Mythical Christ Gains Favour

[d.thomas]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

[Goat]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

Since there really isn't a debate question here, this probably will be moved to 'random ramblings'.

[d.thomas]

[/quote]

Since there really isn't a debate question here, this probably will be moved to 'random ramblings'.[/quote]


Do you have a point of view?


.

[Goat]

Since there really isn't a debate question here, this probably will be moved to 'random ramblings'.[/quote]


Do you have a point of view?


.[/quote]

Doesn't everyone.

The hypothesis might very well be true. THat doesn't mean it is. The lack of evidence of a historical Jesus is the lack of evidence of a historal Jesus.

If the stories were inspired by a real person, how much different does that person have to be so it is not 'the historical Jesus'?

[Lotan]

Mythical Christ Gains Favour

...among whom?

[AB]

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
- Matthew 4:23

Jesus is actual. He was on the earth. Not a mythical thing.

[d.thomas]

The hypothesis might very well be true. THat doesn't mean it is. The lack of evidence of a historical Jesus is the lack of evidence of a historal Jesus.

If the stories were inspired by a real person, how much different does that person have to be so it is not 'the historical Jesus'?

This isn't about the lack of evidence for an historical Jesus, it's about what early Christian writings do say about a spiritual Christ at the beginning of Christianity and how the Gospels were put together. The conclusions are different than what most people's baseless assumtions are about an historical Jesus.


-

[d.thomas]

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
- Matthew 4:23

Jesus is actual. He was on the earth. Not a mythical thing.

This conclusion is based on circular reasoning. The only story we have of a Jesus of Nazareth is the Gospels and they are dependent on Mark. The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.


-

[d.thomas]

Mythical Christ Gains Favour

...among whom?

It's probably just a matter of time for this view to become mainstream. It conficts the least with the historical record as well as the Jewish/ Hellenist culture of the time.


-

[AB]

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
- Matthew 4:23

Jesus is actual. He was on the earth. Not a mythical thing.

This conclusion is based on circular reasoning. The only story we have of a Jesus of Nazareth is the Gospels and they are dependent on Mark. The Gospels cannot be corroborated so we can't rely on them as historical, instead they are referred to as faith documents.


-

What is circular reasoning?