Does a mythical Jesus make a difference?

[marco]

Many claims are made for Christ, not all accepted by all Christians. He was born in Bethlehem in a stable and his birth led to the massacre of children. At his execution it is alleged Jews, as a whole, called down a curse on their descendants, and this has made Jews pariahs through history. Again, not a great legacy from Christ. So he attracts some censure.

But many think he offered good advice which, when followed, leads to a better society.


If Christ were no more than an enthusiastic preacher whom many follow in the belief he's full of wise words, does it matter that he's based on fiction? If he never rose from the dead and made no miracles, yet millions behave well because of him, does it matter he is a myth?

[dio9]

[Replying to marco]

first off Jesus never wanted his beloved people to become pariahs. Next , that he is a myth is debatable, we can't assume. To proceed down that pah of thought is folly. Biblical scholars , even of atheistic bent , write there was a historic Jesus. But in answer to your debate question even if, it wouldn't matter. the Christianity we know is not the kingdom Jesus was preaching. Still his call to repentance is timeless , just as meaningful today as then. Christianity may be a myth but Jesus was real .

[marco]

I think if millions did actually behave well because of a Jesus who had no miraculous powers attached to his mythology, the middle-men moderator positions would eventually fade away as being irrelevant.

Because people would simply know how to moderate themselves accordingly.

When Jesus tried to protect a woman who had sinned, according to the rules, he was showing love and compassion.... even friendship. Interestingly, he did not condemn the rule, though PRIVATELY he may have thought the rule harsh. Many of the rules I live under I consider absurd but I realise that I am safe because rules are imposed. Jesus was conscious of living under the direction of rules and cleverly got himself out of awkward situations not by condemning rules but by finding a way to live with them: "Render to Caesar..."


The above Jesus - not the Jesus Above - is a good model. I think if people followed his precepts, all would be well. Unfortunately people bring their own baggage along and Jesus takes second place, or is transformed into a winged being or a portion of a divinity or a man on a cloud coming to kill bad people. I think the Easter Christ is a coinage of clever people interested in marrying secular power to religious authority. In doing so, they took away much of what Christ actually said.

Go well.

[marco]

first off Jesus never wanted his beloved people to become pariahs.

The road to hell, dio9, is paved with good intentions. Those who have given us the biography of Jesus certainly created pariahs. We know of Jesus only through these biographers.

Next , that he is a myth is debatable, we can't assume. To proceed down that pah of thought is folly. Biblical scholars , even of atheistic bent , write there was a historic Jesus.

I am not arguing against the historical Christ when I use the word myth. I am disputing the character that has emerged for us through the decisions of various Councils and theologians with their own ideas of who Christ was.

Still his call to repentance is timeless , just as meaningful today as then. Christianity may be a myth but Jesus was real .

I don't disagree. Much of his reported speech is good advice.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 9 by SallyF]

My sense of morality dictates intellectual honesty.

Mine is free to explore without the burden of intellectual honesty. It makes great fiction better...

Believers certainly appear to cast off that same burden for the same reason.

[William]

[Replying to post 14 by SallyF]

Perhaps it was not clear to you. When you wrote;

My sense of morality dictates intellectual honesty.

And I replied;

Mine is free to explore without the burden of intellectual honesty. It makes great fiction better...

I was saying that my sense of morality is not bound to or burdened by intellectual honesty. In that way, I can enjoy the fruits of mythology without having to let them sit on the plate to rot, which is what intellectual honesty would have me do with my sense of morality.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

I think if millions did actually behave well because of a Jesus who had no miraculous powers attached to his mythology, the middle-men moderator positions would eventually fade away as being irrelevant.

Because people would simply know how to moderate themselves accordingly.

When Jesus tried to protect a woman who had sinned, according to the rules, he was showing love and compassion.... even friendship.

He was also showing wherein an opportunity to challenge the rule and teach others how to identify the problem with the rule.

Interestingly, he did not condemn the rule, though PRIVATELY he may have thought the rule harsh.

Interestingly we both understand the story differently. What he thought of the rule was plain to see in his actions. His actions were hardly PRIVATE.

Many of the rules I live under I consider absurd but I realise that I am safe because rules are imposed.

Then your belief that many absurd rules make you safe, may be absurd.
Those who made such rules, Jesus referred to as hypocrites. I am sure those hypocrites felt safe behind the rules they created/helped to keep, because the law-makers made it that way for themselves. Their authority behind the rules is what gave them the sense of being safe, regardless of the absurdity of the rules. Their authority was created through the congruity of their establishment of position under the law.

Jesus was conscious of living under the direction of rules and cleverly got himself out of awkward situations not by condemning rules but by finding a way to live with them:

Not according to the mythology. The rules eventually gave the Moderators the ability to kill him off BECAUSE he chose not to follow those rules. The moderators were safe on account of that. He was eventually "banned", but there were moments where he was "on probation" and moments when he was "suspended".

His argument was not that rules were not necessary to human society, but that some rules which claimed an action to be WRONG and had consequences, were absurd and needed to be changed.

That is what this picture represents;



Unfortunately he was in a time and place where reason and critical thinking about rules which are wrong and needed to be changed, were non-existent. The Mods were the ones with the overall power to make the changes but - for reason of preserving their positions and the sense of safety that their positions allowed them - they continued to use their power in a wrong way. They may not have argued that the rules were inappropriate, but rather that the rules - appropriate or not - ensured their positions safety.

I think if people followed his precepts, all would be well. Unfortunately people bring their own baggage along and Jesus takes second place, or is transformed into a winged being or a portion of a divinity or a man on a cloud coming to kill bad people. I think the Easter Christ is a coinage of clever people interested in marrying secular power to religious authority. In doing so, they took away much of what Christ actually said.

Precisely what I was referring to when I wrote;

Somehow the myth became moderated. And the power of the image of the miraculous was endorsed to keep the Mods in their self created positions of power.

The Mods brought their baggage along and inflicted their absurd rules onto something which eventually became the traditional organised religions of Christendom. "Clever people interested in marrying secular power to religious authority."

The antidote?

I think if millions did actually behave well because of a Jesus who had no miraculous powers attached to his mythology, the middle-men moderator positions would eventually fade away as being irrelevant.

Because people would simply know how to moderate themselves accordingly.

But as long as people are convinced that they require moderation from an authority claiming to be the moderators for the job, nothing much will change in relation to the collective human society stuck in their old paradigm Systems of Disparity.

I used to think that the answer would be to work on a plan of action which allowed for the Mods themselves to implement said plan and become the hero's of humanity on account of that, but it appears to me that the Mods are invested heavily in the assumed safety of their current positions and don't want to jeopardize that safety by tampering with the very thing which has allowed them the luxury of their positions within the structures of their systems of disparity.

Evidence of that is sadly apparent.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 13 by marco]

i wouldn't call the Gospels biographies. And wouldn't call the Gospels paving stones to hell either.

[Tcg]

If he never rose from the dead and made no miracles, yet millions behave well because of him, does it matter he is a myth?

From my perspective, the idea that millions behave well because of him is a component of the myth. It is of course a claim that is all but impossible to verify or contradict. How could we ask a follower to stop following to see if their behavior worsens or improves?


It also depends on which of his teachings one favors. He speaks plenty of death and destruction for those who make the mistake of disagreeing with him. Sadly, some of his followers relish the idea that those who disagree with them will suffer some gruesome result rather than the paradise they look forward to.


Jesus himself taught that many will enter the wide gate that leads to destruction. He may have meant it as a warning based on genuine care for the poor souls passing through it. Too many of his followers use it as a taunt to those they have been given a reason to feel superior to.



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

On what research are you claiming that Jesus is a myth? Unless someone is a historical relativist there are really no serious scholars that would say that Jesus was a myth. Dr. Gary Habermas has more than proved that.

Now if you are trying to say that Jesus was not raised from the dead. Then you have a problem with especially Paul and but also the rest of the disciples on why they would die for a myth.

The disciples are different than suicide bombers of today. Suicide bombers are dying for their belief in a better life if they die.

The resurrection is central to the Christian gospel. If Jesus was not raised from the dead then the disciples would have had nothing to base their belief in.

[Tcg]

On what research are you claiming that Jesus is a myth? Unless someone is a historical relativist there are really no serious scholars that would say that Jesus was a myth.

marco has already addressed this in post 13:

• "I am not arguing against the historical Christ when I use the word myth."

Now if you are trying to say that Jesus was not raised from the dead. Then you have a problem with especially Paul and but also the rest of the disciples on why they would die for a myth.

You are using the myth itself in an attempt to support the myth. You need something external to the myth to support it. Given your reliance on the myth itself to support the myth, it appears you've nothing external to offer.

If Jesus was not raised from the dead then the disciples would have had nothing to base their belief in.

This says nothing more than if the disciples were wrong, they were wrong. But, you are right, if they were wrong, they were indeed wrong.



Tcg