What part of "Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical ) is myth" don't you understand?
I gave the definition of the word myth too
What is the problem? Besides you not providing evidence for historical Jesus. ..
-
Features
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter none
- Start date
What part of "Jesus Christ ( historical / biblical ) is myth" don't you understand?
I gave the definition of the word myth too
What is the problem? Besides you not providing evidence for historical Jesus. ..
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,659
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
You haven't clarified whether your position is that Jesus was a real person or not.
Why should I? I said I'm agnostic on the issue. But if you're not (can't tell), you need to pony up.
Oh, you're here to harass me
In the guise of inquiry.
What Jesus are you referring to?
Haha
It is just words
If you can't identify who you want me to pontificate about it isn't my problem
Bye
Atheos
Veteran Member
Huh? Saying "it's also possible" is not the same as saying "It's the unimpeachable fact." My theory leaves the specific origins completely open as it should be since there is absolutely no evidence in the historical record prior to the letters of Paul. Saying that the "movement" was going around before Paul began writing his letters is not the same as saying that it was started by one specific individual, much less that this individual was the one under discussion. It's possible that the christian movement prior to Paul was the result of a collaboration of several people and melding philosophies. In the absence of evidence leading to any specific scenario the only rational thing is to admit that we just really don't know at this time and start with where we can.
We know that Paul only ever refers to Jesus in terms of a voice talking directly to him and specifically denies having learned anything about this movement from any man. He claims to have once been a persecutor of this movement, but once again if this is accepted at face value it still doesn't mean there was a historical Jesus. He only ever talks about crucifixion / resurrection in abstract terms, never describing when or where it took place. As has been mentioned already the original Greek is very ambiguous and can reasonably be interpreted in a way that places this event in a celestial realm rather than on earth.
Having said all that I personally still believe Christianity was probably started with an historical figure named Jesus who was an itinerant preacher that got a small but zealous cult going. He did something that pissed off the ruling class of Jewish leaders and got himself Jimmy Hoffa'd. His followers refused to believe he was really gone and stuck together believing he would "return soon." Paul saw an opportunity to seize a bit of power and money and began "channeling" Jesus at which point the ball got rolling. I think this is a parsimonious theory that fits the evidence quite well. Everything else is the result of Paul's ability to move the product and legend-building.
I welcome challenges to my theory and enjoy refining it as new information becomes available.
I figure the story, the one attributed to Paul, was manifest to challenge Roman Jewish control, maybe retaliation.
There could have been a street preacher named chuck that was the inspiration but the story need not any anchor in reality of street preachers, it's unlikely to me
Why else would somebody fabricate a murder story?
haha
There could have been a street preacher named chuck that was the inspiration but the story need not any anchor in reality of street preachers, it's unlikely to me
Why else would somebody fabricate a murder story?
haha
angelo
Deleted
Without Paul there would be no xtianity!
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
I read somewhere that the origins of Christianity lay in Alexander's conquest, which ended the temple state. That vacuum gave rise to collegias, groups of like minded individuals who gathered regularly to share their interests.
That a person could achieve salvation through the mind without regard to their social origin was the innovation IMO. This was grounded in Greek philosophy, but made more accessible by writers such as the author of Paul. Judaism was unique in that it was literary, which caused many people in the ancient world to conflate Judaism with Greek philosophy. Also it was available for people to study, as opposed to oral traditions. Where there was a Greek-Jewish synthesis going on, eg Alexandria, writers such as Philo explored these issues. The early Christian writers were a continuation of this process.
It helps to understand what the logos is, because that understanding demonstrates the significance of the messiah figure. Reading Doherty again, I see that for all his insight, he does not understand the logos. Understanding is an experience greater than the sum of its parts. Whenever we understand anything, we begin by learning points or facts about something and eventually we sense a wholeness that informs us we're achieving an understanding. That understanding is Transcendence and those steps, items and facts that lead us there is Intelligibility. Or, the One and its Logos, or the Father and the Son. This is Platonic philosophy cast in religious terms.
Now, while all this is going on, there are also sages wandering around exhorting people to lead ethical or spiritual lives. Eg the Cynic sage, a very Jesus like figure.
It seems quite possible that people started seeing the figure of the sage, the Jewish messiah, and the logos as the same thing. Much more likely than the result of the efforts of a single man.
That a person could achieve salvation through the mind without regard to their social origin was the innovation IMO. This was grounded in Greek philosophy, but made more accessible by writers such as the author of Paul. Judaism was unique in that it was literary, which caused many people in the ancient world to conflate Judaism with Greek philosophy. Also it was available for people to study, as opposed to oral traditions. Where there was a Greek-Jewish synthesis going on, eg Alexandria, writers such as Philo explored these issues. The early Christian writers were a continuation of this process.
It helps to understand what the logos is, because that understanding demonstrates the significance of the messiah figure. Reading Doherty again, I see that for all his insight, he does not understand the logos. Understanding is an experience greater than the sum of its parts. Whenever we understand anything, we begin by learning points or facts about something and eventually we sense a wholeness that informs us we're achieving an understanding. That understanding is Transcendence and those steps, items and facts that lead us there is Intelligibility. Or, the One and its Logos, or the Father and the Son. This is Platonic philosophy cast in religious terms.
Now, while all this is going on, there are also sages wandering around exhorting people to lead ethical or spiritual lives. Eg the Cynic sage, a very Jesus like figure.
It seems quite possible that people started seeing the figure of the sage, the Jewish messiah, and the logos as the same thing. Much more likely than the result of the efforts of a single man.
Anyone who believes an important historical figure was invented because of a couple of silly legends got attached to his name is a conspiracy theorist gone mad. Who with power gained? How? Who managed to make up such convincing narratives and letters?
It is, I'm afraid, almost impossible to argue with those who don't understand history. As I've said before, God help us if the history of Britain depended on what a few imperial propagandists condescended to say about the colonials.
It is, I'm afraid, almost impossible to argue with those who don't understand history. As I've said before, God help us if the history of Britain depended on what a few imperial propagandists condescended to say about the colonials.
So your evidence for historical Jesus is zero, maybe the conspiracy you mention is not a conspiracy at all
Who needs evidence when you have a gut feeling?
James Brown
Veteran Member
Mormons call it "a burning in the bosom."
In case of jesus the only reason people believes in him is because of these silly legends.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
So all you have is a rant.
angelo
Deleted
You're proof for that statement is?
All Americans, apparently, spend all their time looking for a sacred text to 'prove' whatever bullshit they happen to believe, and if you deny all the Christian evidence, clearly, the public execution of a minor religious teacher being below aristocratic Roman notice, you are left with no magic text other than what your mates wrote for Wikipedia last week. All these weirdoes, as I keep saying, have to explain how a movement sprang up and took over the Roman Empire within an incredibly short time if it didn't suit someone in power. But they all believe in magic, so no problem!
It suited Constantin perfectly so what are you whining about?
We are not talking about the existence of Constantine, but of the central figures of the religion he was able use to save his Empire. Or do you believe he somehow made it up?
C_Mucius_Scaevola
Veteran Member
300 years (from the time of the alleged Ministry to Constantine) is not an "incredibly short time". And even then, it was another 70 years before Xianity "took over the Roman Empire", in that it became the official religion under Theodosius. 300 years ago, people moved around by horse power or by foot; today we fly across oceans in a matter of hours. Maybe things moved slower in Antiquity, but 300 years is still a hell of a long time for a belief system to develop.