Separating the myth from the man.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Separating the myth from the man.

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

Is the New Testament a mix of evangelical propaganda/aplogetic, myth, and historical biography?

Regarding Jesus, (for debate) separate the myth from the man. Please give expamples of which is which.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Separating the myth from the man.

Post #2

Post by liamconnor »

Elijah John wrote: Is the New Testament a mix of evangelical propaganda/aplogetic, myth, and historical biography?

Regarding Jesus, (for debate) separate the myth from the man. Please give expamples of which is which.

I must sparse these questions a bit.
Is the New Testament a mix of evangelical propaganda/aplogetic
Most history is an "apologetic" in the sense that the historian wishes to communicate some conclusion he or she hopes others will accept. Of course, the more honest the historian, the more open she or he will be about weaknesses of his or her argument. I think the history writers of the N.t. (namely, the gospels and Acts) are quite honest about the weaknesses of their argument: their entire argument has to include the most embarrassing fact: that the Jewish Messiah was crucified. Note that Islamic interpreters centuries later avoided this embarrassment by claiming Jesus switched places. We, centuries later, do not fully appreciate how embarrassing and implausible this claim would have been.

The Gospels include other embarrassing details. Jesus asks a interrogator, "Why do you call me good; only God is good." But all the evidence indicates that by the time the gospels were written, the belief was uniform that Jesus was without sin, and divine. Yet the gospel writers included this troubling detail. This indicates integrity as historians.

myth
this word has unfortunately been twisted to mean "any story believed to be true but is in fact false". That is not the original meaning of the word.

historical biography
based on the barest of historical criteria, we can conclude a few things:

1)Jesus was baptized by John
2)Jesus was regarded by many as an exorcist and miracle worker, as well as a teacher.
2a) Jesus upset some elite figures: namely the Pharisees.
2b) Jesus was opposed by some Jewish elite: primarily, he was accused of consorting with the devil to perform his miracles.
3)Jesus' family, at least his brothers, were embarrassed by his behavior.
4)Jesus made a scene in the temple.
5) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
6) that tomb was found empty after the Sabbath by women.
7) a multitude of disciples had experiences which convinced them that Jesus had not only been raised from the dead, but that his body had undergone a transformation which Jewish tradition of that time believed would happen at the end of times to all faithful Jews.

As far as individual pericopes are concerned, I think that the "gist" of them is to be accepted, whether or not the precise wording is

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Separating the myth from the man.

Post #3

Post by Elijah John »

liamconnor wrote:

1)Jesus was baptized by John
2)Jesus was regarded by many as an exorcist and miracle worker, as well as a teacher.
2a) Jesus upset some elite figures: namely the Pharisees.
2b) Jesus was opposed by some Jewish elite: primarily, he was accused of consorting with the devil to perform his miracles.
3)Jesus' family, at least his brothers, were embarrassed by his behavior.
4)Jesus made a scene in the temple.
5) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
6) that tomb was found empty after the Sabbath by women.
7) a multitude of disciples had experiences which convinced them that Jesus had not only been raised from the dead, but that his body had undergone a transformation which Jewish tradition of that time believed would happen at the end of times to all faithful Jews.

As far as individual pericopes are concerned, I think that the "gist" of them is to be accepted, whether or not the precise wording is
I agree, those are the (likely) facts. The rest is theological conjecture, what I call "myth" in this OP. That Jesus was sinless, born of a Virgin, and Divine, etc. But to say that something is myth does not make it untrue, at least in essence if not in literal detail.

And I disagree with your contention that it was universally (all Christians?) accepted that Jesus was sinless and Divine by the time the Gospels were penned.

Seemt to me that it took at least 300 years before the matter was "settled". By the RCC, at least.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Separating the myth from the man.

Post #4

Post by liamconnor »

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]
I agree, those are the (likely) facts. The rest is theological conjecture, what I call "myth" in this OP. That Jesus was sinless, born of a Virgin, and Divine, etc. But to say that something is myth does not make it untrue, at least in essence if not in literal detail.

And I disagree with your contention that it was universally (all Christians?) accepted that Jesus was sinless and Divine by the time the Gospels were penned.

Seemt to me that it took at least 300 years before the matter was "settled". By the RCC, at least.
I do not use the term "myth" when I discuss Jesus; the proximity of the data to the alleged events is too close to be defined as myth. Legend, perhaps.

One would of course have to define the term "myth" in this debate. Most use it as a synonym for "false history", but that is not adequate. There are many myths in ancient Greek culture and the evidence does not suggest all of them were believed to have actually occurred at all.

I base my claim on the sinlessness of Jesus by the time of the gospels based on the data. I make no claims beyond that time period. If the belief that Jesus was a sinner appeared after that time period, I have no position on that.

Now, If you can show that by the time the gospels were written the belief that Jesus was, just like us, a sinner, then please do so.

Till then, I have on my side the Pauline declaration that Jesus was without sin, and no explicit contradiction of this in the N.T.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: Separating the myth from the man.

Post #5

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Elijah John]
Is the New Testament a mix of evangelical propaganda/aplogetic, myth, and historical biography?


Regarding Jesus, (for debate) separate the myth from the man. Please give expamples of which is which.
I’m not sure what you are asking. Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God – so whatever is in it is what God wanted to be in it. Anything more God wants us to know He speaks through His Church and or to each of us in private devotion (although, one should always have a good spiritual director on hand to help us make sense of anything we think we may have received from God via private devotion. One’s personal interpretation can never contradict Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture.

It seems to me there are things you are anxious about that you needn't be. You seem to think perhaps we can't trust the accounts of the gospel writers. Or we can't be sure we are interpreting/understanding them correctly. But one's faith should cover that. You either believe in the God of the Bible or you don't and if you do, then you believe what the Bible tells us, which is He gave us His Church, who He promised to remain with.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Separating the myth from the man.

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

liamconnor wrote: based on the barest of historical criteria, we can conclude a few things:

5) Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb
How on earth could you possibly conclude this as a historical fact?

Historically all that can be said is that apparently some people believed that Jesus was supposedly buried in a tomb. There is no historical evidence to suggest that this event ever actually took place.
liamconnor wrote: based on the barest of historical criteria, we can conclude a few things:

6) that tomb was found empty after the Sabbath by women.
Well, if #5 never happened but there were rumors that it had happened, then it should be no surprise to anyone that the tomb would indeed be found to be empty.
liamconnor wrote: based on the barest of historical criteria, we can conclude a few things:

7) a multitude of disciples had experiences which convinced them that Jesus had not only been raised from the dead, but that his body had undergone a transformation which Jewish tradition of that time believed would happen at the end of times to all faithful Jews.
If Jesus was seen alive after the crucifixion this is actually historical evidence that he didn't die during the crucifixion and is the reason why he was never buried and why people saw him alive after that event.

And the mere fact that a transformation was believed in Jewish tradition would historically explain why those superstitious details were added to the tale.

So from basic historical evidence we should conclude that Jesus most likely survived this unofficial mob crucifixion.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply