Clivedurdle

EB above may have summarised the hj mj issue!

The myth of the historical Jesus is a bit like that episode from Voyager where an alien species completely becomes intwined in the crew.

We are not yet at a position to be able to look at our own myths.

gurugeorge

Yes - but try as you might, you will not find any evidence IN PAUL that any of the people he is talking about knew a human being called Jesus, received teachings from them, etc., etc. (The only thing I can see that's viable is "brother" James, but that's NOT a clear case of siblinghood at all.)

Which is what would be required to establish a human historical Jesus (from evidence in Paul) so far as we are concerned.

Later tradition doesn't concern us at this point - especially later tradition as filtered through a hundred years of political upheavals and dislocation of cultures.

In fact, I think one later tradition made the same mistake nearly everyone makes - that the early apostles knew personally the Jesus of which they spoke. That later tradition is, precisely, orthodoxy as it grew and developed, and this mistake is the politically convenient seed of its divergent theology, its emphasis on lineage, etc.

gurugeorge

I wanted to check if the qualifications I made are included in the definition as you see it. Does your definition include "explaining" experiences derived from religious practices in the sense of practices giving rise to visionary experiences or not? It's possible that it doesn't, in light of some of what you've said in our exchange (because I think if you did include it, you would be forced to accept my proposition that Paul's words are one positive proof of mythicism, i.e Paul's positing of a real Jesus is his explanation of his Jesus-experience).

If it does, then we have a similar definition of "myth", if not, not.

Also, you do have to include the spontaneous cases, since they may not be derived from extant "religious ideas or practices".

aa5874

There was really nothing more impressive about the Jesus story in the NT compared to Marcion's Phantom Jesus, the Logos, the doctrine of Valetinius or any of the the multiple stories about Christ.

Even, the authors of the Gospels appear to have altered each other story to make it appear more plausible.

For hundreds of years Jesus believers were themselves regarded as atheists, cannibals, were hated and treated abominably and were persecuted and prosecuted in the Roman Empire. Jesus believers were operating in secret.

Jesus believers called one another devils or liars. Justin Martyr thought that the Jesus believer Marcion was of the Devil and the Marcionites laughed at Justin and the God/man believers.

Marcion and many other believers were NOT impressed with the God/man Jesus, some like Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens and Octavius in Municius Felix appear not be impressed with the God/man Jesus and did not even mention him one single time, but they were impressed with a Being they called God, not Jesus the God/man.

The LUCKY BREAK for Jesus believers came in the 4th century when Constantine the Emperor of Rome made Jesus the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire.

If Constantine had chosen Marcion's Jesus, or the Logos, [without the flesh], as the NEW GOD of Rome, then it is very likely that our present Canon would be a lot different.

And within a few years of Constantine, Julian the Emperor declared the Galileans to be a MONSTROUS LIE.

There is really not any good evidence to show that the Jesus story was more impressive than any other mythical fables of the time.

spin

There must be ways that myths can develop.

Here was my definition:

Myths are narratives created to explain or embody religious ideas or practices.

It wasn't meant to be exhaustive, but indicative of the notion of myth in the religious context, ie a strict notion of myth. A myth usually supplies a "why" of a religion, why the world exists, why the sabbath is sacred, why the institution of marriage exists, why people sacrificed at particular times, perhaps why salvation is available to christians. The myth is aimed at illuminating the structures of the religious world, why things are, why things are done -- religious ideas and practices.


spin

Solo

I am not sure you understand that you have to make a case for your belief that Peter, John and James walking with Jesus, is a mistake. I don't see you advancing a convincing argument.

Incidentally, I doubt that the three were "apostles" in the earliest traditions. Paul calls them "pillars". The only mention by Paul of Cephas as apostle is by implication in Gal 1:19, a part of the text suspected of being an interpolation. At any rate, in the only undisputed Paul's mention of Cephas other than in Gal 2, 1 Cr 9:5 Paul places him outside of the group of apostles. The 1 Cr 15:5 mention which is again suspect, but probably an early interpolation, Cephas again stands outside of the twelve. So it's three to one in the Paulines for Cephas not being an apostle.

Jiri

aa5874

Jesus Christ !!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus is the embodiment of a MYTH!!!.

spamandham

Not to get too far off into the weeds about Cyclops, but I really don't find this speculation very useful or compelling at all.

I think we may all be getting too wrapped around the axle as to the meaning of the word 'myth'. The ordinary and common meaning works just fine even in BC&H, since there is a tendency to use words that imply greater specificity when it's appropriate anyway.

dog-on

Indeed I am and indeed, I am.

The evidences are the writings themselves. I am unconcerned with the common sense of the ancients, just like I am unconcerned that I will fall off the end of the earth if I sail too far.

dog-on

Myth also can provide a who, what, when, where and how.