spin

I take a fairly strictly historical approach to such questioning and I don't believe that any of it actually happened. Some or all of it might have happened, but I don't believe anything in the context. There is no real way to check the historicity of the events described in the gospels, so they might or might not reflect what actually happened.

However, beside the religious motivation for the dating of the gospel production, I can see no reason to believe that the texts were written anywhere near the time of the events described. The first clearly discernable gospel reference, ie someone knowing clearly gospel literary material, seems to be Justin Martyr, which puts the latest that early gospel material was written was the 160s. How can one get before that time with the texts?

I tried another indicator, the use of "son of man" as a title for Jesus, rather than the Hebrew description of someone born human into this world, as found in all the Hebrew bible, and found the first clear knower of the term Son of Man was again Justin Martyr.

Yet another indicator regards the heretic Marcion, whose version of the gospel story, Irenaeus claims, was a bowdlerized gospel of Luke, which can be read as indicating that the gospel according to Marcion at the time of Irenaeus was different from the gospel of Luke at the time of Irenaeus, which in turn suggests only that Marcion's gospel goes back to Marcion's time, ie just before Justin Martyr.

As we cannot get the gospels back before the time of Justin Martyr we have a possible 120 year gap between the events narrated in the gospels and the latest time of writing. We have no way of getting closer to the hypothesized period of Jesus's life. Historically there is no way to accept any of the events of that life.

To answer the question "why invent Jesus?", if in fact he was invented, very little needed to be invented, as Hebrew speculation of the messiah, combined with the anthropomorhising of Wisdom, suitable Hebrew bible indications taken out of context, supply a cocktail that says that little was necessary to invent him. It is merely a matter of slight extension of speculation. Wisdom walking among men to give them wisdom, was already well understood. The "Word" of Philo of Alexandria, a mixture of Platonic idea and Hebrew first principle, ie wisdom, is a forerunner of John's Word.

We don't have a physical reality of this messiah as yet, of course, in this construct. We have the mystical saviour of early Pauline writing. Paul's speculation would be that we missed him.

There is an evolution of a wisdom messiah who was rejected by most of the world, as wisdom was in Hebrew thought. Jesus speculation would have been only one logical line of messianic speculation. This doesn't say that Jesus did or did not exist, but that such a figure required little to have come into being -- without a "real person" behind it.


spin

rlogan

I agree with Toto, and add this:

not only was there a need to consolidate the disparate "Christ" movements, but there was a need to capture the most widespread "pagan" religion of the time - Mithraism, or Zoroastrian religion (Sun worship). Ultimately Theodosius clinched that by law. But the similarities between the two cannot be understated.

"Sun" day worship. Celebration of the return of the Sun (Not Son!) Dec. 25. You got your apocalypse, savior, judgement, rising of the dead, etc. Much, much more co-option.

There were the "Pseudo-Sibylline Oracles" that were used to help convince Roman Pagans to follow Jesus. This one is a bit complicated in that there were original pagan oracles that may go back as far as 6th century B.C.E. but were "interpolated" in the very best Christian tradition to maximize adherence to Jesus.

So we have existing pagan oracles influencing the Jesus myth, and also the interpolation of pagan oracles to better fit the pre-existing constraints of the Jesus myth.

The pagan mother and God-child motiff is found in Christianity and is seen in many extant statues of the Madonna Isis and the God-Child Horus. Many other paralells are found.

So why invent Jesus? The complete myth may begin with a kernel of truth in the various "Jesus candidates" but ultimately is a figure maximizing a conglomorate following and thereby receives all the perquisites attendant to domination of the religious sphere.

Vinnie - I think that is something missing from all of your energies. This is in fact an extra-biblical source of "attestation", although the results are not so kind to an HJ.

rlogan

Hmm... Since I mentioned the Sibylline Oracles I decided to start reading them rather than relying on indirect reference. It appears they are not what I was led to believe.

Vinnie

Gospel of Thomas. Next please

Vinnie

Vinnie

At any rate, I suppose next you will revert to "non Christian source" rather than your stated "extabiblical source".

So I'll simply state that this uncirtical//bordering on an ad hominem argument is fairly easy to dismiss.

Furthermore, when I isolate material in the Gospels which goes against their theological grain this is the same functional equivalent of "an hostile outside witness." Yet this is dismissed by Jesus skeptics who persistently use these double standards.

Vinnie

Mike(ATL)

Admittedly I'm not an expert on world religion, however... I think there are a number of factors that cause false religions. I believe humans by nature seek some kind of God. Just look at all of these isolated people groups that worship some kind of deity. So there's an initial instinct there I would say is God-given. A religion like Hinduism seems to take cultural myths handed down and add rules that help control the masses. So a motivation for inventing Hinduism would be to control the masses of the lower class vis a vis the caste system. Buddhism is more of a philosophy that attempts to bring us peace in spite of suffering where the founder has been deified. The many religions that have multiple pagan gods signifying this and that seem to be very basic Gods invented to explain this and that of the world we see. But when you look at Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all their many offshoots, they all share origins in Judaism. I think it seems likely that Muhammad was deceived by Satan since the religion was started with said visions and inspiration that Satan, the angel of light, is capable of providing. Islam has been fighting with Judaism and Christianity since it's founding. So the motivation for the Islamic religion was for cultural identity and to undermine the efforts of God (not that it's founders realized it). Obviously this is all theory that I have no way of substantiating nor do I firmly believe this is definitely the case.

So in answer to your question I think there is a general instinct to look for God but the specific reasons for every religion being created have to be examined at a case by case basis.

So that said, what would be the motivation for creating Christianity? Jesus’ ideas (that Christianity follows, invented or not) did not support in anyway the ruling governments of the time. He went against the religious culture of the time. He gave no easy explanations for the nature of the universe. He did not make life easier in any way, in fact He promised things would be difficult if we were to follow Him. Those who were a part of the early church suffered horrible persecution, they were beaten and killed. If the Hebrew leaders were attempting to create the Messiah they would've rallied behind some great war hero, not the son of a carpenter from Nazareth. Nothing about Jesus is what one would've expected. The whole premise and his teachings are so elaborate and against the culture it just does not seem like the kind of thing someone would invent.

I suppose that's the line of thinking I'm on, that's the kind of motivation I'm wondering about. So am I wrong in what I'm saying about Jesus or is there some other motivation for creating Christianity?

Goliath

"The skeptic's position" is a nonsensical phrase, since positions on almost anything need not be constant amongst skeptics.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Biff the unclean

what would be the motivation for creating Christianity?
Power, wealth, control of the masses.

Jesus’ ideas (that Christianity follows, invented or not) did not support in anyway the ruling governments of the time. He went against the religious culture of the time.
Stop listening to your preachers and read the Gospels and a book on Roman culture. Jesus' ideas very much support Rome.

He gave no easy explanations for the nature of the universe.
He had no factual explanations for the nature of the universe.

He did not make life easier in any way, in fact He promised things would be difficult if we were to follow Him.
Funny thing for a loving and all-powerful God to do. But not odd at all for a repressive Imperial Government.

Those who were a part of the early church suffered horrible persecution, they were beaten and killed.
These stories "lives of the saints" do not appear until after the fall of the Roman Empire. A fall that it's religious arm survived.

If the Hebrew leaders were attempting to create the Messiah they would've rallied behind some great war hero, not the son of a carpenter from Nazareth.
The Hebrew leaders are the bad guys in this anti-Semitic story. This isn't a Jewish story.
There is no Nazareth. The present day town was named after the legendary place.

Nothing about Jesus is what one would've expected.
Because it isn't a Jewish myth. As much as Apologists claim that this or that prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus the guy simply is nothing like a Messiah whose attributes are spelled out in the OT

The whole premise and his teachings are so elaborate and against the culture it just does not seem like the kind of thing someone would invent.
It's only against Jewish culture not Roman. Read the Sermon on the Mount. It tells you how to behave as a vassal of Roman, and how blessed you are to be treated like shit by the Romans.

I suppose that's the line of thinking I'm on, that's the kind of motivation I'm wondering about. So am I wrong in what I'm saying about Jesus or is there some other motivation for creating Christianity?
There were many Christianities. Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah he was a Christ. A Christ was a specific type of hero/demigod. Jesus, Serapis, Dionysus, Apis, Christna (whose name the title comes from) and even (in some cults) Hercules were all Christs.
There were many different stories about Jesus. Most of them, including the most widely held ones, were discarded by the Emperor Constantine. He chose Jesus as a war god and went from a bastard son in a divided Rome to sole Emperor of the World. Constantine chose those stories of Jesus that are copied from the stories of Mithra and Dionysus because they were politically expedient in Byzantium. You can truly say that he was the one who created Christianity because he took all the available raw pieces and ruled which should be kept and which should not. In the end he had something which only vaguely resembled the teachings of all the warring Christian cults.

The motivation was power. The motivation still is power.

mike_decock

The persecution experienced by early Christians is one of the factors that brought greater cohesion and resolve. Just about any situation where a group of people suffers through a trial or hardship ends up bonding them together and becoming more devoted to their cause.

-Mike...

rlogan

You didn't take me right, Vinnie. Hard to tell tone of voice in a post, and forgive me if it appeared in any way ad-hom. I have no animosoty towards you.

Extra-biblical but Christian is one outside source. Non-Christian another. Both should be evaluated on their own merits. Not sure what you meant about Thomas. I happen to like that book. Do you mean that it is positive attestation for the flesh and blood Jesus? I think not in the sense of giving any historical info - just sayings, and in particular a focus on the personal relation and kingdom of God at hand. (As opposed to being a church slave). That's probably one reason why it isn't canon.

What I mean is that I think there is diminishing returns to going over a restricted set of information with a finer and finer microscope. Especially in the context of redactions and interpolations. At some point the same incremental hours to extra-biblical literature can bring forth greater returns than electron microscopy of the restricted set.

Some of the Church fathers were quoting this Sybilline text and it therefore deserves attention. It goes without saying that Roman or Egyptian history should be used to cross-reference dates and events.

Mike - you have a strict martyr complex over Jesus and the apostles, and I don't think it is historically verifiable. It is the Church fathers who commandeered the disparate movements and gave us the "story line" we have today. Those are the ones who invented the Jesus you have come to worship.