Where did the Jesus myth come from?

[Minimalist]

...In Epistles X.96 Pliny the Younger, Roman governor in Bithynia AD112 wrote to Emperor Trajan to seek advice as to how to treat the christians. He was concerned that they chose death rather than bow to a statue of the emperor or "curse CHRIST, which a genuine CHRISTian cannot be induced to do." Text at: http://www.ancient-literature.com/rome_p...e_X96.html

Why would a subordinate of Trajan foolishly write a letter to him, (admitting dereliction of his duty,) advising that there was a problem he couldnt handle, caused by a bunch of people martyring themselves, for a story they knew was a lie, about a Man who never existed?

You don't want to go there, Lyin. I would suggest you go back and re-read what Pliny wrote. And btw, before the subject comes up, Pliny was writing in the second century and Suetonius was a junior officer on his staff in Asia Minor. One can see him holding the stylus while those xtians were questioned. For that matter Pliny and Tacitus were friends as well and correspondence between them remains extant.

[Lion IRC]

Check out this brilliant and funny reconcilliation of the Pauline ''bacon and beer'' controversy. (kosher and non-kosher)
Judah Smith. The guy who, when someone (grovelingly) said to him, you have an annointing...voice of God is speaking through you...blah blah blah...
answered, Nope. I've heard the voice of God and He is MUCH BETTER.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Wait, why are talking about Paul? Peter had the vision. And he was supposedly a disciple of Jesus if I remember correctly.

I really doubt Jesus' Great Commission given in his resurrection body just before he floated up into the sky would have been a serious point of controversy!

teaearlgreyhot,

Jesus during His actual ministry did stuff which pious Jews found controversial. Peter and Paul both understood that Jesus was talking to EVERYONE.

Peter didnt need a vision about kosher and non-kosher to understand that the Gospel message was about love of neighbors - even if they werent Jewish. He already knew who Jesus meant by ''neighbor''. (See the Samaritan parable)

Supposing Jesus did in fact do and say those controversial things, it would not have been controversial for very long among his followers. Those that found it too controversial would have just left following Jesus. What would have been left would be those who got use to Jesus' teachings. Supposing that Jesus really did do controversial things like maybe healing a gentile, or getting involved with Samaritans, we wouldn't expect it to be controversial among his followers many years later after his death.

The fact that it was controversial among Christians long after Jesus died, implies that Jesus never said or did those things you mentioned. Peter, who supposedly knew Jesus, needed a vision to know those things we're ok for Christ's sake! (pun not intended)

[Lion IRC]

teaearlgreyhot,

Jesus during His actual ministry did stuff which pious Jews found controversial. Peter and Paul both understood that Jesus was talking to EVERYONE.

Peter didnt need a vision about kosher and non-kosher to understand that the Gospel message was about love of neighbors - even if they werent Jewish. He already knew who Jesus meant by ''neighbor''. (See the Samaritan parable)

Supposing Jesus did in fact do and say those controversial things, it would not have been controversial for very long among his followers. Those that found it too controversial would have just left following Jesus. What would have been left would be those who got use to Jesus' teachings. Supposing that Jesus was said to have done controversial things like maybe healing a gentile, or getting involved with Samaritans, we wouldn't expect it to be controversial among his followers many years later after his death.

The fact that it was controversial among Christians long after Jesus died, implies that Jesus never said or did those things you mentioned. Peter, who supposedly knew Jesus, needed a vision to know those things we're ok for Christ's sake! (pun not intended)

hock:

I think you and I need to clear up what is meant by ''controversy'' in case we arent talking about the same thing.

I said the ''Jews or Gentiles'' controversy was about what to do with limited time and resources. And that in any case, it was motivated by good intentions;
- where do we start?
- what's most important?
- who is the best person to do what?
- how do we best explain the message to new hearers?

This is NOT a controversy over whether or not to preach the Gospel to all nations.

Could you give me a simple example of something Peter would have thought was unavoidably ''controversial'' except were it not for the vision to which you refer.

Show me, for example, Peter thinking "X" and then the vision contradicting such with an alternative "Y"

Then lets see what the Gospels reveal about Peter's understanding when hearing Jesus much earlier.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Here's an example of what the early Christians were thinking. Acts 11:18. "18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

Before Peter's vision, Gentiles were thought not to be able to be Christians. It was exclusively a Jewish movement before.

[Minimalist]

I think you and I need to clear up what is meant by ''controversy'' in case we arent talking about the same thing.

I think you should start with "reality."

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I'll add what Price has to say on this:

The same goes for a more familiar passage, the Great Commission to preach the gospel among the nations (Matt. 28:19, Luke 24:47, [Mark 16:15]). If Jesus had really said this, how can we imagine the controversy over Peter preaching to the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10-11) ever having arisen? How can Peter have been initially reluctant? How can his colleagues in Jerusalem have called him on the carpet, questioning his orthodoxy? If the parting words of the Risen Christ were a command to preach to Gentiles, whence the dispute? Notice, too, that Peter is not simply stubborn: he is readily convinced by the vision of the animals and the sail-cloth (Acts 10:9-16) that he ought to heed Cornelius's invitation. But why did it take even this, if Jesus had not long before made it clear that the chief business of the apostles was to convert the heathen nations? Clearly, then, the Great Commission sayings were coined only once the great Gentile Mission debate began, as an attempt by the liberal pro-mission faction to win their point. It may be that Christian prophets arose in the assembly to adjudicate the issue with a communique from the Risen Lord, and it may as easily be that other prophets had clashing oracles, one such preserved in Matt. 10:5.

Robert M. Price. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? (p. 15). Kindle Edition.

[Lion IRC]

...If Jesus had really said this, how can we imagine the controversy over Peter preaching to the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10-11) ever having arisen?

Show me the controversy. I see Peter willingly going to Cornelius - a devout and God-fearing man who gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. What would bother Peter about THAT?

...How can Peter have been initially reluctant?

Where in Acts 10 is Peter reluctant?
Show me the verse.

...How can his colleagues in Jerusalem have called him on the carpet, questioning his orthodoxy?

Does it say ''questioning his orthodoxy'' in Acts 11?
No. They were criticising his apparent lack of judgement in spending valuable time with, what turned out to be, a valuable group of people in the House of Cornelius. Peter didnt need to justify spending time with lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. any more than Jesus did.
What he did need to explain was the use of his short remaining time on earth. (ie. look at my avatar.)

...If the parting words of the Risen Christ were a command to preach to Gentiles, whence the dispute?

Exactly!

There was no dispute about what Jesus commanded. (And continues to command.)
There was dispute about how best to go about doing that. (And continues to be.)

...Notice, too, that Peter is not simply stubborn: he is readily convinced by the vision of the animals and the sail-cloth (Acts 10:9-16) that he ought to heed Cornelius's invitation. But why did it take even this, if Jesus had not long before made it clear that the chief business of the apostles was to convert the heathen nations?

This is like saying that Jesus is prevented from repeating the same message because if He does then it must mean He never really said it the first time. Thats not logical. Again, Peter's vision persuades him to visit Cornelius at the expense of what he may have otherwise been inclined to do closer to home.

...Clearly, then, the Great Commission sayings were coined only once the great Gentile Mission debate began, as an attempt by the liberal pro-mission faction to win their point...

No. Whats clear is that someone has a wacky theory that Jesus;

* Never in His entire ministry EVER did or said anything which was controversial to Jewish kosher and ritual cleanliness laws.

* Neglected to share His concerns about misguided legalistic Judaism.

* Never intended All Nations to hear the Good News

* And that only late in the piece after He had been Resurrected, did He realise that the Gospel of salvation (which comes from the Jews) might need to be shared OUTSIDE OF JERUSALEM.

---

Is this a later...new wine into old wineskins, addition to the Gospel?

As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” At once they left their nets and followed him.
Mark 1:16-18 (NIV)


Fishers of men?
What men? Jews? Gentiles? Samaritans? Roman tax collectors?

[JohnDG]

Just jumping in and didn't read all the post. But from what I have observed from all the theatrical theist communities and religious text. Is that Jesus, along with other religious figures were created out of necessity. Any theist community needs an ideal they attempt aspire to. For instance I believe this to be a subconscious motive to the Jesus myth and the reason he is considered god by Christians. But when observed, they attempt to act and behave as if god would, so if one were do what god would enough time's he would become godlike in nature. It's what they want, what they desire and in doing so they would become somebody who is wanted and desired and accepted. Because god has power, if one were to become godlike they too would have power.

This is really just a mix of mine and others personal opinions. Also with the help of my theist friend who is trying to be a better person for god and not be corrupted by the taint in modern churches this day.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...

Show me the controversy. I see Peter willingly going to Cornelius - a devout and God-fearing man who gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. What would bother Peter about THAT?

Peter only went to Cornelius after the vision. Peter didn't know about him before the vision.

Here's Peter's vision:

[10] And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
[11] and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
[12] In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
[14] But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
[15] And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."
[16] This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
[17]
Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate

The animals, reptiles, and birds are metaphors for the Gentiles. They were unclean like the Gentiles were thought to be. But the vision is now telling Peter that the Gentiles have been "cleansed."

...How can Peter have been initially reluctant?

Where in Acts 10 is Peter reluctant?
Show me the verse.

But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."

It is said that Peter refused three times to eat the unclean animals.

Also note the following verse:

But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
[27] And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered;
[28] and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (emphasis mine)

It's clear from the last verse in the above that Peter would not have done this if it wasn't for what he learned in the vision!
Another interesting part from chapter 10:

[45] And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
[46] For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
[47] "Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

...How can his colleagues in Jerusalem have called him on the carpet, questioning his orthodoxy?

Does it say ''questioning his orthodoxy'' in Acts 11?
No. They were criticising his apparent lack of judgement in spending valuable time with, what turned out to be, a valuable group of people in the House of Cornelius. Peter didnt need to justify spending time with lepers, prostitutes, tax collectors, etc. any more than Jesus did.
What he did need to explain was the use of his short remaining time on earth. (ie. look at my avatar.)

Ahem...

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
[3] saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"

Uncircumcised men i.e. gentiles. I see no support for your idea that they were trying to be efficient. And now you're again begging the question: assuming Jesus did those things to prove he did those things. It's a form of circular reasoning and you're making me dizzy.

...If the parting words of the Risen Christ were a command to preach to Gentiles, whence the dispute?

Exactly!

There was no dispute about what Jesus commanded. (And continues to command.)
There was dispute about how best to go about doing that. (And continues to be.)

You have presented no evidence for that assertion. I having to wonder if maybe you're reading some paraphrased dumbed down Bible to think that's in the text. The verses I quoted I think show very plainly that they thought the gentiles were still unclean and unredeemable.

...Notice, too, that Peter is not simply stubborn: he is readily convinced by the vision of the animals and the sail-cloth (Acts 10:9-16) that he ought to heed Cornelius's invitation. But why did it take even this, if Jesus had not long before made it clear that the chief business of the apostles was to convert the heathen nations?

This is like saying that Jesus is prevented from repeating the same message because if He does then it must mean He never really said it the first time. Thats not logical. Again, Peter's vision persuades him to visit Cornelius at the expense of what he may have otherwise been inclined to do closer to home.

It's perfectly logical if the message Jesus repeats is seemingly forgotten by his followers including his disciples. Peter and his gang act like this is some new teaching that he got from the vision. And again, no evidence presented for this weird gospel efficiency theory you came up with.

...Clearly, then, the Great Commission sayings were coined only once the great Gentile Mission debate began, as an attempt by the liberal pro-mission faction to win their point...

No. Whats clear is that someone has a wacky theory that Jesus;

Are you talking about yourself?

* Never in His entire ministry EVER did or said anything which was controversial to Jewish kosher and ritual cleanliness laws.

* Neglected to share His concerns about misguided legalistic Judaism.

* Never intended All Nations to hear the Good News

* And that only late in the piece after He had been Resurrected, did He realise that the Gospel of salvation (which comes from the Jews) might need to be shared OUTSIDE OF JERUSALEM.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.