Dark Jedi

Ok, that may help some. Sometimes proper syntax makes all the difference. Now I wish I spoke Dutch, I have no basis of comparison. How is your Spanish or Japanese?

Radcliffe Emerson

Josephus wrote there were dozens of people going around doing magic tricks claiming to be Messiahs, and quite a few named Jesus.
There is no historical evidence for Jesus' existence as Christ at all. None.
And there are several pieces of evidence that show most of the aspects of Christianity (virgin birth, dying on a cross, etc) are borrowed from earlier myths of other deities.

David Bowden

Is it possible - actually, I should ask: does any historian subscribe to the idea - that the Jesus of Christianity is sort of a melding together of (plural) "historical Jesuses", plus mythic elements drawn from pagan and Jewish sources?

And/Or: was "Jesus" (whichever form of the name was used) a symbolic self-designation, something that an apocalyptic rabbi/ revolutionary/ miracleworker would adopt as part of a messianic prophecy fulfillment package - a sort of cultic appropriation of the messiah myth in order to channel God's power for Israel and drum up popular allegiance?

All wild speculation on my part. Mainly I'm curious as to what might have caused people to begin a Jesus tradition, if there was no individual historical Jesus at all. How did Jesus get inserted into history, if he never lived?

I remain convinced that the resurrection and ascension aspects are borrowed and adapted from pre-existing myth, along with the virgin birth and other biographical details with mythic predecessors - certainly the gospels contain fiction, elaborately done up.

But I remain agnostic regarding the possiblity that someone's memory of a historical individual(s) might have formed the basis of the 'orthodox' Jesus myth.

It seems (to me) possible that "Jesus" existed as an ideal type of 1st-Century person, a fulfiller of hope and prophecy - as MortalWombat mentions above - and that this ideal was what the various messianic Jesuses (the original "Jesus Freaks"?) tried to live up to. And this memory of the sort of person who would actually stand up to worldly government, who would stand for a holy justice along the lines of the OT prophets, and who was often short-lived due to suppression or whatnot (perhaps due to criminal acts against Temple or State?) - this memory of an individual or individuals trying to live up to that "Jesus" type was cleaned up, embellished and historicized, and also paganized/ mythicized and made more universally appealing over a period of a generation or so.

A far simpler explanation is of course that a single Jesus was the model of the gospel Jesus, and that his fans embellished his biography. But this reference to a poly-Jesus 1st-Century Judea sparks the imagination...

But perhaps the commonness of the name "Jesus" just made it more likely that messianic figures would bear that name....

-Wanderer

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Toto

Wanderer - you would enjoy the JesusMysteries list at YahooGroups. There is some cross posting between that group and this forum.

It is at <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/</a>

You might also enjoy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879517204/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ</a> by Alvar Ellegard. His thesis is that the basis for the Jesus of Christianity was the Essene Teacher of Righteousness who lived 100 years BCE.

Amos

Sorry, no Spanish, no Japanese and really English is best because any kind of 'God language' is foreign in my Dutch.

Amos

Hello wide-eyed wanderer. It is much worse than that because each and every Christian must have come the realization that the historical Jesus was the renewed Joseph, who was a carpenter only because carpenters are known to make many things, and since all things are made in sin Joseph was a courageous sinner. Even so, he was a man of integrity because he wanted to know in all earnesty who he was co-creator with (who he really was).

The entire gospels take place within the mind of this man called Jesus (nee Joseph) and is written from four different perspectives to represent the four identites that played a major role in the renewal of this mind. The name of this man is irrelevant because it could have been any Jew--which is a major credit for Judaism. Since Christ it could also happen to Catholics who in the Gospels became Jews by odoption into the OT. The identities are Adam, Eve, Christ and Mary in that order.

David Bowden

Hello, Amos. Is there a print or online resource which defines this view or elaborates on it more systematically?

-Wanderer

Karim

Hello,
Jesus in this case could be anybody therefore nobody. The number kills the identity. What is a problem here is not Jesus Vs. the definition(any definition). It's instead Jesus Vs. History. Even then the Jesus of the discussion in not any Joshua but the Joshua who four unknown writers claim he said what we read in the NT. So to summarize It's the Jesus of the NT Vs. History.
No, if I borrow the approach of Kant and imagine that I have 10 dollars in my pocket(though I don't) I can even borrow money against them, make deals, promises....Yet that still doesn't mean that I have 10 dollars.
We have a Jesus who was supposedly born around 3/2 BC who's mother was fed up with him, His brothers didn't believe in him, the Jews barely listened to him, the Romans crucified him and then his followers run away from him at the last minute. One of them actually sold him to the Romans. Then 4 books that we ignore their writers(Written around 60/80/105/160 AD), a language (Greek) that doesn't seem to be the language that Jesus spoke. Then a reapparition which basically convinced James the Just and Paul. A long confusion about the guy to a point where we even question the validity of heresy. A heresy is when we have a theological set and whoever is outside is heretic but in the case of christianity we don't even know what was the rule and who was out. The Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas is definitily different from the Jesus of Paul.
Then comes the worst part. Not a single strong evidence confirming his existence.
As far as I'm concerned, if god bothered to make it to earth how come he failed to leave a single footprint behind him. If he claimed he was the son of God how can his followers dump him. Didn't they know what divinity meant?
Therefore, A person by the name of Joshua probably existed like many other Joshuas, that he was opposed to some of the traditions of the Jews is also possible. But that he had anything to do with the bible or Christianity lacks proof. If you look at it from the other side. We have a person who we don't know when he was born, where he was born, who was his father, when he died, where he was buried is a stretch for a person who can use a computer.
Then comes the spiritual approach to Jesus. A new definition that keeps away from all material similarities. Jesus is the Light of the day, the heart of the sun......This is basically a sterile language that leads nowhere. If you read Muslim Soufis they basically say the same thing about Allah, Cabbala have a very similar language regarding God. Bouddism can be a pleasure when you listen to their description of their search of truth.....Meaning that once we start using a supposedly spiritual language to describe an earthly issue or an earthly creature we get lost refining words to say that we lost what we were looking for. You cannot use symbols to ask for a cup of water when you are thirsty.
Regards

David Bowden

Thanks for the heads-up, Toto; I'll check out both of them.

-Wanderer

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Amos

HelloKarim

The point here is that you could be another Jesus but only if you belong to our mythology. Why should you become another Christ? Certainly not for my sake nor for the sake of your parents but only so it may go well with you. If you object to this your idea of our mythology is wrong. To say that God did not leave a trace behind only means that you do not realize that every bush is a burning bush nor recognize that your own footprints are those of God.

If religion comes across to you as a scam I might even agree with you but remember that I stated earlier that the game is played for keeps and that the rise and fall of a civilization depends on it.

Be carefull with Buddhism because it never generated nearly as many Buddha's as Judaism and/or Catholicism generated Christians.