The Jesus Myth--sources.

[Mike Cl]

Im

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Well, pops, if you'd like some suggestions, look over the books I listed above.  I can suggest more as well.  And while you are at it, why not pop over to the intro section and tell us about yourself.  And welcome.  Hope you stick around.

[popsthebuilder]

Thank you

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

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

Yeah, I sort of agree.  But to say 'tampered with' is making light of what was actually done.  We don't have the autographs of any of the bible.  So we don't know how deep the forgeries go--but deep they do go.  It is nothing like that the bible (either the old or new test.) were plopped to earth fully composed, and then people began 'tampering' with it.  No, it was a fabrication from the very beginning.  I suppose one could say that the OT is a sort of survival guide for nomadic desert living.  But this survival guide was more than that--it was a way to take control of a group of people because the 'elders' could demonstrate they had a pipeline to God--so follow my lead.  So, when you suggest 'modern science without the controls' was what they practiced--I guess you could say that.  But isn't that what we call 'magic' now???  Science without the controls isn't science.  The authors of the OT were not worried about universal harmony--only universal control.

[popsthebuilder]

Didn't know any of them. I'm sure most were worried about establishing a safe environment for there bloodlines. Wouldn't go so far as to call it control. Most real molestation of the written word probably came later with the advent of Catholicism and Christianity.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

Didn't know any of them. I'm sure most were worried about establishing a safe environment for there bloodlines. Wouldn't go so far as to call it control. Most real molestation of the written word probably came later with the advent of Catholicism and Christianity.

Sent from my C6730 using Tapatalk

Nope.  It happen very, very early.  Look at the book of Daniel.  It has been changed many, many times--and that is only what can be established now,  and since we don't have the autograph, we cannot tell exactly how many times it really was changed.  Or by whom and when.  But scholars know it was quite often and quite a bit.  Not control?  Read the OT carefully.  Look at all 600+ rules laid down and the punishments attached to them for their violation.  How is that not control?  Who renders the punishments?  The leaders, of course.  Who are the leaders?  Those appointed by God, of course.  So, who interprets what God wants?  The leaders, of course.  How is that not control? 

Catholicism is Christianity.  And that was all there was until Martin Luther.  And yes, the Catholics made thousands of changes.  Simply study the writings of Paul to see that.  His epistles, the ones he actually wrote, even, is most likely a mashup of several different letters.  And we don't have the autographs of any of the NT either, so we don't really know what the original authors wrote--and the only NT author we know of is Paul.  The rest is unknown.

[1liesalot]

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.

Yes, and thank fuck you're right about this, given that the Jesus of the bible is just a milder version of the psycho Yahweh of the Hebrew texts.

[Unbeliever]

I've read many of the same books on the mythical Jesus, and I'm convinced that the Jesus myth, like many of the other dying-and-rising savior god myths of the near Asiatic region, came from a careful observation of the sky: the various celestial bodies providing stories of the gods based on their positions relative to other celestial bodies. It's just astrotheology, but I think many, if not all religions begin in similar ways. The main difference between Christianity and the other myths is that the Romans created it for reasons of their own, probably an attempt to control zealous, militaristic Jews of the period.

They've got lots of stuff on astrotheology at youtube. Anyone interested in ancient myths should be familiar with the subject.

[Mike Cl]

I've read many of the same books on the mythical Jesus, and I'm convinced that the Jesus myth, like many of the other dying-and-rising savior god myths of the near Asiatic region, came from a careful observation of the sky: the various celestial bodies providing stories of the gods based on their positions relative to other celestial bodies. It's just astrotheology, but I think many, if not all religions begin in similar ways. The main difference between Christianity and the other myths is that the Romans created it for reasons of their own, probably an attempt to control zealous, militaristic Jews of the period.

They've got lots of stuff on astrotheology at youtube. Anyone interested in ancient myths should be familiar with the subject.

Yes, I do agree.  But while the Romans did not create Christianity, it gave it one hell of a boost when it made Christianity THE religion of the Romans.  Constantine must have read Marx, for religion is indeed, the opiate of the masses.

[Unbeliever]

How about Paul/Saul? Was he mythical as well?

[Mike Cl]

How about Paul/Saul? Was he mythical as well?

I don't know anybody who thinks that.  No, he was quite real.  I have read a couple of books that suggest he was the actual creator of Christianity--A.N. Wilson has a good book out on him if one is interested (well, it's published whether you are interested or not. :)).  I don't know about that, tho.  But if you read just what he is credited with writing (and he is the first writer of the NT) you will find a gnostic type of being presented as Jesus.  Very little, if any biography presented by Paul. 

[Unbeliever]

I think the Jews wanted to have a mystery religion, just like the greeks and others of the time, so someone - maybe Paul - gave it to them.

[Mike Cl]

The final three I have in my personal collection--for now--has this one:
The Christian Myth--Origins, Logic, and Legacy--Burton L. Mack--2003.  A good read--he tackles myth making in an interesting way.  And shows how that impacts the Christian religion. 

The Myth of the Resurrection and other Essays--Joseph McCabe--1993.  Deals with the resurrection and not only in the Christian religion, but religions in general.  Has a section on 'Did Jesus Ever Live'?  And the last segment deals with how Christianity was formed.  A small and quick read.

The last one is one picked up for a buck somewhere--have not read it yet.
Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs-The Essene Revelations on the Historical Jesus--Ahmed Osman--2004.  He argues that Joshua and Jesus were the same person.  Interesting thought.

The next one I will have to buy will be Proving History, Richard Carrier, in which he details his method of historical research.  Apparently he has devised or revised a mathematical way of providing probabilities about historical events.  Sounds like it will be right down my alley.

[Mike Cl]

I think the Jews wanted to have a mystery religion, just like the greeks and others of the time, so someone - maybe Paul - gave it to them.

From what I have gathered, the region about the time Jesus is supposed to have been alive, was awash in Jewish messianic cults.  Literally dozens and dozens of them.  We don't hear of all that many because most of the fact that Christianity is the cult that won out and revised history to their liking.

[James Joyce]

The best sources are ultimately the primary sources: the New Testament, Josephus, the LXX, Origen, Eusebius etc.

These are all available online, in Greek and in various translations. The interlinear NT at bible.cc is a great tool.

Of the books, I've read Doherty and Price. Both worth reading.

There are a couple of books by priests: Tom Brodie's 'Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus' I haven't read; Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ I have and don't really recommend. It suggests that belief in a historical Jesus is not necessarily essential to a genuine Christian faith. Indeed, theirs could be the true and original Pauline faith.

Carrier has also published a paper on the less famous interpolation in Josephus' Antiquities: 'Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200'. Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012 pp. 489-514. I've read this - it's solid research, though most of what he presents re the Book XX reference being an interpolation, isn't new - but not his more recent book (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt).

[Baruch]

Literary sources have to be balanced by historical material.  It helps if you can "inhabit" the writing you are studying ... but this takes a lot of contextual material.  You can't take Tom Sawyer as a history of 19th century America.  Wilson's book is good, but In Search Of Paul by Crossan and Reed ... is much more scholarly.  !st-2nd century material was the product of competing forces, and then canonized by the Gentile Romans, is hardly objective.  The propaganda of the church and synagogue are hard to escape.  The Hebrew Goddess by Patai ... is an antidote.