8ball
Decolonise colons!
The time for follow-up novels has probably passed, though the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists did ok with non-canon fan-fic tbf.
Jesus Myth Theory
- Thread starter N_igma
- Start date
The time for follow-up novels has probably passed, though the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists did ok with non-canon fan-fic tbf.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Both Robin Hood and Jesus seemed to believe in the distribution of wealth, an ideology which some may see as fantastical?
The Mormons reckon he resurrected and went to America which is somewhat less believable than him walking on water.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
'Jesus' was invented by Romans (based no doubt on multiple real individuals) to de-judify Jews, pacify slaves, justify the Flavius family's dynastic ambitions and bolster Roman exceptionalism and manifest destiny. Resurrected later by another Flavian, Constantine, who converted to Christianity to win the throne of Rome; then set in stone by his Council of Nicea where the Bible was compiled.
Yes, or he was real.
But billions of people over two millenia are heavily invested in Jesus was a Real Man so not hard to see why the vast majority of opinion falls on that side of things. I'm not very inclined to believe it, mainly because it includes obvious bollocks like 'born of a virgin' and 'rose from the dead'. So if that not true, why should anyone believe the rest is true? It's a story for superstitious slaves, thats really all it ever was.
Good morning
Edit to add: "We killed the king of the Jews, but he came back from the dead to tell all you slaves to look for happiness and salvation after you die!" .. I mean, it's a bit transparent isn't it. With the benefits of hindsight, psychology, sociology, 2000 years of Christian history and conquest etc.
Yes, or he was real.
But billions of people over two millenia are heavily invested in Jesus was a Real Man so not hard to see why the vast majority of opinion falls on that side of things. I'm not very inclined to believe it, mainly because it includes obvious bollocks like 'born of a virgin' and 'rose from the dead'. So if that not true, why should anyone believe the rest is true? It's a story for superstitious slaves, thats really all it ever was.
Good morning
Edit to add: "We killed the king of the Jews, but he came back from the dead to tell all you slaves to look for happiness and salvation after you die!" .. I mean, it's a bit transparent isn't it. With the benefits of hindsight, psychology, sociology, 2000 years of Christian history and conquest etc.
Last edited:
Cloo
Banana for scale
Do many non-Christians think there was 'a' historical Jesus? I don't think it's particularly conspiratorial to believe he wasn't a real historical figure. My guess would be he's a compound of various dissenting rabbis around the time, maybe there was a prominent one called Yehoshua whose name got used but to me it just seems to be common sense to assume he's probably built up from various sources.
Riklet
procrastinación
Well the non Christian Romans and non Christian Jews and later on non Christian muslims seemed pretty convinced he was a real historical figure. As I have said before, he is relatively widely referenced. Lots of stuff wasnt written down instantly was it... but within 10-100 years of Jesus's death we have dozens of sources mentioning and corroborating stuff. And there may be other stuff which was even more contemporary which informed this and has been lost, or could still turn up.
It's a chicken and egg argument though... is someone widely mentioned in a religious context built up from various sources. Or is he mentioned in various sources because he had such a big impact.
It's a chicken and egg argument though... is someone widely mentioned in a religious context built up from various sources. Or is he mentioned in various sources because he had such a big impact.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Non Christian Romans were as superstitious as everyone else at the time, no doubt many believed people could be born of virgins and come back from the dead under certain circumstances...
I think you should present the dozens of sources. But please, not Josephus. He was the (the chief one, anyway) Flavius family historian and everything he wrote has to be seen in that context.
Worth bearing in mind that Christians began very early on to murder apostates, heretics and blasphemers, as did Muslims. So I wonder (not much!) why any really honest appraisals of the historiography of "Jesus" didn't really appear till quite recently. Some of the posts on this thread would have seen people burned to death 1000 years ago, had they been said out loud in the town square.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The stories must necessarily have existed in oral traditions for many decades before they were written down. The most enthusiastic Jesus follower we know of, Paul, thought he knew Jesus from visions. How many of the other authors of the New Testament had similar convictions about what they thought they knew?
It's a similar story with Muhammad. The religion Islam does not date from him. It dates from a significant time after his death, if he indeed was a real person. And many/all the details of his life put down in writing need to be viewed with scepticism. The purpose that portraying him like that served for those doing the writing is surely the central concern.
We don't agonise over whether or not Socrates actually said what Plato says he said. I think most people are comfortable with the idea that Plato used Socrates as a literary device to put his points across. We should treat the authors of texts that have come to be regarded as religious texts the same way.
It's a similar story with Muhammad. The religion Islam does not date from him. It dates from a significant time after his death, if he indeed was a real person. And many/all the details of his life put down in writing need to be viewed with scepticism. The purpose that portraying him like that served for those doing the writing is surely the central concern.
We don't agonise over whether or not Socrates actually said what Plato says he said. I think most people are comfortable with the idea that Plato used Socrates as a literary device to put his points across. We should treat the authors of texts that have come to be regarded as religious texts the same way.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
To a degree. But “Western” democracy does claim a direct lineage from Ancient Greece, (which of course it has nothing at all to do with. But that is the creation myth we’re sold).
Cloo
Banana for scale
I've always felt the one story that feels to me like the 'real' historical Jesus, or one of them at least, is the chucking out of the moneylenders at the Temple. That sounds like a real action of a dissenting, radical rabbi, who was quite frankly, seriously pissed off with this shit, as well he might have been.
I reckon He owed them cash. Declaring yourself the second coming is one of the oldest tricks in the book for mooching on debts. I've used it myself with my mortgage provider.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Ayn Rand thought Socrates was great, so I for one am fine with his being no more than a fiction / literary device. Plato was the writer, so 'Socrates' being real is of limited importance IMO. The artist's job is to expose the truth by telling lies, after all, and whether Plato is a storyteller or chronicler, or a philosopher using a device to make points, the points he made are what matter. Like "love your neighbour as yourself" is more important than Jesus being real or not.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Legends do tend to have some kernel of truth to them. The Trojan War happened in some form. Australian Dreamtime flood myths have been traced back to real floods, some of which took place thousands of years ago.
I'm just not sure where 'he existed, but the specific stories are mostly made up' gets us. Seems to me that that is asking the wrong question.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Yes, agree with the latter bit, probably one of the least interesting bits of the whole phenomen. Know the Chinese scene better and same could be said about Confucius, it's the journey to orthodoxy is more revealing than comparing his particular legend to the various scholars who were contemporary but now mostly forgotten or whose stories were lost even further back.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
It does have the standout feature among NT stories of not involving magic.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
He's a composite character in a work of fiction based on factual, semi-factual, fictional and mythical events. I don't know the collective noun for a bunch of Jesuses? A shoal, a pod or a flock? Anyway, I was wondering if the version in Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man could be one of the contenders
That's just circular reasoning though. You can't use Josephus as evidence because he's part of a conspiracy to create Jesus, for whom there is insufficient evidence (because we have discounted Josephus).
Where's the evidence for an unprecedented conspiracy lasting centuries to create a messiah?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbf many of those sources are in reality just one source. So with the gospels, either Mark is the basis for two of the others or three of them are all based on a fourth source. Then John is really different, almost like he's talking about someone else entirely.
And of course, to the people who use such writings to justify their statements/power/authority, this is a smorgasbord of material to be picked from according to the point you want to make. You can make a large number of entirely contradictory points by selectively quoting from the same religious text. The authority comes from masking the fact that this is what you are doing, asserting that there is only 'one true word'.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
A crucifixion of Jesu sounds right.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Where's the evidence it was meant to last centuries? It was enough to get a Flavian dynasty going, at a very messy political time after Nero killed himself. It was Constantine I (also of the family Flavius, and arguably exploiting some family mythology for his own purposes) who later set the story in stone (or on vellum) at Nicea, with all the fourth-century patriarchs.
And yes, anything Josephus wrote must be seen as part of his mythologizing / aggrandizing / propagandizing on behalf of the Flavian dynasty. He even took their name (Flavius Josephus).
Last edited:
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Surely the reason for asking that wrong question is that so many Christians assert the historical truth of the Jesus figure and from that extrapolate to the truth of everything else. Plus Biblical fundamentalists assert the absolute truth of the entire Bible. If it weren't for that I don't think anyone would give much of a toss.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Surely it's not controversial to state that organised religions like Christianity are examples of massive conspiracies.
I wonder how many of these sort of sola scriptura types there actually are though? In Christianity anyway.
Maybe its because I live in the UK and the dominant Christian religion the CofE takes a somewhat laid back approach in this regard. I know there are some nutty preacher types in the US but a quick look at how they live their life gives the lie.
I dunno, are there many sola scriptura people out there still? There must still be a few die hard Calvinists I guess.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
There may not be many of them in the UK, but there's a lot in the States with a lot of money behind them. Lots of missionaries in the third world too. Very reactionary. Rather troubling.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
My son who lives in Alberta (but who also spent a bit of time in Arizona) tells me he's met numerous people who say things like Jesus is real and there's more evidence for Jesus being real than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar. We both agreed that such people are deluded idiots.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I think this underestimates how often people actually believe the bullshit. It's only really a conspiracy if the main propagators know they're lying, but that's not how religion works.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
So .. if the majority of people who claim eg. 9/11 was an inside job are sincere in their beliefs, it's a religion not a conspiracy theory?
Riklet
procrastinación
Got any source to back that up?
The issue seems to be people's beef with christianity/theology here, but I thought we were discussing the historical basis for Jesus, which is well documented. Rather than what happened in the centuries after his death (growth of the church, spread of Christianity, "coopting" of radical ideas by the state perhaps).
