Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth (1867 Views)
Deconstructing The Lies & Myth of Consensual Adult Homosexuality/Same Sex Union / Dreams: understanding and decoding the mysteries of it / Tanker Burns Everything In Sight Except The Car Of A Man From Winners Church (2) (3) (4)
| Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 4:21pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
Story highlights Christians around the world almost universally agree that Jesus existed But some claim Jesus was no more than a myth created for a "teaching story" Timothy Freke was flipping through an old academic book when he came across a religious image that some would call obscene. It was a drawing of a third-century amulet depicting a naked man nailed to a cross. The man was born of a virgin, preached about being "born again" and had risen from the dead after crucifixion, Freke says. But the name on the amulet wasn't Jesus. It was a pseudonym for Osiris-Dionysus, a pagan god in ancient Mediterranean culture. Freke says the amulet was evidence of something that sounds like sacrilege -- and some would say it is: that Jesus never existed. He was a myth created by first-century Jews who modeled him after other dying and resurrected pagan gods, says Freke, author of "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" "If I said to you that there was no real Good Samaritan, I don't think anyone would be outraged," says Freke, one of a group of mythicists who say Jesus never existed. "It's a teaching story. What we're saying is that the Jesus story is an allegory. It's a parable of the spiritual journey." Most Jesus deniers are Internet kooks, says Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who recently released a book devoted to the question called "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth." He says Freke and others who deny Jesus' existence are conspiracy theorists trying to sell books. "There are people out there who don't think the Holocaust happened, there wasn't a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn't born in the U.S.," Ehrman says. "Among them are people who don't think Jesus existed." Does it matter if Jesus existed? Some Jesus mythicists say many New Testament scholars are intellectual snobs. "I don't think I'm some Internet kook or Holocaust denier," says Robert Price, a former Baptist pastor who argues in "Deconstructing Jesus" that a historical Jesus probably didn't exist. "They say I'm a bitter ex-fundamentalist. It's pathetic to see this character assassination. That's what people resort to when they don't have solid arguments." The debate over Jesus' existence has led to a curious role reversal. Two of the New Testament scholars who are leading the way arguing for Jesus' existence have a reputation for attacking, not defending, traditional Christianity. Ehrman, for example, is an agnostic who has written books that argue that virtually half of the New Testament is forged. Another defender of Jesus' existence is John Dominic Crossan, a New Testament scholar who has been called a heretic because his books challenge some traditional Christian teaching But as to the existence of Jesus, Crossan says, he's "certain." He says some Jesus deniers may be people who have a problem with Christianity. "It's a way of responding to something you don't like," Crossan says. "We can't say that Obama doesn't exist, but we can say that he's not an American. If we're talking about Obama in the future, there are people who might not only say he wasn't American, but he didn't even exist." Does it even matter if Jesus existed? Can't people derive inspiration from his teachings whether he actually walked the Earth? Crossan says Jesus' existence matters in the same way that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s existence mattered. If King never existed, people would say his ideas are lovely, but they could never work in the real world, Crossan says. It's the same with an historical Jesus, Crossan writes in his latest book, "The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus." "The power of Jesus' historical life challenges his followers by proving at least one human being could cooperate fully with God. And if one, why not others? If some, why not all?" The evidence against Jesus' existence Those who argue against Jesus' existence make some of these points: The uncanny parallels between pagan stories in the ancient world and the stories of Jesus. No credible sources outside the Bible say Jesus existed. The Apostle Paul never referred to a historical Jesus. Price, author of "Deconstructing Jesus," says the first-century Western world was full of stories of a martyred hero who is called a son of God. "There are ancient novels from that period where the hero is condemned to the cross and even crucified, but he escapes and survives it," Price says. "That looks like Jesus." Those who argue for the existence of Jesus often cite two external biblical sources: the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote about Jesus at the end of the first century and the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote about Jesus at the start of the second century. But some scholars say Josephus' passage was tampered with by later Christian authors. And Price says the two historians are not credible on Jesus. "Josephus and Tacitus -- they both thought Hercules was a true figure," Price says. "Both of them spoke of Hercules as a figure that existed." Price concedes that there were plenty of mythical stories that were draped around historical figures like Caesar. But there's plenty of secular documentation to show Caesar existed. "Everything we read about Jesus in the gospels conforms to the mythic hero," Price says. "There's nothing left over that indicates that he was a real historical figure." Those who argue for the existence of Jesus cite another source: the testimony of the Apostle Paul and Jesus' early disciples. Paul even writes in one New Testament passage about meeting James, the brother of Jesus. These early disciples not only believed Jesus was real but were willing to die for him. People don't die for myths, some biblical scholars say. They will if the experience is powerful enough, says Richard Carrier, author of "Proving History." Carrier says it's probable that Jesus never really existed and that early Christians experienced a mythic Jesus who came to them through visions and revelations. Two of the most famous stories in the New Testament -- the conversion of Paul and the stoning death of Stephen, one of the first Christian martyrs - show that people seized by religious visions are willing to die, Carrier says. In both the Paul and Stephen stories, the writers say that they didn't see an actual Jesus but a heavenly vision of Jesus, Carrier says. People "can have powerful religious experiences that don't correspond to reality," Carrier says. "The perfect momodel is Paul himself," Carrier says. "He never met Jesus. Paul only had an encounter with this heavenly Jesus. Paul is completely converted by this religious experience, but no historical Jesus is needed for that to happen." As for the passage where Paul says he met James, Jesus' brother, Carrier says: "The problem with that is that all baptized Christians were considered brothers of the Lord." The evidence for Jesus' existence Some scholars who argue for the existence of Jesus says the New Testament mentions actual people and events that are substantiated by historical documents and archaeological discoveries. Ehrman, author of "Did Jesus Exist?" scoffed at the notion that the ancient world was full of pagan stories about dying deities that rose again. Where's the proof? he asks. Ehrman devoted an entire section of his book to critiquing Freke, the mythicist and author of "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" who says there was an ancient Osiris-Dionysus figure who shares uncanny parallels to Jesus. He says Freke can't offer any proof that an ancient Osiris figure was born on December 25, was crucified and rose again. He says Freke is citing 20th- and 19th-century writers who tossed out the same theories. Ehrman says that when you read ancient stories about mythological figures like Hercules and Osiris, "there's nothing about them dying and rising again." "He doesn't know much about ancient history," Ehrman says of Freke. "He's not a scholar. All he knows is what he's read in other conspiracy books." Craig A. Evans, the author of "Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence," says the notion that Paul gave his life for a mythical Jesus is absurd. He says the New Testament clearly shows that Paul was an early enemy of the Christian church who sought to stamp out the burgeoning Jesus movement. "Don't you think if you were in Paul's shoes, you would have quickly discovered that there was no Jesus?" Evans asks. "If there was no Jesus, then how did the movement start?" Evans also dismissed the notion that early Christians blended or adopted pagan myths to create their own mythical Jesus. He says the first Christians were Jews who despised everything about pagan culture. "For a lot of Jewish people, the pagan world was disgusting," Evans says. "I can't imagine [the Gospel writer] Matthew making up a story where he is drawing parallels between Jesus' birth and pagan stories about Zeus having sex with some fair maiden." The words of Jesus also offer proof that he actually existed, Evans says. A vivid personality practically bursts from the pages of the New Testament: He speaks in riddles, talks about camels squeezing through the eye of a needle, weeps openly and even loses his temper. Evans says he is a man who is undeniably Jewish, a genius who understands his culture but also transcends his tradition with gem-like parables. "Who but Jesus could tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan?" Evans says. "Where does this bolt of lightning come from? You don't get this out of an Egyptian myth." Those who argue against the existence of Jesus say they aren't trying to destroy people's faith. "I don't have any desire to upset people," says Freke. "I do have a passion for the truth. ... I don't think rational people in the 20th century can go down a road just on blind faith." "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." And what did they see: a person, a pagan myth or a savior? Albert Schweitzer, a 20th-century theologian and missionary, suggested that there will never be one answer to that
|
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 4:22pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
The stone that proves Pilate's existence
|
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 4:43pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
Timothy Freke was flipping through an old academic book when he came across a religious image that some would call obscene. The premise lies on the above quoted statement. Let's break it down. Timothy Freke(who incidentally is human) read a text book written by incidentally again by another human being. Are you still following me? Timothy freke saw a drawing on a third century amulet of an unclad man and he came to a conclusion that Jesus is a myth.. .. hmmm The following questions arises: Is the text book truly written in the 3rd century? If it's, what's the evidence it's truly written in the 3rd century? Who wrote the textbook? Have you gone through the textbook at least you've seen the Bible even if you've gone through it? What's the evidence the drawing predate the crucifixion of Jesus? Who's Anthony Freke? What are his other works that he has done apart from making a declarative statement from other people's work? |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 5:00pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
luvmijeje: I think there is a mistake somewhere, you assumed that I am atheist. Sorry sis l am a Christian. Why l posted such was for those that of view that JESUS CHRIST doesn't exist is for them to read and think over his existence. Happy Sunday |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 5:09pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
ifyan: Are you sure, you're a Christian? No true Christian will post a thread denying the existence of Christ. Anyway since you are the OP, you can still answer my questions. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 5:56pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
luvmijeje: Read the post again. I am not denying Christ but for atheist to see some proof because some of them with the view try to proof order wise |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 6:06pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
ifyan: Kindly accept my apologies. Let me re-direct my questions to the Atheist. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 6:09pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
luvmijeje: Who am not to accept your apology. Remember what our Lord told us Life is beautiful ( good ) |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 6:12pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
ifyan: Indeed it is. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 6:17pm On Mar 05, 2017 |
luvmijeje: You are welcome |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 7:39am On Mar 06, 2017 |
luvmijeje: 1 Like
|
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 8:03am On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: Krishna wasn't born of a virgin.. he was either the 7th or 8th child of his parents.. but it was believed that he was born without sexual intercourse believe me... Jesus existed.. he isn't a myth.. the figure existed... its the divinity that comes into question cuz even some of the early church fathers were confused about the divinity... some of those early church fathers claimed to meet the apostles e.g polycarlp, Ignatius |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 8:13am On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:They were all born without sexual intercourse. Ancient mythology is full of such figures, infact, there's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to it. Could it be possible that that's what they all are? Myths? Because the present always likes borrowing from the past. 1 Like |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 8:43am On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: ancient mythology is full of such figures... yes i agree.. although upon research many (not all) of those claims are proven to be false... so in what way do you think Jesus copied from them? cuz his existence has been proven .. or is it the miracles or resurrection? |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 9:23am On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Did Jesus the man exist? There's no proof beyond reasonable doubt. New Testament and Jesus Scholars have widely differing views, but they agree on 2 things. That Jesus was baptized by John and that he was crucified. These assumptions are based on the Criteria of embarrassment which posits that The inventors of Christianity need not invent the story of baptism since Jesus was born without sin and his being baptized by John placed John above him thereby embarrassing him and that there was no need to invent the crucicify him since it's an embarrassing death. Which is a faulty premise if you ask me. Apart from the Bible, Jesus was only captured by 2 other writers as per this article. This leaves huge rooms for doubt. 1 Like |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 9:57am On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism after the death of Christ... so u mean those jews just woke up and started believing in a myth?? i highly doubt that.. the popular claim is that the Jesus figure was created by the council of nicea.. that's wrong.. it was only his divinity that was settled there. New Testament and Jesus Scholars have widely differing views, but they agree on 2 things. That Jesus was baptized by John and that he was crucified. These assumptions are based on the Criteria of embarrassment which posits that The inventors of Christianity need not invent the story of baptism since Jesus was born without sin and his being baptized by John placed John above him thereby embarrassing him and that there was no need to invent the crucicify him since it's an embarrassing death. Which is a faulty premise if you ask me. i don't get.. please expatiate a lil bit... on the issue of scholars, it depends on their source of info... the message of Jesus is also a widely accepted subject.. the crucifixion was something that caused waves all through Judaism.. so its difficult to ignore... the essence of baptism wasn't necessarily to cleanse from sin... if it were, then people would be baptized and rebaptized every sunday.. Apart from the Bible, Jesus was only captured by 2 other writers as per this article. This leaves huge rooms for doubt. which writers? |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by ifyan(m): 9:59am On Mar 06, 2017 |
yes Jesus exist. Allow him into your life,then you will witness his presence |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 10:07am On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7: Those who argue for the existence of Jesus often cite two external biblical sources: the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote about Jesus at the end of the first century and the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote about Jesus at the start of the second century. But some scholars say Josephus' passage was tampered with by later Christian authors. And Price says the two historians are not credible on Jesus.From the OP |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 10:19am On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Why would there be a need of the council since he existed and his divinity was glaring for all to see? i don't get.. please expatiate a lil bit... on the issue of scholars, it depends on their source of info... the message of Jesus is also a widely accepted subject.. the crucifixion was something that caused waves all through Judaism.. so its difficult to ignore... the essence of baptism wasn't necessarily to cleanse from sin... if it were, then people would be baptized and rebaptized every sunday..What it means is that the story of the baptism and crucification are embarrassing to Jesus since he's a Godlike figure, so, why create embarrassing stories if they're not true? 1 Like |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Nobody: 10:24am On Mar 06, 2017 |
Okay okay, let me get this straight, one calabar boy named Ndifreke was glamcing through pages of one old journal and decided the Jesus doesn't exist...plain stupid if you ask me. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 10:32am On Mar 06, 2017 |
[quote author=CatfishBilly post=54313173][/quote] Please don't derail this thread. If you have issue you want to raise, kindly open a new thread. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 10:45am On Mar 06, 2017 |
luvmijeje:Did I derail the thread? You can see the constructive discussion I'm having with Wilgrea7 regarding the thread. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by luvmijeje(f): 11:08am On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: Then why did you quote me if you don't have answers to my questions. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 11:10am On Mar 06, 2017 |
luvmijeje:I'm sorry for quoting you. Won't happen again. You're welcome to join the discussion. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 12:08pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: yes... i understand you... there is the possibility of Josephus's own being a fake.. i read an article on it few days ago... but it doesn't negate the existence of Jesus... the same history described the emergence of Christianity.. also, the jews hated Jesus... they didn't want anybody that claimed to be God or the son of God in their history.. earlier jews tried painting Jesus as a heretic and son of a prostitute... they didn't want people to recognize him.. that's why you don't see many Jewish historians writing about him... the gospel of Nicodemus(non canonical) confirmed it.. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 12:24pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly:that's where you're wrong... there were basically 3 beliefs on the divinity of Christ 1.. he wad the God they worshipped (God of the old testament 2. he was the son of the God of the old testament 3.. he was of the same substance as God, definitely divine but not God himself the early church fathers(before nicea) seemed to have this disagreement.. the council of nicea was what settled this... although some jews who converted(few) believed him to be a normal man or prophet sent by God... What it means is that the story of the baptism and crucification are embarrassing to Jesus since he's a Godlike figure, so, why create embarrassing stories if they're not true? exactly... if they wanted to formulate a story... Jesus would have a cool theme in the story... but they had to tell the story as it was.. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 12:51pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:So, if the one of the books documenting the existence of Jesus could be adjudged to be fake, it really affects the credibility of the other books. 1 Like |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 12:59pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:See, he existed, he had followers who built a movement around him, he must have told them if he was the son of God, God himself or any of his derivatives. So, those issues you listed up there wouldn't have cropped up. Each denomination had their own idea and ran with it which gave rise to those problems. That was the problem that planted the seed of doubt regarding his existence. exactly... if they wanted to formulate a story... Jesus would have a cool theme in the story... but they had to tell the story as it was..He had a cool story. Immaculate conception, schooled the Pharisees at a young age, performed numerous miracles, rose from the dead. There should be records somewhere to prove his existence. The Romans kept very good records, Pontius Pilate and Herod were recorded, how come Jesus wasn't? 1 Like |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 1:28pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: Jesus claimed to be the son of God.. the Messiah.. this is what he told his disciples... paul on the other hand being a strong jew, tried to use his knowledge of Judaism to define Christ... the Jews had 3 main sects.... Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes... the essenes are not mentioned tho... contrary to what people think, the pharisees and the saducees didn't have a unified set of doctrines.. they had conflicting doctrines.. just that they had to team up against Jesus.. that didn't mean they agreed within themselves... they both had varying beliefs like on rituals, etc.. almost like the shia and sunni muslims today.. although they didn't fight or kill each other... my point is, converts from any of those two sects tend to understood Christ on the basis of their previous faith.. since their previous faith is highly connected to their present one... and that's what gave rise to the different beliefs on the divinity of Christ... it also gave rise to varying doctrines in the early church like the nature of the afterlife, grace,faith and works etc.. because these people(converts from the other sects) tended to interpret the words of Jesus based on their knowledge from their previous faith.. that's why even today u can see more than 20 interpretations on some bible verses He had a cool story. Immaculate conception, schooled the Pharisees at a young age, performed numerous miracles, rose from the dead. his existence and his works are two different things bro.. the Jews labelled him a heretic.. so basically they wouldn't want any of his “glorious works" known.. his existence couldn't be hidden... they tried.. they killed d Christians.. even Paul z a testimony to that.. they didn't want the world to acknowledge who they termed a heretic.. when plans to erase traces of his existence failed, they went on to damage his identity by calling him a bastard son of a prostitute.. although Jews of nowadays know better than that |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 1:29pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: you don't seem to understand me... lets see why scholars said Josephus's account was a forgery.... the statement by Josephus on Jesus was said to be irrelevant to the entire account Josephus gave.. the sentences before and after the one he made of Jesus had nothing to do with Jesus and removing the sentence about Jesus from the account did no harm to it and the account still flowed well without the sentence about Jesus... that's why SOME scholars believed it to be false.. I've not read reasons why other scholars believe it to be true.. I'm just trying to show you the difference.. then talking of tacticus... the account flowed well with his sentence on Jesus... his account seemed to talk about a topic relating to Jesus and his before and after statements and the entire account was not in any way disconnected from his statement about Jesus |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by CatfishBilly: 2:20pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:All these claims you've made, are you speaking from a position of knowledge or are you inferring? Wilgrea7:I don't care about the Jews, I'm talking about the Romans, they were ruling the Jews when Jesus called himself the King of the Jews. It was considered as treason and he was sentenced to death because of it and some other things. Something that huge and significant must have been recorded by the Romans unless you're saying the Jews destroyed the records of the Romans. I also want to Thank you that this back and forth hasn't degenerated to name calling. This is the first time it's happening to me on Nairaland. Thank you. |
| Re: Decoding Jesus: Separating Man From Myth by Wilgrea7(m): 4:05pm On Mar 06, 2017 |
CatfishBilly: I'm not inferring.. I've read a lot about Judaism.. i once wanted to know why Christians and Jews served God differently so i did research which led me to information on the sects of Judaism I don't care about the Jews, I'm talking about the Romans, they were ruling the Jews when Jesus called himself the King of the Jewsduring the time of Jesus, the Romans adhered to Judaism... also, the main reasons for Jesus persecution was the divinity and relation to the father he claimed.. the “king of the jews" title on the cross(so said) was to mock him.. he didn't really go around claiming to be the king of the jews.. he claimed to be the son of God.. that's why the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted to kill him... he always said his kingdom was not of this world.. but the Pharisees and Sadducees took it that he was talking of this world... so they reported it to Pilate.. my point is, its the jews that planned and engineered the death of Jesus... but to answer your question straight, i don't know why the romans didn't document it... but in my opinion, i don't think the Romans would want the world to note anyone like jesus who claimed to be their king..plus the Romans didn't keep record of everyone they persecuted.. the Romans persecuted the Christians that's for sure.. and it was recorded.. nd that was when their number was increasing tremendously before Constantine decided to paganize Christianity I also want to Thank you that this back and forth hasn't degenerated to name calling. This is the first time it's happening to me on Nairaland. it takes two to make it work  so thank you too.. name calling is very childish nd i pity the people who do it.. it shows they have no point and are looking for an easy way out.. |
Should We "Cancel" Charles Darwin? / Christians And Muslims Let Us Know Which Is The True God / My Testimony,from Heavenly Currency To American Dollars
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 122 |