For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[Confused Ape]

You don't get born to the job. You gotta earn it.

You've also got to fulfil prophecies about a star and being called out of Egypt. Best do this while you're a baby so your life can be threatened by a bad guy at the same time.

But then, it was 3 non-Jews (later scholers try to make them Jewish Kings from Yemen, which is a problem) who believed in a bunch of superstition that wanted to worship a baby, left a tip and took off in a hurry.

That's not quite as daft as the idea that Jesus was a Buddhist monk.

This BBC 4 documentary examines the question “Did Jesus Die?”. It looks at a bunch of ideas around this question until minute 25, where this examination of ideas takes a very logical and grounded turn with surprising conclusions that demonstrate…The three wise men were Buddhist monks who found Jesus and came back for him around puberty. After being trained in a Buddhist Monastery he spread the Buddhist philosophy, survived the crucifixion, and escaped to Kashmir, Afghanistan where he died an old man at the age of 80.

I can't say that I found this a logical and grounded turn after I'd watched the video. Jesus was supposed to have been an expert in Judaic law so how would he have learned it if he was a Buddhist in India for most of his adult life?

There's currently a craze for seeing similarities between Jesus's teachings and Buddhism but there's a much simpler explanation than making him a Buddhist monk.

Western Knowledge Of Buddhism

Some knowledge of Buddhism existed quite early in the West. In the 2nd century CE, Clement of Alexandria, the father of Christian dogmatism, wrote about the Buddha:[2]

Among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of Boutta, whom they honour as a god on account of his extraordinary sanctity

He also recognized Bactrian Buddhists (Sramanas) and Indian Gymnosophists for their influence on Greek thought:[3]

Buddhism and Christianity are two very different religions but Jesus and Buddha - The Parallel Sayings could have been the result of people thinking "Jesus would have said something like that".

[Minimalist]

It may have been in response to this problem that Tertullian, writing around 200, stated that the census had been taken by Gaius Sentius Saturninus (legate of Syria, 9 – 6 BC) rather than Quirinius.

As noted, Saturninus was governor of Syria between 9 and 6 BC. At the time Herod was the king of an independent monarchy allied to Rome. The Romans did not "tax" Judaea. That was up to Herod. Whatever tribute Herod paid was determined by treaty ( and doubtlessly a few bribes) ...not by some fucked up census.

[Confused Ape]

As noted, Saturninus was governor of Syria between 9 and 6 BC. At the time Herod was the king of an independent monarchy allied to Rome. The Romans did not "tax" Judaea. That was up to Herod. Whatever tribute Herod paid was determined by treaty ( and doubtlessly a few bribes) ...not by some fucked up census.

Tertullian obviously didn't care about real history.

[Minimalist]

Like most xtians, Tertullian believed in fairy tales.

[EGross]

Another historical issue is the story that, just before Passover, Jesus decided to ride in on an ass to the Temple, and the Jews were waving palm branches and shouting "hoshanah" and the storyteller is speaking as though they were waving at Jesus.

That would be about this time of year, and if you check out the palm trees, they aren't really blooming that well yet. There is a holiday, about 6 months from now called "Sukkot", where the religious Jews will be buying palm branches and join them with 2 other species (plus a fruit called an "etrog") and will wave them every morning, for a week (except on Shabbat), and cry out "hoshannah...(some praise to God)...hoshannah. Hoshannah...(a different praise to God)...hoshannah...etc."

Except that this doesn't happen until the fall.

On the last day of the holilday, after all of the "hoshannahs" the Jews wack the willow part of the item on the ground (some weird reason that nobody knows why. Probably having to do with evil spirits and there is an embarassment about that, so we just keep mum), and then the pamls branches are tossed away.

My guess is that someone heard of this tradition, and tossed it into the story without any concern for spring or autumn. And had Jesus rode into the middle of all of these "hoshannahs" and said "thank you, thank you" the Jews would have looked at him and said "Hey buddy! Move out of the way! Can't you see we are waving here?!"


That's the problem with Messiahs. They think it's all about them!

[Confused Ape]

My guess is that someone heard of this tradition, and tossed it into the story without any concern for spring or autumn. And had Jesus rode into the middle of all of these "hoshannahs" and said "thank you, thank you" the Jews would have looked at him and said "Hey buddy! Move out of the way! Can't you see we are waving here?!"

So, there's something else which can be eliminated when it comes to the question of how the cult of a non-existent Messiah got started. A group of people must have organised themselves into a cult so who were they? Where in Judea was the cult first based and what were the original beliefs?

Like most xtians, Tertullian believed in fairy tales.

It's not just a Christian trait because some people who are out to debunk Christianity are inventing their own. Trying to get details of the real Mithras mythology is difficult because there are umpteen articles which say he was born in a stable and was visited by shepherds and three wise men bearing gifts. After a lot of research I've come to the conclusion that the wikipedia article has got it right.

Birth From A Rock

Mithras is depicted as being born from a rock.. He is shown as emerging from a rock, already in his youth, with a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other He is nude, is wearing a Phrygian cap and is holding his legs together.[44]

However, there are variations and sometimes he is shown as coming out of the rock as a child and in one instance he has a globe in one hand, sometimes a thunderbolt is seen. There are also depictions in which flames are shooting from the rock and also from Mithras' phrygian cap. One statue had its base perforated so that it could serve as a fountain and the base of another has the mask of the water god. Sometimes he also has other weapons like bows and arrows and there are also animals like dog, serpent, dolphin, eagle, some other birds, a lion, crocodile, lobster and snail around. On some reliefs, there is a bearded figure identified as Oceanus, the water god, and on some there are the four wind gods. In these reliefs, the four elements could be invoked together. Sometimes Victoria, Luna, Sol and Saturn also seem to play a role. Saturn particularly appears to hand over the dagger to Mithras so that he could perform his mighty deeds.[44]

In some depictions Cautes and Cautopates are also present and sometimes they become shepherds.[45]

On some occasions, an amphora is seen, and a few instances show variations like an egg birth or a tree birth. Some interpretations show that the birth of Mithras was celebrated by lighting torches or candles.[44][46]

Cautes and Cautopates are torch bearers.

Mithraism And Christianity

Early Christian apologists noted similarities between Mithraic and Christian rituals, but nonetheless took an extremely negative view of Mithraism: they interpreted Mithraic rituals as evil copies of Christian ones.[203][204] For instance, Tertullian wrote that as a prelude to the Mithraic initiation ceremony, the initiate was given a ritual bath and at the end of the ceremony, received a mark on the forehead. He described these rites as a diabolical counterfeit of the baptism and chrismation of Christians.[205] Justin Martyr contrasted Mithraic initiation communion with the Eucharist:[206]

Wherefore also the evil demons in mimicry have handed down that the same thing should be done in the Mysteries of Mithras. For that bread and a cup of water are in these mysteries set before the initiate with certain speeches you either know or can learn.[207]

Marvin Meyer comments that "early Christianity ... in general, resembles Mithraism in a number of respects – enough to make Christian apologists scramble to invent creative theological explanations to account for the similarities."[208]

It looks like Mithraism and early Christianity had some similarities where belief and rituals were concerned but the only common element for the births of Mithras and Jesus were shepherds and animals. It's the same kind of confusion for three wise men, virgin births, a star in the east and carpentry for other deities. A bit of research reveals that these didn't feature in the stories of Krishna and Horus either.

Egyptian texts demonstrate that Horus’ mother was the goddess Isis, and not a human virgin. Horus was conceived when Isis resurrected the dismembered god Osiris and had intercourse with him, which precludes the idea of virginity, and certainly parthenogenesis.[26]

Anyway, back to the Bible. The Matthew story makes more sense in a way because it comes across that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The Luke writers, on the other hand, seemed desperate to bring shepherds into it.

David And Christianity

The early Church believed that "the life of David [foreshadowed] the life of Christ; Bethlehem is the birthplace of both; the shepherd life of David points out Christ, the Good Shepherd

Stuck for ideas about how to make Jesus a shepherd before he started preaching they must have decided that borrowing Mithras's shepherds would provide suitable symbolism. Then there's the rest of it.

"The Lord spent his time with the poor and outcasts so he ought to have a humble birth to foretell that. How about a stable?"

"Why would Mary want to give birth in a stable?"

"Um .. she and Joseph have to visit Bethlehem and there's no room at the inn."

"Why would the inn be full? Bethlehem's just a small village and it doesn't get many visitors."

"Um .. that census for tax purposes. We'll say that the men have to register in their home towns so Joseph goes to Bethlehem because he's of the line of David like Mary."

"Okay. It's not as good as the Mithras story, though, because you can't put lions and crocodiles in a stable."

[EGross]

Nice. Now while they try to do the David link, the one in Luke they eventually conceded doesn't matter because is goes through the father (numbers 1:18 ), and while Luke doesn't say it goes through the mother, well, it contradicts Matthew, so it MUST have meant "mother", even though the maternal line is meaningless, except to prove he was Jewish. So from that point, it wouldn't matter if she went to David or not. It is suspiscious that it is sort of parternal and tries to do it. Oopsie!

Then you have Matthew, which lists some people never noted in Scripture, at least one marrige never mentioned (The madam of the brothel, for one), skips a few people, and tried to use 14 x 3 as a cute David link (the numerical value of the name "David" is 14). However, since it doesn't go through the dad of Jesus, it's moot. In greek and Roman culture, you cold genetically be inserted into a new lineage. Emperors did that often. In biblical Judaism, there isn't even a word for adoption. That concept came later, and so Joseph is pointless. There are land ownership reasons for this as well as levels of authority.

Now if you could get the lineage of Jesus' real father (God), you might have had something, but God isn't Jewish. So it is treated like an intermarriage! lol.

Now Christianity really needs this "son of David" to work, they even have an old hymn that goes:

“The Son of David bowed to die,
For man’s transgression stricken;
The Father’s arm of power was nigh,
The Son of God to quicken.
etc...

Matthew even goes through great trouble to "prove" that the stepfather of Jesus is from the house of David, going through the genealogy from Abraham to Joseph (Matthew 1:1-1:18 ). An angel even proclaims Joseph to be a son of David. (1:20) Two blind men who are healed praise Jesus as the son of David (9:27) . A crowd calls Jesus the son of David after he performs a successful exorcism (12:23). A gentile woman calls Jesus the son of David, begging him to heal her child (15:22). Two more blind men who are healed praise Jesus twice as the son of David (20:30-31). Multitudes praise Jesus as he rides to the Temple, calling out “Hosanna to the Son of David. (The Sukot/Pesach problem - 21:9-15).” Jesus never dissuaded anyone from these praises until he meets with the Pharisees and tries to persuade them that Isaiah was a false prophet, telling them that being from the house of David is not really a requirement (21:41-46), but Jesus was wrong and as soon as Jesus makes this statement, Matthew never again mentions the “son of David”, using the euphemism “son of man” instead.

If only the person who had decided to make the first chapter of Matthew (some say it was a later addition), had made Joseph the real father, it might have worked out better. Maybe give him super-powered sperm or something.

The only way around it, and I have seen this, is to take the "son of David" metaphorically, meaning just as David was of a questional birth but was declared to be the chosen one, so too was Jesus. But then, we have a non-prophet (John the Baptist) who doesn't even recognize who he is, although Church doctirne has them as good buddies, with their respective pregnant mothers hanging out together.

It just gets weirder and weirder.

No, he didn't exist.

[Minimalist]

There is a holiday, about 6 months from now called "Sukkot", where the religious Jews will be buying palm branches and join them with 2 other species (plus a fruit called an "etrog") and will wave them every morning, for a week (except on Shabbat), and cry out "hoshannah...(some praise to God)...hoshannah. Hoshannah...(a different praise to God)...hoshannah...etc."

Do the haredim expect a government subsidy for that, too? Seems like a fairly pointless exercise, doesn't it?

[EGross]

Well, one typically pays about $30 USA for a set, unless you are in the USA, then triple that or more. And the rule is that if you cannot afford one, someone can "loan" you theirs for a few minutes so you can do the custemary shaking.

Now Christians in Israel do get free Christmas trees (imported) so they won't kill off the trees in the Israeli forests. I always thought THAT was weird.

[Confused Ape]

It just gets weirder and weirder.

No, he didn't exist.

What gets even weirder is that Christianity is supposed to have developed from an original Jewish sect in Judea. The mythicists aren't very helpful when it comes to the question of why a group of Jews should want to invent a non-existent Messiah. The other opinions just take it for granted that Jesus existed such as in the article about the Jewish-Christians.

Jewish Christians, also Judeo-Christians, were the original members of the Jewish reform movement that later became Christianity.[1] In the earliest stage the community was made up of all those Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a venerable person or even the messiah, and was thus equivalent to all Christians.[1] As Christianity grew and evolved Jewish Christians became only one strand of the Christian community, and were characterised by combining the confession of Jesus as Christ with continued adherence to Jewish practices such as Sabbath observance and observance of the Jewish calendar, observance of Jewish laws and customs relating to sexual purity, circumcision, and synagogue-attendance, and a direct genetic relationship to the earliest Jewish Christianity.[1]

Maybe Hellenistic Judaism can provide a clue.

The reasons for the decline of Hellenistic Judaism are obscure. It may be that it was marginalized by, absorbed into, or became Early Christianity (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews).

The opening verse of Acts 6 points to the problematic cultural divisions between Hellenized Jews and Aramaic-speaking Israelites in Jerusalem, a disunion that reverberated within the emerging Christian community itself: “it speaks of "Hellenists" and "Hebrews. " The existence of these two distinct groups characterizes the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem.

Some historians believe that a sizeable proportion of the Hellenized Jewish communities of Southern Turkey (Antioch, Alexandretta and neighboring cities) and Syria/Lebanon converted progressively to the Greco-Roman branch of Christianity that eventually constituted the “Melkite” (or "Imperial") Hellenistic Churches of the MENA area: “As Jewish Christianity originated at Jerusalem, so Gentile Christianity started at Antioch, then the leading center of the Hellenistic East, with Peter and Paul as its apostles.

Both Early Christianity and Early Rabbinical Judaism were far less 'orthodox' and less theologically homogeneous than they are today; and both were significantly influenced by Hellenistic religion and borrowed allegories and concepts from Classical Hellenistic philosophy and the works of Greek-speaking Jewish authors of the end of the Second Temple period... before the two schools of thought eventually firmed-up their respective 'norms' and doctrines, notably by diverging increasingly on key issues such as the status of 'purity laws', the validity of Judeo-Christian messianic beliefs, and, more importantly, the use of Koine Greek and Latin as sacerdotal languages replacing Biblical Hebrew[13]...etc

So could the Hellenised Jews in Jerusalem have adapted pagan religions and ended up with a non-existent Messiah? Paul then took this to the Gentiles who invented a biography for Jesus and the Hellenised Jews in Jerusalem accepted the inventions? I suppose it would depend on which biographical details they were presented with, though, because they wouldn't have accepted everyone waving palm leaves at Jesus just before Passover.