Historical Jesus

[No Robots]

DeCasseres:

Christ made of poverty a virtue. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He was fundamentally a realist. He knew there was nothing comparable on earth, nothing more horrible, than lack of money. Hunger, starvation, the defeated flesh, disease, filth and slavery were to him the hells of the race. He knew that economic freedom was the only freedom worth while. It released the mind and the body. Poverty is a fundamental condition of movement and life. So he promised the poor the felicities of the rich in the country houses and golf-greens of a Beyond, where the landlord ceases from troubling and the belly is at rest.
The Buddha offered a get-a-way into Nirvana, but Jesus insisted on vengeance. He threw Dives out of Heaven and made Lazarus the Lord of Dives’ estates. It is probable that Dives was in every way superior to Lazarus. He was probably an art-patron and a lady’s man de luxe. And it is just as probable that Lazarus did not have, and will probably never have, a pleasure-aspiration above the lowest type of moving-picture. Nevertheless, the gesture was a fine one. Jesus whispered to the human race à la Iago, “Put money in thy purse.”
Therefore I salute Jesus, God of Poverty!

 

[Juvenal]

Forgive me for not slogging through a thousand posts before joining in ... and probably reiterating what's already been said.

I believe Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James is enough to show there was a flesh and blood human behind the myths that grew out around him.

The fact he died so early without leaving any writing of his own behind him made it easier to build up the myth. And once his attributes had been sufficiently enhanced, it became theologically necessary to identify him with the Jewish creator deity.

So, did an historical Jesus exist. Almost certainly. But did he walk on water? To answer that, I'd want to know how cold it actually was in Galilee that day.

 

[steve_bank]

Forgive me for not slogging through a thousand posts before joining in ... and probably reiterating what's already been said.

I believe Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James is enough to show there was a flesh and blood human behind the myths that grew out around him.

The fact he died so early without leaving any writing of his own behind him made it easier to build up the myth. And once his attributes had been sufficiently enhanced, it became theologically necessary to identify him with the Jewish creator deity.

So, did an historical Jesus exist. Almost certainly. But did he walk on water? To answer that, I'd want to know how cold it actually was in Galilee that day.

By that reasoning because it is reported Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead.

No different than today, writers 2000 years ago wrote to support a narrative and agenda.

Paul coud have said he met a relative of Jesus as a way to estblish credibilityand a link to a Jesus.

 

[No Robots]

All the talk of Jesus being a myth is reactionary. Just as the Church made him out to be a god in order to keep the poor away from the power of his doctrines, so now do our scientifico-scholastic masters try to do the same by calling him a myth. It is all distraction, chucking dust into our eyes.

 

[Juvenal]

I believe Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James is enough to show there was a flesh and blood human behind the myths that grew out around him.

By that reasoning because it is reported Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead.

Brothers are natural phenomena. Walking on water is supernatural.

 

[steve_bank]

You can not trust reporting going back to the founding of the USA. Why on Earth would anyone believe in the accuracy of a few 2000 year old documents by an unknown author?

Histories have always been biased and filled with interpret ions.

The idea of journalistic and academic accuracy and truth in histories is a modern phenomena.

The Gospels and Acts were undoubtedly based on hear say communications by word of mouth.

Rejecting Jesus walking on water and accepting Paul met James to me is an arbitrary distinction, self serving interpretation.

 

[atrib]

Rejecting Jesus walking on water and accepting Paul met James to me is an arbitrary distinction, self serving interpretation.

Well said.

 

[blastula]

Paul is not an unknown author and he didn't even say Jesus walked on water.

 

[TomC]

I believe Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James is enough to show there was a flesh and blood human behind the myths that grew out around him.

By that reasoning because it is reported Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead.

Brothers are natural phenomena. Walking on water is supernatural.

Yeah, that's kinda the bottom line.

Ordinary circumstances of Jesus's life aren't the same as miraculous circumstances.


Much less inventing a new pantheon, based on Judaism but super Grecofide. Or Romaniscious, I'm not sure what the word preferred by scholars might be.

Tom

 

[Juvenal]

I believe Paul's meeting with Jesus' brother James is enough to show there was a flesh and blood human behind the myths that grew out around him.

By that reasoning because it is reported Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead.

Brothers are natural phenomena. Walking on water is supernatural.

Yeah, that's kinda the bottom line.

Ordinary circumstances of Jesus's life aren't the same as miraculous circumstances.


Much less inventing a new pantheon, based on Judaism but super Grecofide. Or Romaniscious, I'm not sure what the word preferred by scholars might be.

Tom

"Hellenistic" is the word you're looking for, I think, though I'm barely literate in comparative religions.

I once had a chance to talk with Robert Price, the "most" pre-eminent Jesus mythicist, if there is such a thing. Incredibly bright guy, but even by his own admission, mythicism, as it's coined, is not the most likely explanation. For him, it was an intellectual exercise to see how far the hypothesis could be stretched. His conclusion was that it couldn't be ruled out, and I don't disagree.

But ...

Not good enough for Occam is not good enough for me.

In any case, the above argument was ill-formed, as far as I can tell. Paul name-dropping Jesus' brother — even if they didn't actually meet and he was merely engaged in resume boosting — can't be reasonably construed as an attempt to show Jesus had a physical existence. If no one in his audience knew James was Jesus' brother, the attempt wouldn't even make sense.

 

[Juvenal]

You can not trust reporting going back to the founding of the USA. Why on Earth would anyone believe in the accuracy of a few 2000 year old documents by an unknown author?

Histories have always been biased and filled with interpret ions.

The idea of journalistic and academic accuracy and truth in histories is a modern phenomena.

The Gospels and Acts were undoubtedly based on hear say communications by word of mouth.

Rejecting Jesus walking on water and accepting Paul met James to me is an arbitrary distinction, self serving interpretation.

That last is pure ad hom.

But I'll answer it anyway. I don't believe Jesus was anything more than a first century apocalyptic preacher, making the claim that arguments supporting his existence serve me personally factually incorrect. Don't go there again.

Much of the remainder is similarly contentious.

In no particular order of importance ...

We have abundant evidence of myriad historical details going back to the origin of writing in ancient Mesopotamia.
It's possible to pull true details from false narratives, especially when their biases are known.
We don't need to know who wrote a text to know the text had an author.
Textual criticism, source criticism, and the rest of the historical toolkit can circumvent the need to rely on authority.

Short of an appeal to authority, it's still possible to note there is no authority supporting mythicism. Academically, it has the same level of support as geocentrism. No one who's serious takes it seriously.

The physical existence of a human founder of Christianity provides the simplest explanation that covers the known facts. Critical analysis can be used to strip off both supernatural and natural embellishments to reveal details about him. Failure to engage in critical analysis robs oneself of the ability to learn about the origins of the Christian religion.

Active opposition to that critical analysis robs others of the same.

As the saying goes, it's better to piss in your own beer first to see if it actually improves the flavor. What has mythicism done for you?

 

[steve_bank]

Hardly an ad hom.

Cognitive dissonance is a mental conflict that occurs when your beliefs don't line up with your actions. It's an uncomfortable state of mind when someone has contradictory values, attitudes, or perspectives about the same thing.Oct 21, 2020

Choosing to believe some things you want to be true and rejecting other things are true in a brief set of ancient writings of unknown authors is cognitive dissonance.

To me those who make Jesus into a secular hero and source of secular truth are on the same footing as the Christians.

The gospel Jesus references god. Jesus was a Jew referencing Jewish prophets, as written.

Rejecting the supernatural aspects of Jesus and using some of what Jesus allegedly said is no different than the Christian selective self serving interpretations.

The tone of your reponse is not very Jesus like to say the least. What aboit turning the other cheek? The meek shall inherit the Earth? If you are a slve be a good one?

The gospel Jesus message was bear your burdens and believe in him, your reward is an eternal paradise with god.

Secular or theist, one makes the scant reverences in the gospels into the Jesus one wants to see.

 

[blastula]

Who are you replying to, Steve? Who said Jesus was their secular hero?

 

[No Robots]

Who are you replying to, Steve? Who said Jesus was their secular hero?

He might be talking about me. I suggested above that mythicists are to be condemned because they rob humanity of the great spokesman for the poor.

 

[No Robots]

Those of us who are dedicated to making use of Christ’s words, deeds and example must do battle with those who seek to distort, destroy and deny these. If that makes us somehow unkind and therefore unChristian, well, I suppose we must live with that charge.

 

[No Robots]

Besides, look what Christ had to say about the scholastics of his day: vipers, hypocrites, whited sepulchres. He was condemning the distortions that the learned inflict upon the lowly in order to keep them ignorant and obedient. The scholastics of our day do the same. They use science as the pharisees used scripture: to beat people down.

 

[No Robots]

And just counting yourselves among the lowly doesn't let you off the hook. You play the scholastic game, you take the scholastic blame.

 

[steve_bank]

Uhhh...I was replying to the post I replied to....

I see absolutely no difference between theist interpretations and secular intersessions of Jesus.

Both end up with selective moral interpretations. If I go by the Srmon On The Mpunt the only consistent dissertation in the NT then if the meek shall inherit the Earth then we shoud be meek and humble?

It seems unlikely all the sound bites attributed to a single individual named Jesus are from one person. The gospels were probably written as promotional material for new converts.

Nobody walked around with a notebook recording events and what people said and did. We do know there were a number of Jews claiming to be the fulfillment of a prophesy. We do know Jews were looking for a new leader aka king to return Israel to power. We do know there were militant Jewish nationalists and a Jewish revolt. The archeological evidence at Masada attests to that.

Buddhist have the same issue. The stories about Buddha are anecdotal. The first writings were over a century later. Nobody knows how much of Buddhist scripture came directly form Buddha.

Ib n the 70s I got ueful things from Buddhism tat have lasted, but i;d hardly call myself Buddhist.

That Jesus called out hypocrites says what? You need 2000 year old alegged comments to call out hypocrisy today?

Calling oneself Christian and a follower of Jesus theist or otherwise and selectively quoting and interpreting Jesus if not hypocrisy is what?

If you are a Christian then how do you live your daily life in accodance with Jesus, theist or oterwise? Do you practce what Jesus says?

Jesus said do as the hypocrites say which is morally right, not what they do. Do you do what Jesus says, and if not what does that make you?

 

[No Robots]

If you are a Christian then how do you live your daily life in accodance with Jesus, theist or oterwise? Do you practce what Jesus says?

We are building a global theocracy, Christ-centred, democratic, non-religious. One of the first things needed is to clarify the nature of Christ. For us, he is the spokesman, activator and exemplar of the ascended master. We simply do not have the ability to create a second Christ. We must make use of the one we have. Attempts to deprive us of access to his thought, deeds and life must be resisted to the last. Christ made into a god-thing has been overturned. We now have Christ the man. The attempt to take away the man once again, this time by making him out to be a myth, is likewise to be overturned. We will build the new Church on the bones of of the old Church and on the bones of the mythomaniacs.

 

[No Robots]

Being meek and mild is a strategem, a way of persisting in resistance against overwhelming power. It is not a helpless sheepishness, waiting for the slaughter. Now, we need no longer confront the union of Church and state. We have only to overthrow the schoolmasters and their toadies.