Jesus the man, Jesus the myth.

[Elijah John]

Jesus of Nazareth, vs. Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet, Jewish Rabbi and revolutionary, vs Jesus the God-man, the "only begotten Son of God" and the celestial Son of Man.

If you accept the premise of the OP that the two are very different, which parts of the NT, (the teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus) belong to the one, vs. the other?

Which parts myth, which parts historical man?

[polonius]

Jesus of Nazareth, vs. Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet, Jewish Rabbi and revolutionary, vs Jesus the God-man, the "only begotten Son of God" and the celestial Son of Man.

If you accept the premise of the OP that the two are very different, which parts of the NT, (the teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus) belong to the one, vs. the other?

Which parts myth, which parts historical man?

RESPONSE: One realistically and carefully examines the evidence. Was it provided by an actual witnesses? How long after the reported events were these writings generated? Why was it written? Was it added to or modified in any way? Does it conflict with other passages by a different writer?

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I trust the bible narratives. They were written by individuals most in a position to seperate fact from fiction, within living memory of those who could have either witnessed events firsthand or were in a position to corroborate the the details.

JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I trust the bible narratives. They were written by individuals most in a position to seperate fact from fiction, within living memory of those who could have either witnessed events firsthand or were in a position to corroborate the the details.

JW

So do you reject any notion of myth attatched to Jesus as presented in the Gospels, or by the writings of Paul?

Is it so implausible to believe that a real, Jewish Rabbi, a charismatic apocalpytic prophet was later deified or near deified by human beings in process of hero worship?

After all, isn't that a real, human tendency? Maybe we could call it the "Elvis" syndrome. Have you heard of the song "Black Velvet"?

"A new religon that will bring you to your knees, black velvet if you please"

.

Many preople pretty much worship Elvis.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I trust the bible narratives. They were written by individuals most in a position to seperate fact from fiction, within living memory of those who could have either witnessed events firsthand or were in a position to corroborate the the details.

JW

Also, do you think people in that day and age often troubled themselves with journalistic, literal and historical accuracy?

Perhaps "embeliishment" was a common practice?

As p.a points out with the Bokenkotter quote the Gospels were not intended to be literal histories, and words were put on Jesus lips.

Part of the hope of the OP was to gather examples of each so we could attempt to separate fact from fiction. For example, did Jesus really say "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"? I doubt it. Why did such an important statement escape Matthew, Mark or Luke, the authors, or their communities? Why did only "John" or his community report this?

Did Jesus say, "Hear O Israel, the LORD is God, the LORD is one". I believe that he did. The recitation of the Shema is something that fits Jesus' cultural and religious context.

Interesting that Mark, the earliest Gospel reports this, and the subsequent Gospels do not. Had the process of deification already begun in the progression of the writings of the New Testament?

Separate Jesus from his Jewish roots, and it is easier to make a god out of him.

Another example, no miraculous birth narrative in the earliest Gospel Mark, but they are present in the subsequent Gospels of Matthew and Luke. And the most recent Gospel of John goes even further. Jesus now has a pre-exsistence as the eternal, pre-incarnate "Word". If that is not theological commentary on the way to full God status, what is?

Even Matthew and Luke do not go that far.

If we take the Gospels and the NT at face value and read them as journalistic, historical accounts, many things do not add up.

[Jagella]

Jesus of Nazareth, vs. Jesus the Christ. Jesus the Apocalyptic prophet, Jewish Rabbi and revolutionary, vs Jesus the God-man, the "only begotten Son of God" and the celestial Son of Man.

If you accept the premise of the OP that the two are very different, which parts of the NT, (the teachings of Jesus and the teachings about Jesus) belong to the one, vs. the other?

Which parts myth, which parts historical man?

Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman say they can "tease out" the historically accurate parts of the gospel tale separating those parts from the myth. Such scholars insist that although there are a LOT of historically inaccurate elements in the New Testament, we can be almost certain that Jesus still existed. So the existence of Jesus as written in the gospels is an element of historicity in the gospels.

What makes these scholars so sure that Jesus existed? They've developed what they call "criteria of authenticity." These criteria, scholars will tell us, can be employed to tease out those historical parts of the gospels. For example, one of these criteria, the criterion of multiple attestation, posits that if there are two or more independent sources for some gospel element, then that element is historical. Since there are several independent sources that mention Jesus, then he must have been a historical person.

It gets even better! Another criterion of authenticity, the criterion of embarrassment, tells us that if an element of the gospel tale would be embarrassing to the gospel writers, then they wouldn't have made it up. The crucifixion of Jesus, for instance, is deemed to have been very embarrassing to the gospel authors. As a result, they never would have made it up! The crucifixion of Jesus must have been historical.

Frankly, I don't buy these criteria of authenticity. As far as I know they've never been tested. They also suffer from being illogical in that they are blatant special pleading and are non sequiturs. You can use them to "prove" the historicity of King Arthur!

So I honestly don't know what parts of the gospel tale are historical and what parts have been made up. I don't think we can know if there was a historical Jesus or what he may have done. Jesus is the Christian god, and like any god, you must go on faith.

[Talmid]

Sun reflects its light on Moon & it shines otherwise Moon has no light. Sun is the source of life on earth but we can't say this about Moon. In a same way, God Almighty gave miracles to Jesus but it doesn't mean that we start to call him God Almighty.

Also, Jesus is NOT a begotten son of God because begotten means "came into being by reproduction process"..Did God sex with Mary?? Absolutely Not.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I trust the bible narratives. They were written by individuals most in a position to seperate fact from fiction, within living memory of those who could have either witnessed events firsthand or were in a position to corroborate the the details.

JW

So do you reject any notion of myth attatched to Jesus as presented in the Gospels, or by the writings of Paul?

Yes I do.

A mythical tradition did indeed later develop in the apocrypha (notably the gnostic gospels, apocalypse and epistles) indeed it is for this reason we have the early catalogues. Such catalogues were initially unnecessary while the Apostles and second generation Christians that learnt directly from the Apostles could authenticate the message and the original gospels but as gnostic "revelations" started to appear there was indeed a need to keep fact and fiction separate. I see no reason to believe they didn't do their jobs well.

As I said I have complete confidence in the accounts recorded by the first century christian leaders because either they were there or they were in a position to interview those that could authenticate content. There is absolutely no valid reason to doubt that the writings attributed to the Apostle Paul (and even less the gospel of John), were not entirely accepted by the early Christian community as inspired scripture that provided factual and historically accurate accounts of the history and events of the life of Jesus and the Apostles.

[Elijah John]

Sun reflects its light on Moon & it shines otherwise Moon has no light. Sun is the source of life on earth but we can't say this about Moon. In a same way, God Almighty gave miracles to Jesus but it doesn't mean that we start to call him God Almighty.

Also, Jesus is NOT a begotten son of God because begotten means "came into being by reproduction process"..Did God sex with Mary?? Absolutely Not.

Good analogy. Regarding the use of the word "begotten", I am quoting "John" or "John's" Jesus. 3.16

[JehovahsWitness]

Is it so implausible to believe that a real, Jewish Rabbi, a charismatic apocalpytic prophet was later deified or near deified by human beings in process of hero worship?

Jesus wasn't "diefied" in scripture, that particular mythology like most myths developed after some time, (about 300 years). The scriptures present Jesus as the promised Messiah and the Son of the Most High God Jehovah. I do not believe either detail was the result of a distortion of the original facts of his life.

• If you are going to "invent" a Messiah, especially a miracle working one you'd best do so far from the location where anyone that can call you out on the details. If you are going, for example to say this Rabbi raised a widow's dead son, its best not to say the name of the village or at the very least wait until anyone that was alive when you said it happened has died.
  
  Christianity was born, in the face of great opposition, in the regions Jesus was said to have lived within living memory of the people that would have been alive to have seen him, and even "primitive villagers" will squash fantastic stories of miracle working carpenters if they know the carpenter. It is highly implausible Christianity would have gotten off the ground under the circumstances and in the time frame it did if its narrative was fictional.
  
  So to answer your question, while wildly exaggerated stories corrupting a factual accounts are not unheard of, it is highly implausible to suggest this was the case with Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed it demands more faith to believe that Jesus' dissapointed followers (a group of uneducated, uninfluencial fishermen and housewives from the Highlands) co-ordinated, orchestrated and maintained such a conspiracy, all at such at great cost to themselves for no personal gain or advantage than it does to believe their reports of a Jesus' miracles themselves.

If the reports of Jesus miraculous career are accurate, then there is no reason to doubt the reports of his own resurrection is also, since he is reported to have performed at least three resurrections during his ministry. And if Jesus did indeed prove his credentials as the Messiah during his ministry then I believe those that put faith in the details of his gospel (as I do and millions like me) have a solid basis for doing so.


JW