Who was Jesus?

[Bucky Ball]

As mentioned before, the content of the preaching which we see in what eventually were accepted as the canonical gospels relates better to what were the concerns of the Jewish rabbis in the late First Century, rather than early 1st Century, thus it does give one pause. There are a number of "Jesus-formulaic" preachers the character could be based on, (including what was in the "Gabriel stone" references) ... but the thing is, 

... early Christianity had 3 major forms, a. members of the Way sect of Judaism, (and we know this was quite strong mid century until at least the end of the 1st Century because the high Priest found it necessary to promulgate the Expulsion Curses, late in the 1st Century, so they were essentially Jewish people who found that one of the apocalyptic preachers was compelling, b. there were the non-Jewish followers who were essentially led by the Pauline (non Jewish ie "Gentile" views) , and a bit later the Nicene Christians who followed a form of orthodoxy which the Roman emperor Constantine caused to be invented at the council of that name. 

We know the first group took FAR longer to die out/amalgamate because in his Christmas sermon of the year 400 CE, (St.) John Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, (we have a copy of that sermon), told his congregants that they should stop going to the synagogue. That is far later than the tales were are told about early Christianities. But, the thing is ... the fact is, ... the Way sect had some impetus to get going. If we're going to deny the historicity of Jesus, we need to explain what would have been the impetus for the Way sect. It could have been Nazarene / Essene influence with a hero attached, but I don't ever see any real explanation for the development of the Way sect by the 100% mythers.

[GUBU]

As mentioned before, the content of the preaching which we see in what eventually were accepted as the canonical gospels relates better to what were the concerns of the Jewish rabbis in the late First Century, rather than early 1st Century, thus it does give one pause. There are a number of "Jesus-formulaic" preachers the character could be based on, (including what was in the "Gabriel stone" references) ... but the thing is, 

... early Christianity had 3 major forms, a. members of the Way sect of Judaism, (and we know this was quite strong mid century until at least the end of the 1st Century because the high Priest found it necessary to promulgate the Expulsion Curses, late in the 1st Century, so they were essentially Jewish people who found that one of the apocalyptic preachers was compelling, b. there were the non-Jewish followers who were essentially led by the Pauline (non Jewish ie "Gentile" views) , and a bit later the Nicene Christians who followed a form of orthodoxy which the Roman emperor Constantine caused to be invented at the council of that name. 

We know the first group took FAR longer to die out/amalgamate because in his Christmas sermon of the year 400 CE, (St.) John Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, (we have a copy of that sermon), told his congregants that they should stop going to the synagogue. That is far later than the tales were are told about early Christianities. But, the thing is ... the fact is, ... the Way sect had some impetus to get going. If we're going to deny the historicity of Jesus, we need to explain what would have been the impetus for the Way sect. It could have been Nazarene / Essene influence with a hero attached, but I don't ever see any real explanation for the development of the Way sect by the 100% mythers.

Hellenised jews rejecting the last vestiges of the rabbinical strictures explains the rise of pre-christianity cults. Jesusism is simply the last of, and utimately the only successful, the mystery cults. It shares more with the graeco-egyptian beliefs than it does with the judaism it ostensibly grew out of.

[The Grand Nudger]

How do we explain the cult of hercules unless there was a flesh and blood hercules? Checkmate mythers!



The archbishop of constantinople leaned heavily on what even historicists would call the mythical christ, as well as mythical beasties, as opposed to any legendary jesus.

But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.

He certainly wasn't concerned that they failed to worship a man - but that they had killed a god. His gripe with some christians™..they went to the festivals and parties and thought that judaism was a respectable way of life. Antisemites today skip to the chase and call them race traitors and cucks in fewer words. My favorite bit is this, though.

I shall say to him: What fellowship do you have with the free Jerusalem, with the Jerusalem above? You chose the one below; be a slave with that earthly Jerusalem which, according to the word of the Apostle, is a slave together with her children. Do you fast with the Jews? Then take off your shoes with the Jews, and walk barefoot in the marketplace, and share with them in their indecency and laughter. But you would not chose to do this because you are ashamed and apt to blush. Are you ashamed to share with them in outward appearance but unashamed to share in their impiety? What excuse will you have, you who are only half a Christian?

Believe me, I shall risk my life before I would neglect any one who is sick with this disease-if I see him. If I fail to see him, surely God will grant me pardon. And let each one of you consider this matter; let him not think it is something of secondary importance. Do you take no notice of what the deacon continuously calls out in the mysteries? "Recognize one another", he says. Do you not see how he entrusts to you the careful examination of your brothers? Do this in the case of Judaizers, too. When you observe someone Judaizing, take hold of him, show him what he is doing, so that you may not yourself be an accessory to the risk he runs.

If any Roman soldier serving overseas is caught favoring the barbarians and the Persians, not only is he in danger but so also is everyone who was aware of how this felt and failed to make this fact known to the general. Since you are the army of Christ, be overly careful in searching to see if anyone favoring an alien faith has mingled among you, and make his presence know-not so that we may put him to death as those generals did, nor that we may punish him or take our vengeance upon him, but that we may free him from his error and ungodliness and make him entirely our own.

[Ahriman]

How do we explain the cult of hercules unless there was a flesh and blood hercules?  Checkmate mythers!  



It might help to point out that the idea that jesus is a composite character..is a mythicist position.

Jesus was like Hercules without the muscles.

[vulcanlogician]

How do we explain the cult of hercules unless there was a flesh and blood hercules?  Checkmate mythers!  



It might help to point out that the idea that jesus is a composite character..is a mythicist position.

Jesus was like Hercules without the muscles.

So I didn't catch your position.

Historical Jesus. Yes or no?

And (along the same vein as the miracle topic we discussed earlier) can belief in Jesus make sense without a historical Jesus?

[Ahriman]

Jesus was like Hercules without the muscles.

So I didn't catch your position.

Historical Jesus. Yes or no?

And (along the same vein as the miracle topic we discussed earlier) can belief in Jesus make sense without a historical Jesus?

Yes, Jesus absolutely existed historically. And yes, belief in Jesus can make sense without a historical Jesus.

Some people take Jesus Christ as more of a concept/metaphor/allegory for spiritual development, which is fine.

[The Grand Nudger]

I always wonder which historical jesus a person believes in, and what details of the (then)legendary narrative were based on whomever that was?

As to christ being concept/metaphor/allegory.....any literary device...do we think that the character presented in magic book is the historical jesus, or the mythical christ? Mythicists think that the christ myth retroactively borrowed from reality as narrative detail.

[vulcanlogician]

And yes, belief in Jesus can make sense without a historical Jesus.

That's great news for Christians.

I mean, not so much because a historical Jesus has been conclusively disproven. Maybe there was a historical Jesus. We'll never know. But, as others point out, whatever figure Jesus was has become mingled with legend. Indistinguishable from it. Bart Ehrman's work demonstrates what a tangled web was woven. And that's just in known writings. Who knows what kind of alterations took place when it was passed orally.

I always wonder which historical jesus a person believes in, and what details of the (then)legendary narrative were based on whomever that was?

As to christ being concept/metaphor/allegory.....any literary device...do we think that the character presented in magic book is the historical jesus, or the mythical christ?  Mythicists think that the christ myth retroactively borrowed from reality as narrative detail.

Like I said above, Bart Ehrman. Even the myth of Christ has been altered so much you'll not find an unmolested version of it in any holy book.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, and he lays out his assumptions in still believing that there was a man, plainly - and I suspect he knows that given how frank he is about it. The notion is that, unlike the cult of hercules, the cult of jesus must have been based on some real man - even if there's no trace of whomever that man was left in the text.

[vulcanlogician]

I actually forgot that Ehrman thinks there was a historical Jesus.

The point I was making was, there are so many layers of obscurity, why even bother? And that applies to the historical Jesus and the legendary Jesus.