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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

The "Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus. And the Gnostic writings have nothing to do with the Apocrypha.

Are you thinking of the extracanonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas? Not to be confused with the Deuterocanonical books, such as Tobit, 1 and 2nd Maccabees etc which have weight in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Those are commonly known as the "Apocrapha".

One does not need to look to any of those in order to see myths attached to Jesus. One need look no further than the cannonical books of the New Testament itself to find those.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

And many people worship God. Your point? Are you suggesting because some people worship Elvis that invalidates worshipping God?

[JehovahsWitness]

One does not need to look to any of those in order to see myths attached to Jesus. One need look no further than the cannonical books of the New Testament itself to find those.

I'm sorry, don't you mean you believe that one need look no further than the cannonical books of the New Testament itself?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

The "Apocrypha has nothing to do with Jesus. And the Gnostic writings have nothing to do with the Apocrypha.

Are you thinking of the extracanonical books such as the Gospel of Thomas? Not to be confused with the Deuterocanonical books, such as Tobit, 1 and 2nd Maccabees etc which have weight in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Those are commonly known as the "Apocrapha".

FYI

The word "apocrypha" means "things put away" or "things hidden," originating from the Medieval Latin adjective apocryphus [...] The general term is usually applied to the books that were considered by the church as useful, but not divinely inspired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

The New Testament apocrypha are a number of writings not accepted as being part of the bible canon.

Apostolic Fathers

1 Clement · 2 Clement
Epistles of Ignatius
Polycarp to the Philippians
Martyrdom of Polycarp · Didache
Barnabas · Diognetus
The Shepherd of Hermas

Jewish-Christian Gospels
Ebionites · Hebrews · Nazarenes

Infancy Gospels
James · Thomas · Syriac · Pseudo-Matthew · History of Joseph the Carpenter

Gnostic Gospels
Judas · Mary · Philip · Truth · Secret Mark · The Saviour

Other Gospels

Thomas · Marcion · Peter · Barnabas

Apocalypse
Paul · Coptic Paul
Peter · Gnostic Peter
Pseudo-Methodius · Thomas · Stephen
1 James · 2 James

Epistles
Apocryphon of James
Apocryphon of John
Epistula Apostolorum
Corinthians to Paul · Pseudo-Titus
Peter to Philip · Laodiceans
Seneca the Younger · 3 Corinthians

Acts
Andrew · Barnabas · John · the Martyrs
Paul · Paul & Thecla
Peter · Peter & Andrew
Peter & Paul · Peter & the Twelve
Philip · Pilate · Thomas · Timothy
Xanthippe, Polyxena, & Rebecca

Misc

Diatessaron
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Prayer of the Apostle Paul

"Lost" Books
Bartholomew · Cerinthus · Basilides · Mani

Historical Edits
Decretum Gelasianum




RELATED POSTS

Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 66#p838566

Is there is evidence that the apocryphal books were NOT originally recognized as part of the inspired Scriptures?
viewtopic.php?p=838822#p838822

How should we view Iraneus' and other early catalogues?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 84#p923384

Does the idea of a Great Apostacy negate the authenticity of the bible canon?
viewtopic.php?p=1045515#p1045515

When did "The Great Apostacy" take place?
viewtopic.php?p=1044471#p1044471

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLE CANON , BIBLICAL COMPILATION and ...THE APOCRYPHA

[Elijah John]

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).
JW

Not completely deified by well on the way. The writers of the NT and the comunities behind them started the ball rolling, by claiming Jesus was more than a man, had a pre-existence, was born of a virgin, was perfect, etc. Theological speculation, and myth making.

The Church fathers simply took the next, obvious step in the process with their various Councils.

I have to admit, however, I try to keep an open mind about the resurrection. The resurrection may or may not be a fact of history, but the belief in the resurrection is almost certainly historical.

Why Jesus and not John the Baptist, who also died as a martyr for what he believed in? So it really seems that something happened there. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by polonius.advice]

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.

I agree with Bokenkotter that the gospels were not meant to be historical or biographical accounts of Jesus, but why does he conclude that the gospel writers did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus? It's strange for him to say that they didn't lie about Jesus only to admit they put words in his mouth. Isn't putting words in his mouth lying? Isn't "not historical in the strict sense" a fabrication?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The phrasing of the OP is a bit exclusive: it requires that one already believes there is hard distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith: which inevitably means one regards the former as "true" in one sense that the other is not.

And since the distinction is rather famous (one will recall Harnack, Bultmann, Shweitzer) the answers will be obvious: relatively few statements from the gospels will be attributed to Jesus himself; no miracles; certainly no empty tomb and resurrection.

At that point, the question becomes, "Which innocuous and humdrum words of the gospels can be attributed to Jesus, and which humdrum and innocuous words can't?"

However, I will attempt an answer, though I will tweak "myth" to "low value historicity".

Following historical methodology, I regard certain sayings of Jesus as highly dubious, historically.

Most of all, his saying in Mark where he supposedly declares all food as clean. Had he really done this, in Palestine!! he would have been stoned right there and then; probably by his own disciples. Matthew's version has far more value historically.

I regard Matthew's final scene--all Jesus' disciples upon a mountain top witnessing the resurrected Jesus--as theologically motivated. Matthew (or whoever wrote it) certainly believed Jesus was divine: hence he has him worshiped on a mountain, thematically echoing the O.T. where God meets Moses and the elders on a mountain.

I regard most of Luke's tendency to make Jerusalem the gravitational center of God's activities as part of Luke's theological motif. He seems in love with Jerusalem. Everything revolves around it.

I do not regard the resurrection as myth, in the sense that it was a later invention of the church. The historical evidence is too strong to discount it as a creation of imaginations. Whether it happened or not, there was certainly experiences, believed experiences, that led the original disciples to conclude Jesus was bodily raised from the grave.

Many (not all!!) internet skeptics who have read a couple books (like those of Carrier) and a lot of internet blogs (these reduce scholarship to a juvenile level; but worse, mingle real scholarship with amateurs and sensationalists) will find it easy to dismiss the data. Well, I have been told there are still Germans who dismiss all the data indicating a holocaust as wild propaganda.

[Willum]

Why the false dichotomy?
You seem to imply the myth in the title, but then you give us the two choices, one preposterously unlikely, the other mundane, but neither suggesting the most likely.

What about the opinion, rapidly being accepted, on the grounds of reality: That Jesus didn't exist at all? The myth you implied,but not the myth you described?

As more and more Biblical Scholars are becoming non-religious, and still fewer are being burned at the stake for proposing it, we find that consensus is changing to Jesus was just as much a myth as Theseus, that is, non-existent.

We already find that so much of Judeo-Christian myth is described in Encyclopaedias and other traditional sources as, "According to the Bible..." which, to the overwhelming majority of the world, means, according to Judeo-Christian myth.

And kind of implies to that majority, that there are vast swaths of people who believe in this stuff, believe children's fables.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by liamconnor]

To say that there is a real and solid distinction is not to suggest that one is "true" and the other "false" per se.

Just that the "historical Jesus" can (eventually perhaps) be apprehended by historical methods and liklihood. (cultural and religious context etc), while the "Christ of Faith" is not provable, or veifiable by historical methods.

[polonius]

[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

RESPONSE: Often they do not separate fact from fiction if they have an agenda. Matthew's having Jesus send for and ride two animals when entering Jerusalem so he seemed to fulfill a prophecy is an example.

You don't suppose the New Testament was written to make converts do you?