Historical Jesus

[James Brown]

I'm reminded of the joke about the Christian proselytizer who meets his match in a very knowledgeable Jew. The Jew says, "There were great rabbis who were contemporaries of Jesus, yet none of them were convinced, so why should I believe?"

The proselytizing Christian says, "Even your great rabbis weren't so smart about Moshiach. Consider Rabbi Akiva—he thought Bar Kochba was Moshiach!"

The Jew says, "Well, maybe Rabbi Akiva was right—perhaps Bar Kochba was indeed Moshiach."

The Christian is flabbergasted at this claim. "Don't be ridiculous, Bar Kochba could NOT be Moshiach. He didn't fulfill the prophesies regarding Moshiach. He didn’t restore David’s throne, he didn’t overthrow the Jewish oppressors, he didn’t usher in an era of peace and prosperity. And he was killed by the Romans. So of course couldn't be Moshiach!"

And the Jew just says, "Aha!"

 

[Jarhyn]

Get rid of the supernatural and Jesus makes sense in the politics of the day.

This is really the point.

A guy named Jesus grew up in Nazareth, joined the anti-Roman underground, was executed for treason. All that is utterly plausible. I believe that there was a historical Jesus.

But the elephant in the room is the term "Jesus the Messiah". Everyone then, including the Romans, knew what a messiah is. That's a human warrior king, anointed by God, to save The Chosen People from foreign oppressors. That would be the Romans. Messiahhood was a capital crime. Even being closely associated with a messiah could get you killed. So, of course, none of His closer followers, or their followers, would say anything about that. They certainly wouldn't write anything about it.

So in a process similar to evolution, the original disciples died out. Leaving the Pauline Jesus for history and Gospel writers and such. Because the Romans didn't care about squabbles between Jews and heretical offshoots.

Can't you just picture a real Jew turning to some Christian, as the temple is being destroyed, saying, "Where's that messiah of yours now? Hunh!?"
Tom

And then what more is it to recognize that there were many such groups, many such persons attached to the anti-woman underground, and many such original disciples not writing or saying anything about it in public?

Eventually across 200 years of that shit, all those messiah's will melt together in the chaotic heat of oral transfer, much like a bag of gummi bears, until there is just one gummi-mass with no telling who they actually worship or care about, made all the worse by the tendency to leave their hero unnamed except for an abbreviation.

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Get rid of the supernatural and Jesus makes sense in the politics of the day.

This is really the point.

A guy named Jesus grew up in Nazareth, joined the anti-Roman underground, was executed for treason. All that is utterly plausible. I believe that there was a historical Jesus.

But the elephant in the room is the term "Jesus the Messiah". Everyone then, including the Romans, knew what a messiah is. That's a human warrior king, anointed by God, to save The Chosen People from foreign oppressors. That would be the Romans. Messiahhood was a capital crime. Even being closely associated with a messiah could get you killed. So, of course, none of His closer followers, or their followers, would say anything about that. They certainly wouldn't write anything about it.

So in a process similar to evolution, the original disciples died out. Leaving the Pauline Jesus for history and Gospel writers and such. Because the Romans didn't care about squabbles between Jews and heretical offshoots.

Can't you just picture a real Jew turning to some Christian, as the temple is being destroyed, saying, "Where's that messiah of yours now? Hunh!?"
Tom

And then what more is it to recognize that there were many such groups, many such persons attached to the anti-woman underground, and many such original disciples not writing or saying anything about it in public?

Eventually across 200 years of that shit, all those messiah's will melt together in the chaotic heat of oral transfer, much like a bag of gummi bears, until there is just one gummi-mass with no telling who they actually worship or care about, made all the worse by the tendency to leave their hero unnamed except for an abbreviation.

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

It is abundantly evident that the Jesus character is an inspired fictional construct. This fits the genre. And I think we've discovered this inspired Jesus countless times in discussions. The historical Jesus however remains a phantasm. We could conclude that the historical Jesus is in fact an inspired fictional construct, but I don't think that will wash with persons unfamiliar with how fiction is composed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Get rid of the supernatural and Jesus makes sense in the politics of the day.

This is really the point.

A guy named Jesus grew up in Nazareth, joined the anti-Roman underground, was executed for treason. All that is utterly plausible. I believe that there was a historical Jesus.

But the elephant in the room is the term "Jesus the Messiah". Everyone then, including the Romans, knew what a messiah is. That's a human warrior king, anointed by God, to save The Chosen People from foreign oppressors. That would be the Romans. Messiahhood was a capital crime. Even being closely associated with a messiah could get you killed. So, of course, none of His closer followers, or their followers, would say anything about that. They certainly wouldn't write anything about it.

So in a process similar to evolution, the original disciples died out. Leaving the Pauline Jesus for history and Gospel writers and such. Because the Romans didn't care about squabbles between Jews and heretical offshoots.

Can't you just picture a real Jew turning to some Christian, as the temple is being destroyed, saying, "Where's that messiah of yours now? Hunh!?"
Tom

And then what more is it to recognize that there were many such groups, many such persons attached to the anti-woman underground, and many such original disciples not writing or saying anything about it in public?

Eventually across 200 years of that shit, all those messiah's will melt together in the chaotic heat of oral transfer, much like a bag of gummi bears, until there is just one gummi-mass with no telling who they actually worship or care about, made all the worse by the tendency to leave their hero unnamed except for an abbreviation.

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

It is abundantly evident that the Jesus character is an inspired fictional construct. This fits the genre. And I think we've discovered this inspired Jesus countless times in discussions. The historical Jesus however remains a phantasm. We could conclude that the historical Jesus is in fact an inspired fictional construct, but I don't think that will wash with persons unfamiliar with how fiction is composed.

I would say there is an inspiration, a particularly successful early example that spawned much of this behavioral wave through Jewish culture.

I'm pretty sure historical Tyler Durden as it were got fused with historical Robert Paulson to become the fiction, to use a metaphor.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've "said my piece" on this matter. But I will say it again!

Consider three books: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway, John Brown: Abolitionist by David Reynolds, and the Gospel allegedly written by "Mark." All three contain parables; all three describe heroic men who perform almost supernatural deeds. (How long did Santiago keep his arm-wrestler in stalemate?)

Two of these books were written in the 20th century, and one was written about 1900 years earlier: Obviously that will have a huge effect on what we can deduce about these books. The little meme that Old Man and the Sea is fiction so Mark's Gospel is also is just silly. (And wasn't even supported by comparison of content or style.) Should we conclude that John Brown: Abolitionist is just fiction also? Yet we have people arguing that because Jesus didn't walk on water he didn't exist at all. Davy Crockett didn't kill a b'ar when he was only three: Does that mean he didn't exist either?

Get rid of the supernatural and Jesus makes sense in the politics of the day.

This is really the point.

A guy named Jesus grew up in Nazareth, joined the anti-Roman underground, was executed for treason. All that is utterly plausible. I believe that there was a historical Jesus.

But the elephant in the room is the term "Jesus the Messiah". Everyone then, including the Romans, knew what a messiah is. That's a human warrior king, anointed by God, to save The Chosen People from foreign oppressors. That would be the Romans. Messiahhood was a capital crime. Even being closely associated with a messiah could get you killed. So, of course, none of His closer followers, or their followers, would say anything about that. They certainly wouldn't write anything about it.

And then what more is it to recognize that there were many such groups, many such persons attached to the anti-woman underground, and many such original disciples not writing or saying anything about it in public?

Eventually across 200 years of that shit, all those messiah's will melt together in the chaotic heat of oral transfer, much like a bag of gummi bears, until there is just one gummi-mass with no telling who they actually worship or care about, made all the worse by the tendency to leave their hero unnamed except for an abbreviation.

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

Which 200 years are we talking about? James the Just was stoned to death in 62 AD; there were Christians in Rome by that time; we know that early Gospels existed circa 90 AD. So the "200 years" apparently does not include any of the 2nd century; most of Tolebot Yeshu was even later than that.

Yes, yes, we know that one writer spoke of "Chrestians" in Rome instead of "Christians" and — even though Paul and Josephus NEVER mention ANY other "brothers of Jesus" — apologists for mythicism claim that "brother" didn't mean "brother." (Do you mythicists even listen to yourselves? You accuse historicists of grasping at straws? )

 

[Jarhyn]

I've "said my piece" on this matter. But I will say it again!

Consider three books: The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway, John Brown: Abolitionist by David Reynolds, and the Gospel allegedly written by "Mark." All three contain parables; all three describe heroic men who perform almost supernatural deeds. (How long did Santiago keep his arm-wrestler in stalemate?)

Two of these books were written in the 20th century, and one was written about 1900 years earlier: Obviously that will have a huge effect on what we can deduce about these books. The little meme that Old Man and the Sea is fiction so Mark's Gospel is also is just silly. (And wasn't even supported by comparison of content or style.) Should we conclude that John Brown: Abolitionist is just fiction also? Yet we have people arguing that because Jesus didn't walk on water he didn't exist at all. Davy Crockett didn't kill a b'ar when he was only three: Does that mean he didn't exist either?

Get rid of the supernatural and Jesus makes sense in the politics of the day.

This is really the point.

A guy named Jesus grew up in Nazareth, joined the anti-Roman underground, was executed for treason. All that is utterly plausible. I believe that there was a historical Jesus.

But the elephant in the room is the term "Jesus the Messiah". Everyone then, including the Romans, knew what a messiah is. That's a human warrior king, anointed by God, to save The Chosen People from foreign oppressors. That would be the Romans. Messiahhood was a capital crime. Even being closely associated with a messiah could get you killed. So, of course, none of His closer followers, or their followers, would say anything about that. They certainly wouldn't write anything about it.

And then what more is it to recognize that there were many such groups, many such persons attached to the anti-woman underground, and many such original disciples not writing or saying anything about it in public?

Eventually across 200 years of that shit, all those messiah's will melt together in the chaotic heat of oral transfer, much like a bag of gummi bears, until there is just one gummi-mass with no telling who they actually worship or care about, made all the worse by the tendency to leave their hero unnamed except for an abbreviation.

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

Which 200 years are we talking about? James the Just was stoned to death in 62 AD; there were Christians in Rome by that time; we know that early Gospels existed circa 90 AD. So the "200 years" apparently does not include any of the 2nd century; most of Tolebot Yeshu was even later than that.

Yes, yes, we know that one writer spoke of "Chrestians" in Rome instead of "Christians" and — even though Paul and Josephus NEVER mention ANY other "brothers of Jesus" — apologists for mythicism claim that "brother" didn't mean "brother." (Do you mythicists even listen to yourselves? You accuse historicists of grasping at straws? )

That there are some people whose histories are more visible in the melted mass of it all, and indeed given the fact that "brother" in this context is very much vulnerable to metaphorical brotherhood impinging on actual brotherhood, as a term of position within an organization rather than strict familial relationship, does not change the fact that the events being examined range from ~70bc to ~130ce, when the polemics we're actually put to paper.

Any Messiah figure, from JtB to Chrestus, to even folks whose name didn't even start with a J, would have gotten rolled into that mess of post-Jewish cult-expansion.

It is even more apparent insofar as it is likely that Jesus was used as a name specifically for folks who got executed bucking against the orthodoxy, in addition to bucking against Rome, much like "Karen" is used today: yes it's ostensibly a name, but do you think any of these Karens are actually named Karen? In a thousand years time when they are piecing together history, will they believe there is a historical Karen?

 

[Swammerdami]

That there are some people whose histories are more visible in the melted mass of it all, and indeed given the fact that "brother" in this context is very much vulnerable to metaphorical brotherhood impinging on actual brotherhood, as a term of position within an organization rather than strict familial relationship, does not change the fact that the events being examined range from ~70bc to ~130ce, when the polemics we're actually put to paper.

Phrases like "Lord's brother" or "brother of Jesus" occur exactly once (1 time) in the entire New Testament. That single instance, far from exalting the Lord's brother, is almost dismissive.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Josephus mentions the same brother relationship. Was he playing along with the metaphor? (Yes, yes we know that mythicists are eager to dismiss Josephus. Carrier treats the legitimacy as Zero (0) when he does his famous "Bayesian calculations" — Would you care to comment on this approach to statistics, Jarhyn?)

Even if the entire "brother of Jesus" clause was interpolated in the 2nd century, the implication is still that the "brotherness" was thought to be genetic, not metaphorical.

Dismiss Josephus, but take Toledot Yeshu to the bank! !! When I started reading these threads a few months ago I was open-minded and wanted to learn what the mythicist case was. By now, I'm convinced it's utter crackpottery.

It is even more apparent insofar as it is likely that Jesus was used as a name specifically for folks who got executed bucking against the orthodoxy, in addition to bucking against Rome, much like "Karen" is used today:...

Is there evidence that Jesus was used similarly to how Karen is today? Or is this just an "inference" from a story in Toledot?

 

[Swammerdami]

That there are some people whose histories are more visible in the melted mass of it all, and indeed given the fact that "brother" in this context is very much vulnerable to metaphorical brotherhood impinging on actual brotherhood, as a term of position within an organization rather than strict familial relationship, does not change the fact that the events being examined range from ~70bc to ~130ce, when the polemics we're actually put to paper.

Phrases like "Lord's brother" or "brother of Jesus" occur exactly once (1 time) in the entire New Testament. That single instance, far from exalting the Lord's brother, is almost dismissive.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Josephus mentions the same brother relationship. Was he playing along with the metaphor? (Yes, yes we know that mythicists are eager to dismiss Josephus. Carrier treats the legitimacy as Zero (0) when he does his famous "Bayesian calculations" — Would you care to comment on this approach to statistics, Jarhyn?)

Even if the entire "brother of Jesus" clause was interpolated in the 2nd century, the implication is still that the "brotherness" was thought to be genetic, not metaphorical.

Dismiss Josephus, but take Toledot Yeshu to the bank! !! When I started reading these threads a few months ago I was open-minded and wanted to learn what the mythicist case was. By now, I'm convinced it's utter crackpottery.

It is even more apparent insofar as it is likely that Jesus was used as a name specifically for folks who got executed bucking against the orthodoxy, in addition to bucking against Rome, much like "Karen" is used today:...

Is there evidence that Jesus was used similarly to how Karen is today? Or is this just an "inference" from a story in Toledot?

Let's dwell on the matter of James' brother a bit. Did Josephus even mention this? I'll discuss this below, but for this brief paragraph let's stipulate that a Judge has ruled Josephus' writings to be a possible forgery and hence inadmissable. The jury will not be allowed to see what Josephus wrote. Does that mean its evidentiary value is Zero? Richard Carrier seems to think so. Raise your hand if you think that the courtroom concept of inadmissability is compatible with Bayesian analysis.

When therefore Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead; and Albinus was but upon the road. So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some others; [or, some of his companions.] And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned. But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done. They also sent to the King [Agrippa,] desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more: for that what he had already done was not to be justified. Nay some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria; and informed him, that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complyed with what they said; and wrote in anger to Ananus; and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done. On which account King Agrippa took the High Priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months; and made Jesus, the son of Damneus High Priest.

Does anyone think this ENTIRE passage was a 2nd- (or 3rd-) century addition? To the contrary this appears to be an important event; is it not well attested elsewhere? Some go so far as to guess that it was the stoning of James that led to the Jewish Revolt.

"and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James"

If you were a 2nd- or 3rd- (or 4th-?, or 5th-??) century Christian trying to doctor Josephus' text to promulgate your Jesus lie, is this how you would doctor it? Does it sound like "brother" is a metaphor here? Do you infer anything from "who was called"? What is the probability that this text is, more or less, just as Josephus wrote it in the 1st century?

(BTW, Wikipedia shows "called Christ" in its translation from Book XX but "was the Messiah" in Book XVIII. I suppose the text uses the same Greek word in each case; I dunno.)

 

[TomC]

Dismiss Josephus, but take Toledot Yeshu to the bank! !! When I started reading these threads a few months ago I was open-minded and wanted to learn what the mythicist case was. By now, I'm convinced it's utter crackpottery.

I've not found this conversation interesting for decades. For exactly this reason.

Hard core mysticism has come to resemble the inverse of hard core literalism. Either it's all " completely ahistorical fiction" or it's all "the Word of God".

The lack of nuance and plausibility, supported by really selective prioritizing of "evidence", makes "mythic Jesus" look as unreasonable as "Jesus son of God". The arguments all look like flailing.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

Let me ask this.

Suppose there was an early first century Jew named Jesus. A real live person, who was charismatic. Also shadowy, and dangerous to know. After He died, or otherwise disappeared, a cult following developed a largely fictional legend. The legends included sayings and parables, miracles and Godhood.

Would you consider that "completely ahistorical fiction"?

I don't. Mostly fictitious, sure, but not the kernel of truth at the heart of the Legend of the Christ.

To me, the historical Jesus seems an ideal starting point for a legend.
Tom

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Thus, all these historical personages would melt together into the completely ahistorical fictions of the polemics we all know.

Let me ask this.

Suppose there was an early first century Jew named Jesus. A real live person, who was charismatic. Also shadowy, and dangerous to know. After He died, or otherwise disappeared, a cult following developed a largely fictional legend. The legends included sayings and parables, miracles and Godhood.

Would you consider that "completely ahistorical fiction"?

I don't. Mostly fictitious, sure, but not the kernel of truth at the heart of the Legend of the Christ.

To me, the historical Jesus seems an ideal starting point for a legend.
Tom

As a story, yes. But as an actual account of a person that went about as told in the gospel stories, no.

What you have to understand and accept is that this is how writers get their plots and their stories. They don't invent this stuff whole cloth. Sure, a writer can be inspired by something he experienced, but this does not make the fictional narrative historical. It is obvious to anyone who has ever written fiction that the gospels are fiction. Lots of different storylines and experiences are woven into a narrative that hopefully appeals to an audience.

 

[TomC]

As a story, yes. But as an actual account of a person that went about as told in the gospel stories, no.

The difference is that you're talking about Gospel Jesus. I'm talking about Historical Jesus. They're not the same things.

The premise the Jesus was invented whole cloth seems implausible to me. More plausible than Jesus Son of God, but still less plausible than Jesus who inspired a following who built a legend around Him. A totally fictional Jesus would have been more polished. Such as coming from a more auspicious town than podunk Galilee.

In fact, I think that many of the most implausible parts came from plastering over parts of historical Jesus. The story as told is much more inspiring than "Jesus, bastard son of a Roman soldier, fell in with a bad crowd in Jerusalem. He was sentenced to crucifixion. But He dodged the crucifixion and returned home. The He realized that neither He nor His family would be safe as long as He remained in Roman territory, so He took off never to return."
So bastard child became virgin birth. Dodging execution became Resurrection and Ascension. Who knows how much of all this the early Christians even believed?
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

There were a number of people claiming to be the messiah. I agree with Moogley. Look at the history of fiction.

While many people believe there was a flesh and broof King Arthur it is not liey he existed. He was fabrcated by a monk who wrote a History Of Britain that was popular in the day. The added supernatural element.

I grew up thinking he was an historical figure.

 

[TomC]

There were a number of people claiming to be the messiah. I agree with Moogley. Look at the history of fiction.

I can't tell whether I agree with @T.G.G. Moogly or not. He seems to recognize the existence of historical Jesus, but wants to talk about Gospel Jesus, the Legend of the Christ.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

There were a number of people claiming to be the messiah. I agree with Moogley. Look at the history of fiction.

I can't tell whether I agree with @T.G.G. Moogly or not. He seems to recognize the existence of historical Jesus, but wants to talk about Gospel Jesus, the Legend of the Christ.
Tom

The point of discussing Jesus as Mythological Figure is to expose that regardless of what did happen, it wasn't much of anything like what is in the stories: All of the historical truth of any "Jesus" narrative is lost beneath layers of fictions and polemics, and the honest seeker is left admitting that the Bible is no more authoritative on that which is right than, say, the work of Brandon Sanderson, and that the hero of the gospel stories is a fiction loosely hung around a hole in our historical knowledge.

I keep pointing out that of the most valuable lessons in the book, none of them actually rely on it being true. The only part that really hinges on the story being true is the part that religious Christians try to use threats of hell to push: join our church (or, barring that, any church) and pay us (or whoever) tithes (or go to hell forever)!

 

[steve_bank]

Bram Stoker took the name Dracula from a histrial leader whose nickname was Vlad The Impaller. H threw people of a wall onto stakes. To terrify an invader he hung dead bodies in the path.

Vlad was not a vampire he was a rational but brutal bloody leader of his times. Look at all the creative variations of the vampire theme through today.

Transylvania was a real place associated with Vlad.

The old Dracula Hammer films I grew up watching with Christoper Lee and others. The original German silent film Nosferatu about Dracula.

vlad impaller trasylvania - Google Search

Vlad III, commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Țepeș [ˈvlad ˈt͡sepeʃ]) or Vlad Dracula (/ˈdrækjələ/; Romanian: Vlad Drăculea [ˈdrəkule̯a]; 1428/31 – 1476/77), was Voivode of Wallachia three times between 1448 and his death in 1476/77. He is often considered one of the most important rulers in Wallachian history and a national hero of Romania.[4]

He was the second son of Vlad Dracul, who became the ruler of Wallachia in 1436. Vlad and his younger brother, Radu, were held as hostages in the Ottoman Empire in 1442 to secure their father's loyalty. Vlad's eldest brother Mircea and their father were murdered after John Hunyadi, regent-governor of Hungary, invaded Wallachia in 1447. Hunyadi installed Vlad's second cousin, Vladislav II, as the new voivode. Hunyadi launched a military campaign against the Ottomans in the autumn of 1448, and Vladislav accompanied him. Vlad broke into Wallachia with Ottoman support in October, but Vladislav returned and Vlad sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire before the end of the year. Vlad went to Moldavia in 1449 or 1450, and later to Hungary.

The stories about Vlad made him the best-known medieval ruler of the Romanian lands in Europe.[190] However, Bram Stoker's Dracula, which was published in 1897, was the first book to make a connection between Dracula and vampirism.[191] Stoker had his attention drawn to the blood-sucking vampires of Romanian folklore by Emily Gerard's article about Transylvanian superstitions (published in 1885).[192] His limited knowledge about the medieval history of Wallachia came from William Wilkinson's book entitled Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia with Political Observations Relative to Them, published in 1820.[193][194]

Stoker "apparently did not know much about" Vlad the Impaler, "certainly not enough for us to say that Vlad was the inspiration for" Count Dracula, according to Elizabeth Miller.[195] For instance, Stoker wrote that Dracula had been of Székely origin only because he knew about both Attila the Hun's destructive campaigns and the alleged Hunnic origin of the Székelys.[196] Stoker's main source, Wilkinson, who accepted the reliability of the German stories, described Vlad as a wicked man.[197] Actually, Stoker's working papers for his book contain no references to the historical figure,[194] the name of the character being named in all drafts but the later ones 'Count Wampyr'. Consequently, Sto

The human imagination si boundless.

 

[TomC]

The point of discussing Jesus as Mythological Figure is to expose that regardless of what did happen, it wasn't much of anything like what is in the stories:

How is that different from what I've been saying?

Gospel Jesus bears little resemblance to Historical Jesus. But historical Jesus isn't a fictional character.

Understanding historical Jesus helps explain how Christianity came to be what it is now. A paganized version of solid Jewish communitarian ethics. One that survived and grew, as the world of Jesus and His following was destroyed.

That's not the same as a myth.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

The point of discussing Jesus as Mythological Figure is to expose that regardless of what did happen, it wasn't much of anything like what is in the stories:

How is that different from what I've been saying?

Gospel Jesus bears little resemblance to Historical Jesus. But historical Jesus isn't a fictional character.

Understanding historical Jesus helps explain how Christianity came to be what it is now. A paganized version of solid Jewish communitarian ethics. One that survived and grew, as the world of Jesus and His following was destroyed.

That's not the same as a myth.
Tom

But everything the average "historicist" wants to be true is completely and utterly hogwash.

I would as soon wage that there was a guy up Norway ways who had one eye and called his horse "slippy" but that isn't grounds for actually discussing Odin as a historical figure, either.

"Myth" does not mean entirely unfounded in historical events. Mythicism is not the same as pure fictionalism. It's still possible that it is a fiction, too, but I don't think it's worthwhile or valuable to anyone to solidly validate that any more than I think it's worthwhile to try to discuss historicity of Odin.

 

[TomC]

But everything the average "historicist" wants to be true is completely and utterly hogwash.

What are you talking about? Jesus existed, I believe. Not Gospel Jesus, but historical Jesus.

You seem unable to distinguish between historicist and literalist.

What do you mean by "average 'historicist"? Am I one? Swammer? Lumpy certainly isn't. What are you talking about?
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

But everything the average "historicist" wants to be true is completely and utterly hogwash.

What are you talking about? Jesus existed, I believe. Not Gospel Jesus, but historical Jesus.

You seem unable to distinguish between historicist and literalist.

What do you mean by "average 'historicist"? Am I one? Swammer? Lumpy certainly isn't. What are you talking about?
Tom

I would as soon wage that there was a guy up Norway ways who had one eye and called his horse "slippy" but that isn't grounds for actually discussing Odin as a historical figure, either.

There is no difference across the boundary of discussing Historical Odin vs Historical Jesus.

They are both myths, with some event that birthed the stories based on the life of... Someone we know absolutely nothing of value about.

The stories are as historically useful as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Which is to say they are myths built around a kernel of some kind as all myths are.

It's rotten ice, and the attempt to stand literally anything on it besides "some post-Jewish cults happens and some folks got executed for participating in them while claiming the basic core of what would become gnostic thought: that they had become one with EinSof in their exposure to 'truth'."