spin

This is an effort to provide a wider choice for the question, so as to be able to represent all the possibilities of response to the question.

I have provided three possibilities for "no":

1. myth: the mythicist's choice, where jesus is a product of a mythical understanding of divine events;
2. fiction: the choice of those who see Jesus as an invented figure (perhaps a Roman ploy to manipulate people)
3. transformation of traditions: the choice of those who see Jesus as the evolutionary end of a series of speculations on salvation, eschatology, wisdom & logos, the suffering servant, the messiah, etc.

Of course for the ends of the poll all the "no" votes can be added together, as can the "yes" votes.

If you think there are other positions, please feel free to explain.


spin

aa5874

The Jesus of the NT was fabricated, in my opinion, from the writings of Flavius Josephus and the OT. The writings of Josephus provided the history and geography while the OT provided the prophecy and theology.

mountainman

The fiction IMO was substituted over the top of the
Roman Empire's memory of the neopythagorean author,
philosopher, traveller and sage Apollonius of Tyana,
whose biography was calumnified in writing during the
rise to military supremacy of Constantine, by the key
ecclesiastical historian Eusebius (Against Hierocles).

Thus the additional option "transformation of traditions"
is relevant also, since it appears that the memory of
Apollonius was calumnified and deleted, while the memory
of Jesus was deified and added.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

I went with other, but fiction might fit better.

Just as today there seems to be so many different Jesus etc I feel that there were a bunch back then, maybe one for each day of the week.

Actually I think the Gospels were kind of like movie screenplays nowadays. People wrote them to be submitted as plays or whatever kind of entertainment people had back then [I'm pretty sure they didn't have movie theaters back then..]

When you read older translations of the Bible they really read like a screenplay. imho.

This doesn't say that there wasn't a guy named Jesus that they based the stories on though.

For instance there could've been a guy named Jesus who said " Oh yeah well I bet you a skin of wine I can walk on water!" He then wrote the word water in the sand, walked on it and technically won the bet.
He also turned "water" into wine so to speak.

But you see how lame that story is! So people added to it to make it more fantastic.

People that went to the plays probably thought they were real life and maybe they were told they were.

How many people actually think what they see in movies that are fiction are real?

Even ones based on actual events can be considered far from what really happened.

I see people all the time acting and dressing up like they're favorite entertaintment star, thinking they can do what their heroes do.

This past weekend was "Bike Week" here in PCB Florida, if you'd just woken up from a thirty year nap you'da shit your drawers thinking the Hell's Angels had taken the town! 99% of the "Bikers" trailered the bikes in behind brand new trucks, and stayed in condos, so much for living to ride! [there were still the 1%'s, though!:notworthy:]

Malachi151

I'm not sure what the different is between "myth" and "transformation of traditions". Isn't that what a myth is?

gregor

My "other" means a someone whose identity may be lost to time at the centerpiece of a story with an inconvenient ending that needed to be framed as a planned outcome.

spin

Myth, as used by MJers, deals with conceptions on another plane of reality, the supernatural plane (in which Asgard or Mt Olympus exists). It is often thought of as timeless. You might like to consider the constructions of gnosticism as a good example. Salvation for the MJ understanding is a heavenly act, not an event of this mundane world.

The transformation of traditions can involve real and non-real sources, often not conscious of formulating anything new in its explanatory power. New mterial is generated inconsequentially. The tradition involved in the theology of the Ebionites gets projected on the eponymous founder of that movement -- and there was an Ebion, wasn't there? At least the church fathers thought so. The messiah was to be a real human being who fought for the Jews to bring about their liberation, the end of the world, and the birth of a better one. To my mind there is no really mythical element in the conception of the messiah.


spin

Gooch's dad

What a crappy poll. Not surprising.

Malachi151

Well, I would still call this "myth", and I voted for myth, but what you call "transformation of traditions" is what I intend. A part of that tradition, however, is "myth".

spin

Myth can be transformed into tradition and then be developed upon as that tradition is elaborated upon.

We often see literalists develop traditions in their efforts at apologetics, trying to fit their religious understandings into their world understandings and deciding that the results must be reflective of reality.


spin