The Jesus Myth--sources.

[Mike Cl]

I think that Jesus Christ was not a man, but a myth.  Off and on through the years I've dabbled in authors who think that as well, and publish their arguments for and against that idea.  I'd like to share a few of the books and I have dealing with that subject.  I'll give a brief overview of that book just to give a tiny flavor of what that author's idea is.  I would also appreciate any who would like to share any books they have dealing with that subject.  I'll kick it off with the thumbnail of a couple of books I have:

Deconstructing Jesus--Robert M. Price--2000.  Price goes right to the edge of saying that Jesus was a myth, but does not quite get there.  But I get the impression he thinks premise is correct.  Anyway, his intro gives one a taste for the book--it is titled: Jesus Christ as the Effect of Christianity, not the Cause.  He is an ex-minister and does a good job of explaining early Christianity.  Some chpt titles gives on a glimpse of his ideas--The Jesus Movements; The Christ Cults; Sacred Scapegoat; The Cruci-Fiction; and The Historical Jesus?  I liked it.

The Jesus Puzzle--Earl Doherty--1999.  This is the book that prodded Carrier into writing his latest book about Jesus; he was challenged by  his friends to critic this book and to shut them up, he did.  Carrier said that the book has some flaws, but in general he could not find much wrong with Doherty's reasoning.  And that prompted him to research and write On The Historicity of Jesus.  Doherty's ideas can be summed up with his subtitle for the book:  Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ?  And he proceeds to say, yes it did.  His is a very academic approach but very readable.  I would suggest this an excellent starter book if one is interested.

[stromboli]

Whether or not there was a messianic figure somewhere in the mix, the end result is the same- Jesus of the bible is for all intents and purposes a myth, regardless of the origins.

[Solitary]

The fact that there isn't a thing written about Jesus at the time in any public record, any historian, or any other form, but after 40-60 years after his death says it all to me. If He did what he was suppose to have done, He sure would have been famous, even more than the Beatles, and yet nothing written about his childhood, life, death, criminal records, nada! And the fact that everyone knows what He and Mary looked like is beyond stupid. 

[Mike Cl]

Whether or not there was a messianic figure somewhere in the mix, the end result is the same- Jesus of the bible is for all intents and purposes a myth, regardless of the origins.

This is exactly what I thought for a long, long time.  I thought he was real in that he was a man. But this teachings were added to, blown out of proportion and probably fabricated. 
John Dominic Crossan in Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography, puts forth a like idea.  He suggests that he was simply a wandering sage, living among the poor--he looked poor, but really a social revolutionary.  This is a more traditional view than I take--but I have it because I wanted to read what a marginal, traditional Jesus would be presented as.  He accepts traditional sources as being accurate.

[Mike Cl]

The fact that there isn't a thing written about Jesus at the time in any public record, any historian, or any other form, but after 40-60 years after his death says it all to me. If He did what he was suppose to have done, He sure would have been famous, even more than the Beatles, and yet nothing written about his childhood, life, death, criminal records, nada! And the fact that everyone knows what He and Mary looked like is beyond stupid. 

Yeah, none of that sits well with me either.  And it is becoming more and more apparent to the academic world that this just does not make any kind of sense.  In this case absence of evidence means just that--there is no evidence to present, because Jesus was the Joshua (Joshua and Jesus are the same names, different languages) messiah myth from long ago. 

[stromboli]

My point is that regardless of whether there was a messianic figure or a sage, the whole thing- as you said- ballooned beyond that to the point of Jesus being essentially all myth. For the most part I agree with your argument, because we have read much of the same stuff- the only "but" being whether the core of the myth was an actual person.

This is one of those endlessly debatable topics. But the reason I'll reserve total agreement is that there were, as a few people have pointed out, a lot of candidates for the potential of being a Messiah. But its pretty much sixes, as the end result is the same.

[Mike Cl]

My point is that regardless of whether there was a messianic figure or a sage, the whole thing- as you said- ballooned beyond that to the point of Jesus being essentially all myth. For the most part I agree with your argument, because we have read much of the same stuff- the only "but" being whether the core of the myth was an actual person.

This is one of those endlessly debatable topics. But the reason I'll reserve total agreement is that there were, as a few people have pointed out, a lot of candidates for the potential of being a Messiah. But its pretty much sixes, as the end result is the same.

I know that you and I think just about alike on this issue.  But for some reason I want to know, one way or the other, was he a man or a myth or even a man with a myth attached.  You are totally correct that in the end it probably does not matter.  Except I still like to worry at that point--like a cat with a catnip toy.  Can't leave it alone. :))

[Mike Cl]

this is the book that pushed me to new efforts when I first read it.  The Jesus Mysteries (was the 'original Jesus" a Pagan God) by Timothy Freke and Peter Ganky--1999.
It talks in great detail about the mystery religions and what those contained.  And it links the Jesus story to those myths.  Believe it or not, my minster at the time and two other guys read and discussed this book.  We read a chapter a week and every Wed. evening we discussed that chapter.  By the end of the book we all had serious doubts about Jesus being a real man.  So, I started looking deeper.  It is an easy read and quite interesting and I suggest it for just about anybody to read. 

One of the first books I read after the one above was this one--Jesus Myth by GA Wells--1999.  He is not an easy read.  But he does have good arguments, especially about Paul and the rest of the NT writers not relying on a flesh and blood man, but of a body of works detailing a cosmic type being.  But he does say it is possible that a shadowy type figure could lurk in the background of some of the Jesus stories.  He does not rule that out.

[stromboli]

It isn't an issue with me, and I've been on both sides of the question, so if after more historians weigh in it comes up Jesus was a total myth, I'd buy it.

[SGOS]

Deconstructing Jesus--Robert M. Price--2000.  Price goes right to the edge of saying that Jesus was a myth, but does not quite get there.

If one is to remain inside the confines of logic, this is the only position to hold.  Until actual proof of existence can be found, the answer remains unknown.  There are various speculations on both sides of the argument that point to various evidences that might support each view, but none of those evidences are proof.  On the myth side of the arguments, there is a lot of evidence that legitimately arouse suspicion that Jesus was a myth. 

The "Jesus a real person" side of the argument is most supported by the fallacy of numbers, in that most people just believe he existed.  There are more scholarly arguments than the fallacy of numbers, but none qualify as proof.

As for myself, I am suspicious of claims that he was a real person.  And of course, the miracle worker in the Bible is obviously a myth.

[Mike Cl]

Another Robert M. Price book--The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man--2003, is a good read.  Some of the chpt. titles are--The Hinayana Gospel; The Mahayana Gospel; The Anointed One; The Name of the Lord--all point to the fact that the biographical data of Jesus is found in all sorts of sources; sources that were in existence long before Jesus was supposed to be alive.  He demonstrates how Jesus just sort of shrinks down to nothing as one looks in detail at all the 'facts' of his real life.  A solid book and read.

The Elusive Messiah--Raymond Martin--1999 is good as an intro to this subject.  He presents a decent survey of the major players who have written on the subject.  that, in itself is worth the book's price.  He then discusses the various Christian responses to this challenge.  Finally, he wraps up with what he thinks the Christian responses will be.  A decent read and gives ideas of where to go for more detail.

[popsthebuilder]

Wasn't Jesus of Christ and/ or Jesus of Nazareth prophesied? I think soldiers were sent to kill all boys of the village he was to be born in by an Egyptian king or something. I think the romans took care of the rest, including any remnants like they said they were gonna do. A shame though. He had the right messages for the most part I think.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Wasn't Jesus of Christ and/ or Jesus of Nazareth prophesied? I think soldiers were sent to kill all boys of the village he was to be born in by an Egyptian king or something. I think the romans took care of the rest, including any remnants like they said they were gonna do. A shame though. He had the right messages for the most part I think.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Prophesied?  Sure--but anything can be shown to have been prophesied with hindsight and the ability to fix the text.  Daniel was a major source for doing that--but that text has been changed so often that nobody knows what the original said.  And at the time of 'Jesus christ' there were dozens of Jewish Messiah cults in that area of the world.  Understand that Jesus Christ was not a name.  Jesus/Joshua (same name) was a name.  Christ was a term used to denote an office.  It means 'annotated'.  There were many Christs in Jewish history.  And there were many Jesus/Joshua's running around then, as well.  Of course the Jews were looking to Jesus/Joshua to save them--that's what the name means--savior.  According to Jewish legend, Moses (not a real person, btw) lead the Jews out of Egypt toward the promised land.  He  did not get them there--Joshua did--You know 'Joshua at the battle of Jericho" and all that crap.  So, Joshua, according to Jewish myth, lead the people out of the wilderness into the promised land.  They were looking for a Joshua to lead them against the Romans.  The killing of all the boys in a village??--pure fiction.  Jesus had the right messages I guess, if you consider a mythical person capable of delivering messages.  And if you want to pick and choose which are the good ones.  Everybody picks different ones for that. 

It is all a fiction. But to fully understand that you have to do a little research.  Research the bible and it's canonization process.  And who wrote it.  And when.  Plus, read about the beginning of the Christian religion.  And don't use just one source--use several.  And read about the historicity of Jesus--once again, not just one source, but many.

[popsthebuilder]

Im

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

[popsthebuilder]

I completely agree that the bible has been tampered with. But the teachings of the old testament which I think is nearly identical to Muslim beliefs with different names   is dead on in most cases a lot of it was elders of the time doing there best to make sense of the happenings around them. Much like modern science without the controls. It was just trying to set a standard for a way of life that could lead to universal harmony

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk