an equivalent in Buddhism to Satan in Judeo-Christianity. I did not think 'Maya' would be an agent or agency of that sort - but 'Mara' definitely would be.

With respect to Zen, mayoi seems to be the equivalent of the older concept of maya. In my feeble understanding (I am not an expert by any stretch), both would be something akin to Marxist false consciousness in that though an obstacle to liberation they are not a root cause but an effect of something else. Buddhism shares three of the five hindrances of the soul with Hinduism, afflictions which prevent it from achieving enlightment: raga (lust/desire), dvesha (aversion), avidya (ignorance).

In general, the problem of evil is complex in Buddhism, as it rejects dualism of any sort, and considers seeing something/someone as evil as sure sign of spiritual immaturity.

Best,
Jiri

Doug Shaver

I am not assuming that Jesus was "an invention of christian scribes or that he didnt exist in some form."

With that in mind, would you please tell me the following:
1. What, in your opinion, are the relevant similarities between Josephus's account of the Egyptian and the gospel stories about Jesus?
2. Is there, to your knowledge, any other evidence -- outside of Josephus's writings -- pertinent to an evaluation of his report about the Egyptian?

fatpie42

Nicely clarified. I agree.

Could some of the Christian ideas be due to more eastern influences? I have read that the ancient Greeks came in contact with Hindus in India and recognised in Krishna a similar figure to Heracles.

Sorry. Typo.

I mean as in "agree with our dogma or burn".

That mentality was present amongst non-Christian Greeks prior to Christianity. Socrates washed before his state-ordered suicide so that the women would not have to wash him after death. Since women generally dealt with dead bodies they were connected with death in the typical mindset of the time.

fatpie42

One point that you probably know already, but I'll say it anyway just to be clear. I am not claiming that the gospels are not set in any particular time or place. They clearly are. I am talking about the stories and, to some extent, the pericopes which the gospel accounts wished to compile.

In the OP you'll notice one of the problems is geographical locations of stories. One story talks of pigs rushing into the sea, but is located in an area miles from the sea. The location of the story clearly wasn't important.

I think your concern here is in particular about the death which was, of course, central to Paul's theology. Now naturally if the stories aren't historical, there was no death for them to tell us about. -At least no singular death. The stories may be somewhat inspired by executions in general of members of the Jewish community. Or possibly even of the deaths during the fall of the Temple...- If there was no historical death, then those being told the story who took it as historical may be under the impression that it happened recently and they were not aware of it when it happened. I see no reason why everyone would know every single person who had been executed.

Just to clear up a point here, the gospels place most of the events in Jesus' life in remote locations like villages and the like. There are plenty of cases where it is said that there were very few people there or that no one listened to Jesus. This may well be the gospel writers' way of explaining why Jesus was not better known prior to his death.

Earlier I suggested that the central story of Jesus' death might orginate after the fall of the Temple. I say this because it would seem to be the perfect inspiration for the story. The execution of one man by the Romans somehow representing the plight of the people as a whole. His death acting as the atoning sacrifice which could no longer be done in the Temple. A story to change the sense of extreme loss into the possibility of new hope. - But as you say, it would seem all too recent to many who took it as historical fact, so no wonder that the gospel writers move it rather earlier.

fatpie42

Well the very quotation you provided about this figure makes him a poor analogy with the example of Jesus. You quoted from a contemporary historian who was not a follower of the Egyptian who critiques the actions of the Egyptian himself rather than a movement he founded and their beliefs.

In spite of Jesus' supposed popularity, we have no such evidence for a historical Jesus.

aa5874

You are in error here. In the Gospels Jesus was WELL-KNOWN throughout Judea.

In gMark, in the very first chapter Jesus is claimed to be well-known.

Mark 1:28 - It is CRITICAL that you understand the written statements about Jesus.

1. Jesus was WELL-KNOWN as a miracle worker NOT as a Messiah of the Jews.

2. In the Gospels, It was ANOTHER person, NOT JESUS who was KNOWN as the Messiah when Jesus BARRED his disciples from telling any one he was Christ.

3. The OTHER Messiah, NOT JESUS was ALSO performing Miracles in the Gospels.

We have a MESSIANIC MONKEY-WRENCH in the Gospels. There was A KNOWN MESSIAH, NOT JESUS, who was ALSO performing Miracles when Jesus was NOT known as the Messiah.

Mark 9:38 -
Luke 9:49 - Based on the gMark and gLuke, any mention of Christ by non-apologetic sources cannot be assumed to refer to Jesus.