Toto

If you think this thread is silly, I invite you to spend you time somewhere else. If you want to participate here, you need to do some background reading. Most people here do not use a double standard.

mountainman

It does, but MYTH is an inappropriate (but politically correct)
term. The more appropriate term is forgery. Forgery has been
detected in many other sources, and in many places in the
biblical literature (start for example with the documents that
were originally represented as -- and therefore thought as
being written by -- the figure Paul.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

ph2ter

Where in the Didache do you find references to Jesus as a teacher? The Didache presents various teachings, but none attributed to Jesus. Except maybe in its primitive eucharist formulation.

Now, what was HJ, a preacher or a prophet? Will you decide?
What is the evidence of him being a prophet before Mark?

Ray Moscow

As some have said, the burden of proof (or at least evidence) is on the one alleging the existence of something or someone.

There are a few awkward bits in the gospels and Paul that many argue could be best explained by an HJ.

I'm unconvinced by these arguments and think that everything is explained well enough by other theories -- mythical Jesus, midrashic fiction, and so forth. But I don't think the issue is yet proven one way or the other.

Ray

Zeluvia

I think the most compelling reason is not so much the lack of evidence, although that helps, it's that it is POSSIBLE for story to be a fabrication, based on the lives of more than one individual. If you add up all we know about that time, and the years previous, and the Teacher in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Simon Magus, ect ect, you can see that there was more than one wandering preacher or holy man. The Bible even tells us about John the Baptist.

So, you take a word of mouth legend here, add a legend there, add 40 or 50 years, and viola, you have the gospels.

Clivedurdle

Is an issue here actually a personal psychological one about the interpretation of evidence?

Decades ago there were huge arguments between behaviourists and psychotherapists. There are probably similar debates now about materialist and non materialist views. Sagan - Demon Haunted World, Wheen Mumbo Jumbo, are examples of attempts to create a tidy world view.

But there is a problem here. Comments like sociology being a toilet paper degree, the existence of post modernism with its clear roots in left wing thinking, means that babies are thrown out with the bathwater, and assumptions made that anyone discussing myth is automatically out with the faeries.

And there is real confusion caused by people coming with theistic assumptions.

I attempt to be pragmatic - there are impure concepts in the universe - like the square root of minus one - which means there are weaknesses in Platonic type ideas. But you work with what you have, and are open about unanswered questions.

And I am sorry, this Jesus seems to have started as a fish, the earliest symbols we have are related to depictions of vaginas, there are very strong political elements, there are massive psychological elements - saviour figures, washing away sins in the blood of the lamb, there are parallels.

We are looking at a hodge podge of ideas and traditions, brought together by humans, and because of habit and use of force - the idea of heresy - we have now accepted the 1984 principle that 2 + 2 = 5, or that there is a human Jesus at the root of these confabulations - that may in fact only have been formalised under Constantine!

aa5874

The "Pauline Epistles" are the strongest case for a non-historic Jesus. The main character, "Paul", is supposed to be a contemporary of this Jesus, yet "Paul" never mention one single time that he met Jesus in person, anywhere, before this Jesus was crucified. "Paul", in all his epistles, does not mention a single event he personally witnessed with respect to Jesus.

In the Gospels, Jesus is recorded to be preaching and teaching to thousands of people wherever he went, he fed thousands, multitudes came to be healed, yet "Paul", it seems, was not a part of the curious crowd, trying to find out who this Messiah or prophet was.

Again, in the NT, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the high priests were always watching every move of this Jesus, they were always trying to kill him, trying to trap him, yet "Paul", although claiming to be a Jew, made no mentioned of these activities in his Epistles.

Now, what is even more bizarre in the the Epistles, is that "Paul" appear to have no personal knowledge of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, all these events were revealed to him from heaven, after he was blinded by a bright light.

"Paul" cannot account for Jesus on earth, only by revealation from heaven.

TedM

Ok. It's a possibility, I will grant. However, I am looking for evidence for that possibility. If there isn't any, isn't it just speculation?

I would say one of the biggest questions of all is where Mark got his material from, and when he wrote it. Everything else prior is not very helpful to either the mythicism or historical case, with too few definitieve references and omissions..

TedM

DIDACHE, 16 short chapters (Charles Hoole translation)

*He had apostles (maybe 12?) Title
*He was a teacher 4:1
*He had a gospel 8:2 11:3 15:3,4
*His gospel included the Lord's prayer in full 8:2
*He was God's Son 9:2,3 10:2
*He said the following concerning the Eucharist: "Give not that which is holy unto dogs" 9:5
*The Eucharist honors Jesus as the source of everlasting life 10:3
*He is called the Son of David 10:6
*His gospel included instructions regarding the treatment of apostles and prophets 11:3
*His gospel included instructions to rebuke one another not in wrath, but peaceably 15:3
*In the end times he will come on clouds from heaven with the resurrected saints 16:7,8


A number of sayings match the gospels, but without attribution to Jesus, such as:
*First love God, your neighbor, the golden rule 1:2
*Pray for your enemies, turn the cheek 1:3,4
*The meek shall inherit the earth 3:7
*No one knows the hour of his return 16:1

Finally, there are two rituals in which he is remembered: *Baptism in his name Ch 7
*The Eucharist ch 9,10


Not sure. Evidence is scant.

TedM

[QUOTE=Doug Shaver;5050088]


Paul calls him both Lord and man. Which prevails and why?

No, it isn't. It's just that the references we have are questionable on the HJ question, and with good reason. However, we shouldn't necessarily expect more than what we have if Jesus was not as "big" as the gospels represent.

It is clearly implied by Luke. An author of GJohn claims to have been the beloved disciple. We have historical references by Papias in support, however questionable, for at least portions of Mark and Matthew as reflecting actual events. We have zero evidence that the documents were intended to be fictional by their authors.

Claims of fictional gospels and missing evidence where one shouldn't expect it are not strong arguments IMO. Clivedurdles' and anothers' approach--looking for very specific and strong parallels between other religions and Christianity, and the point you and others have made about the ambiguity within Paul's writings regarding the details of Jesus' life without possible OT inspiration are IMO the best evidences this thread has presented so far.

Any evidence showing late creation of the gospels would be quite helpful too.

ted