Agnostic.com

40 1

Was Jesus a man who became mythicized or a myth that became historicized or something else?

Atheist3 7 May 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

40 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

8

Jesus was a Capricorn.

Now that explains everything!!

"...He ate organic food
He believed in love and peace
And never wore no shoes

Long hair, beard and sandals
And a funky bunch of friends
Reckon may just nail Him up
If He come down again

'Cause everybody's gotta have somebody to look down on
Prove they can be better than at any time they please
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me...."

~ Kris Kristofferson (Love that song!)

Popcorn!

6

Well, you can read secular real historians (not theologians) like Bart Erhmann and other historicists like him who believe a real person lived and died and became mythologized, or you can read mythicists like Richard Carrier who consider that the case for an historical Jesus, when applied to a rigorous historical method, does not meet the standard of proof required. These, and other similar academics, are very credible professional people who engage in this field of Christology. My own view, as a reader of the subject, is that I lean towards mythicists, because of the rigorous historical method they apply. All we layman can do is read on the subject and form an opinion. I do take a point by Dr. Robert Price, another mythicist, that were one early first century AD contemporaneous historical document be dug up even now which clearly referred to the activities of this person Christians call Jesus Christ, then mythicists would yield the point and move on. But there isn't one. Not one. Not one document or source that was not written decades or many decades or centuries later. A profoundly important point Christians blithely ignore in making all their extraordinary claims about this person.

The debate is tedious. If xtian apologists had evidence, they wouldn't need faith.

@Atheist3 Not at all tedious. The debate is about history, and what was true or can be proven, about an alleged historical figure. What Christians believe is their fantasy, yes based on faith, but they throw around a lot of bad history. This debate is a constant reminder that they do that.

History is probability at best.

@Atheist3 History is a social science, based on primary, contemporaneous, secondary and later sources, applying the historical method, so I don't agree it is probability. The September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US didn't just probably happen; they certainly happened because the evidence is overwhelming. Ancient or modern history, it is a matter of evidence. Just like the study of the historical Jesus.

6

There is no definitive evidence that Jesus Christ was ever a real person.
There is absolutely no mention of him in any records of the time that he
was supposedly alive.
The Roman occupiers in the region were meticulous record-keepers.
Yet, there is not one single mention of anyone by that name, or the names
of either of his "parents".

The writings of Titus Flavius Josephus have been deemed notoriously unreliable.
The majority of the earliest christian "history" is attributed to him.
So, basically, he was a writer of fiction which the believers adopted as historical fact.
There is absolutely nothing that backs up any of his writings in relation to the existence of Christ.

The stubborn insistence that Christ was a real person is nothing more than myth.
No different than Paul Bunyan and his blue ox, Babe.

I've read (although not in the original Latin, obviously) that Tacitus refers to him in his histories. There are also some (although not all) early manuscripts of Tacitus that say he led riots in Rome in his 40s, so make of that what you will.

Then again, it may have developed that those turned out to be forgeries. I haven't kept up since I got out of school.

@Paul4747 I've read some of the annals, and it's a 50/50 split.
I think it comes down to what we really want to believe, or disprove.

There's so much to sort through, and the earliest mentions all seem to have occurred decades after the events were supposedly to have taken place.

Some people have wanted to place JC in Rome, later in his life. Although, he was purported to be between 33-36 when he "died".

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely nothing definitive to prove that JC was a real human being who existed in reality.
At least, nothing has been presented as credible and verifiable proof.

Wait a minute - no Paul and the ox? I can't believe it. I'm crushed.

@starwatcher-al 😂

6

It could be a combination of the two. Jesus could have been a myth based on a real person (but exaggerated quite a bit) who became "historical" to those who exercise blind faith in him.

Your premise is: jesus was a real person who was mythicized & then historcized. It begs the question: what is your evidence for a real jesus?

@Atheist3 I have no evidence. I only presented this as a possibility. 🙂

@BestWithoutGods Ok- possible is not probable, & probable is not certain.

4

At age 13, I became an atheist when I realized the Bible is just a book of stories or fables written by men. Like Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Jesus rose from the dead, a woman turned into salt, parting of the Red Sea, Noah's Ark: ridiculous fables or myths.

Ya forgot the Garden of Eden and who did Cain and Abel marry anyway? god pull off another creation over in the next valley so they could have wives?

@starwatcher-al

Good point. Evolution makes sense. I tell Christians who pester me:

"I chose rational thought, not magical beliefs." This upsets pastors.

Books sell! lol

3

I honestly think that there was no historical Jesus that went through all the trials the xtians claim. There is no independent corroboration of the any of the events by others from a time where those in power (at least) knew how to write. No dead people came out of their graves during crucifixion to walk around a town as the bible claims, because I think that alone would have been noticed by the town's folks and someone would have written about it somewhere. I don't know that anyone needs to know the situational context as to why there are now zombies walking down the street, they would have just reported it. Same goes for parting of the read seas, healing miracles performed, vandalized temples, and so on. There are no independent accounts from outside witnesses to the events spoken of in the bible any more than there are outside witnesses to the events claimed to have happened in Harry Potter. Fiction. The bible is a work of fiction, and a harmful fiction at that.

Now when independent, fool proof, corroboration is found and presented, I will reconsider my stance on the xtian myth according to the evidence presented.

If there ever was any evidence surely it would've presented itself moons ago to prove xtianity. ...but there's none!

I had an uncle that looked and smelled like he was dead.

@TimeOutForMe So what is religion 'selling'?

@Atheist3 Holy water. But there is a hole in the bottom of the can. So, its discounted.

3

He wasn't the son of a teenage Jewish virgin and a being that created 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, so there is no reason wasting time worrying about him and all the nonsense associated with him.

BD66 Level 8 May 24, 2020
3

Don’t really know. Don’t really care.

Life on the farm is kinda laid back. 😂

@Atheist3 You two guys writing a song?

3

There is no archeological evidence this person ever existed as a historical figure. The same goes for David, Moses, etc.

Revisionist history.

SCal Level 7 May 24, 2020
3

The more I learn, the more I lean toward myth...

Varn Level 8 May 23, 2020

I hear ya! The creative ingenuity of our imagination.

@Atheist3 Their imagination 😉

@Varn Sure, like you didn't watch 'The Matrix.'

@Atheist3 I watched it ..wasn’t stoned or anything … appreciate science fiction, but either didn’t fully get it, or like it 😕 Suppose I’m in a world of my own 🙂

@Varn Show me the titties!

3

When you consider that there are no historical records to indicate that a Jesus ever existed during the time that he was supposed to be alive and that he only shows up in biblical texts centuries after his death and supposed resurrection, it seems unlikely that he ever existed. The Romans were methodical about their record keeping, even in their vassal provinces, it's all about the taxation.
Could there have been several 'prophets' preaching in much the same way that tent preachers have always done and perhaps these were amalgamated to constitute one messiah? Maybe or maybe not?

What is the most probable?

@Atheist3 Beats me, flip a coin but there is no evidence for a Jesus of Nazareth outside of church records and they made their own shit up.

@Surfpirate Control the message.

2

There were many messiah figures during this time. There is no reason to doubt that one of them was probably named Yeshua (Jesus) who had a small, but faithful, following. And, he was likely crucified just as others were. But, almost everything about his life was mythicized: virgin birth, miracles, place of birth. drawer of large crowds etc...

This man, whoever he was, was fully human and a Jew. When Paul took this message of Jesus to the Gentiles, because the Jews were not very responsive, this man had to be palatable to non-Jews; thus circumcision was no longer required, strict dietary laws were no longer necessary, keeping the Sabbath was done away with etc. And, the prevailing myths of these people became part of the Jesus story. *Christians are actually Paulists and they don't even know it.

Over the course of a couple of hundred years, this Jesus went from being a man, albeit some sort of special one, to being THE God of the universe. This transition can be clearly seen in the bible, but it is simply ignored. They cannot see the forest because the trees are in the way.

I cannot believe that this person was completely fabricated because there are too many contradictions about him: his life, his message, even his name. Supposed prophecies would have been clearly fulfilled and would not be the contradictory mess that they are. According to the OT he was supposed to be named Immanuel, not Yeshua; and, in order to have him born in Bethlehem, some wild story about a non-existent census had to be fabricated. This makes it seem that this real person was born but not in Bethlehem, so the story had to accommodate that-- and other problems with fulfilling prophesy. Also, the stories about him show a progression of changing beliefs about him. This would not be true if an organized story had been created from the start.

And I personally don't know any people who are long lost relatives of reanimated corpses.

@PondartIncbendog When I was a kid, I could not figure out how all those Jews could see all those miracles, and especially see reanimated ancestors rise from the dead and walk around after Jesus died, and still deny that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

@PondartIncbendog Welcome to da ieelan man.

@Joanne Magic glasses, made by God. Get yours now at Amazon.

@PondartIncbendog Or, magic blinders.

@Joanne Here's the deal! Paul's christ is not jesus. Paul's christ is no different than any other mystical god floating around the middle east. But people want to believe the mystical is reality.

@Atheist3 I agree. Most Christians are actually Paulists and don't even know it.

2

In the time of Jesus, it ws common for there to be "preachers" who woudl go around speakign to people aobut god, and also it was common for some of them to claim to be a messiah. The two "theives" that died next to Jesus on the cross were more likley two other self proclaimed messiahs, as the word translated as "thieves" better translates as "criminal against the state", and it was common practice to put the self proclaimed messiahs to death once they cross the line and contradict state authority. From that context the trial described in the bible makes a lot more sense.

Jesus probably was a real person, who was exceptionally charismatic. However between his death and the time the stories of his live were written, his life was mythologized with familiar themes and stories, that sprang out of stories about astrology, and old gods.

Here is s video that covers the mythologies behind the Jesus story.

2

Even if he was real, and all the stories true. Not some one I would even look up to let alone worship. No matter how good of a person I am, just by not taking him as my lord and savior, I burn for eternity. That's the will of a psychopath.

2

I haven't a clue. He might have existed, might not. If he did, he might have been a madman, high on drugs. He could have been a preacher that was more popular than the thousands of others that existed at the time. All we come is theories about what he might have been.

2

Wasn't anything but a fictional character from a book.

2

Why not both. Or all three, because you can also throw in, that there may have been several persons involved and some deliberate falsification. Its just a mess, and anyone who thinks that they can unpick the threads after all this time, and the many attempts deliberately made to hide the truth over the years, is just deluding themselves.

I understand your frustration. It's a bs game. The question remains; Is there a God? The rest is just academic acrobatics.

@Atheist3 Yes, there is a god. In the minds of idiots and dolts.

@Atheist3 No I think the issue of. "Is there a god." Is perhaps the most acedemic of them all, with no real importance, here's why. (I phave posted this several times so appologies if you have seen it.)

Suppose for a minute, and for the sake of argument only, that there is a god, and an afterlife, including heaven and a hell; and that the god chooses whether people go to heaven, or if some go to hell, in fact the whole theist deal. Not only that, but suppose, the criterion on which the god makes the choice is based on the type of muffins they eat. ( Note: “eat” not prefer, this is not about free will or anything like that.) People who eat lemon muffins go to heaven and people who eat chocolate muffins go to hell, with limbo for those who don't eat muffins at all, naturally.

Would that make a difference to your life ? Would you give up your chocolate muffins for an eternity of joy, and all the lemon buns after death you could ever eat ? Perhaps you would. But there is one vital thing that I forgot to mention about this god, which is that; this particular god, does not tell you about the muffins, or how they affect your afterlife, in fact it keeps the whole thing a big secret just to itself, so that you have no way of knowing which muffins you have to eat.

Then in that case, of course, you could not make the appropriate changes to your life, or save your soul anyway. In fact muffins, the gods preferences and even that god, would not impact on your life at all.

The point is this. That a gods, souls, the afterlife etc. have no effect on anything, unless that god, or someone who knows, tells you about it, and you therefore have some knowledge of god's cake prejudices. Making this the big difference between religion, which pretends to offer knowledge of god the afterlife etc., and none belief which does not. Which is why the difference between atheists, humanists, agnostics and even deists, is so small and unimportant, by comparison with the great gulf between them and theists, because none claim any knowledge of gods preferences, and it is the pretence of fake knowledge, and of god given authority, which makes the big difference. Compared with that the differences between atheist and agnostic, even deist, are trivial to the point of vanishing.

It is the pretence of knowledge, the bible, koran etc which is all important, god is trivial when compared to that.

@Fernapple Whew! I just came here for free Ice Cream.

@PondartIncbendog Sorry I only do muffins.

2

Not mentioned yet are the dozen or so characters running around the Middle East a couple thousand years ago with tellingly similar attributes. Jesus wasn’t unique, just one of many. AronRa has a good video about em. I think I heard Richard Carrier talk about them also. Check out the story of Mithras, written down first like 1.5 thousand years before Christ I believe. I understand none of that is evidence but I still feel it makes it more unlikely there Was a real Jesus as depicted by xtians.

Ecclesiastes 1:9 'There is nothing new under the sun.'

2

I don’t know. I see credible scholars arguing both sides and everything in between. I, personally, don’t think it matters much. Somebody who did live wrote those stories, and all the allegorical/mythological wisdom they may contain exists independent of the historicity of the main character in the stories.

skado Level 9 May 23, 2020

The question, while interesting, is irrelevant. Whether jesus may have been a myth or a man, he certainly wasn't the messiah (the son of god). B/c there is no God!

2

Food for thought here. The bible as we know it today came into being some 300 years after the time of Jesus. Paul is credited with writing almost two thirds of the NT and claims he met this Jesus but it is not true. Jesus was an apparition in the sky only but did speak. How would this said Jesus have had an audience with Pilate and in what language did they speak? Prophesy in the bible appears to have been contrived and made up, or in some cases the events mentioned are after 70 AD. The man, Jesus, could have been a Roman invention and Paul was part of this. There is no way to actually check it out.

Why did Jesus have a tomb when most crucified people were put into a mass grave? The bible says a guard was placed at the tomb. I suppose they were afraid that he would actually rise from the dead. In Israel they value tourism and will gladly show you the tomb of Jesus. None of this is what the bible thumpers of today think it is. Why would anyone ever think that Jesus would like crosses and have you wear one as a religious symbol? If there was a Jesus he was a Jew. Not at all what his cult following has come to believe today.

The crosses people are so fond of is akin to wearing a replica of a wrecked car after a loved one has been killed in a motor vehicle.

@LetzGetReal It becomes worse but no one sees it much today. At the turn of the century many preachers told the tale that Jesus in his resurrected and glorified body chose the scars, marks, and piercings he had endured as a permanent reminder of what he wet through, and all for us. LOL Remember that Doubting Thomas had to place his fingers in the holes of the nail scarred hands. If someone tried to kill your friend and he was beat half to death why would you not know him if you saw him? This is just more melodrama into the idea of "could a man really come back from the dead."

The plot thickens!

2
1

Who knows. No evidence of any of those things. No evidence that Jesus existed at all. Evidence is not rumour, conjecture, someone said this, someone said that. So..... Jesus is the same as God. No evidence.

1

If this was such a amazing miracle, why didn't they preserve the cross, or the ark, or the manger, or know where the cave is, or the body? They seem to have lost everything.

Doh!

1

I'll answer that question with a series of questions. If you had to write a story about Paul Revere without a library, the internet, a history book, or the ability to read, how would you go about it? Remember that was three hundred years ago. How did the "prophets" get their information? By word of mouth?

They're psykicks!

1

Imho? Both and neither.He was a man, that committed unknown crimes, that the romans decided to make an example of by executing in an horrific way... Either to make the seriousness of the crime known, (which has been forgotten), or to prevent others from standing up to their authority. "They are a good person, that did many good things", is still the plea from friends and relatives of people caught committing crimes... and the game of chinese whispers began, until people started writing them down. Jesus acknowledged his crimes, (by getting John the baptist to baptise him, so he was clean in the eyes of god, and saying, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ) but they appear tohave been pathological, as he sought to control himself, (facing his demons in the desert), but when he failed, he told Judas to betray him... So, man myth? Both, yet neither.

You should write a bible. 😉

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:498830
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.