Jesus: Man or Myth?

[koan]

This came up in another thread and I felt it could run rampant on its own.

Despite this being a sensitive and, to some, potentially blasphemous thread :yh_nailbi for the sake of fascinating topics I am willing to take the chance.

Before anything else is said let me assert that I believe a man named Jesus, or represented by that name, did exist. How he was born, what he actually said word for word, even whether or not he died on a cross are not essential details that must be true for the beauty of his message to be just as valid.

I do, however, think that some of the details surrounding him as currently written in the Bible may have been...embelished.

I am gathering info that other people have posted on the web that bring certain parts of the "Jesus story" to question. I am also looking for good responses from the Chritian retaliations against these claims. I want to present both sides of the case and hope others will do the same.

Case number one:

The Virgin Birth.

from The Truth About Jesus

by M.M. Mangasarian

Stories of gods born of virgins are to be found in nearly every age and country. There have been many virgin mothers, and Mary with her child is but a recent version of a very old and universal myth. In China and India, in Babylonia and Egypt, in Greece and Rome, "divine" beings selected from among the daughters of men the purest and most beautiful to serve them as a means of entrance into the world of mortals....

A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born. ...

In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born. In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on his mother Maya, "in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb," and was born from her right side, to save the world." [Stories of Virgin Births. Reference: Lord Macartney. Voyage dans 'interview de la Chine et en Tartarie. Vol. I p. 48. See also Les Vierges Meres et les Naissance Miraculeuse. P. Saintyves. p. 19, etc.] In Greece, the young god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the world.

In ancient Mexico, as well as in Babylonia, and in modern Corea, as in modern Palestine, as in the legends of all lands, virgins gave birth and became divine mothers. But the real home of virgin births is the land of the Nile. Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God. Of course no one will think of maintaining that the Egyptians borrowed the idea from the Catholics nearly two thousand years before the Christian era. "The story in the Gospel of Luke, the first and second chapters is," says Malvert, "a reproduction, 'point by point,' of the story in stone of the miraculous birth of Amunothph." [Science and Religion. p. 96.]

Sharpe in his Egyptian Mythology, page 19, gives the following description of the, Luxor picture, quoted by G.W. Foote in his 'Bible Romances,' page 126: "In this picture we have the annunciation, the conception, the birth and the adoration, as described in the first and second chapters of Luke's Gospel." Massey gives a more minute description of the Luxor picture. "The first scene on the left hand shows the god Taht, the divine Wolrd or Loges, in the act of hailing the virgin queen, announcing to her that she is to give birth to a son. In the second scene the god Kneph (assisted by Hathor) gives life to her. This is the Holy Ghost, or Spirit that causes conception. ... Next the mother is seated on the midwife's stool, and the child is supported in the hands of one of the nurses. The fourth scene is that of the adoration. Here the child is enthroned, receiving homage from the gods and gifts from men." [Natural Geneses. Massey, Vol. II, p. 398.] The picture on the wall of the Luxor temple, then, is one of the sources to which the anonymous writers of the Gospels went for their miraculous story. It is no wonder they suppressed their own identity as well as the source from which they borrowed their material.



Okay, rant away if you wish or write whatever else may come to mind. I will be looking to post a response to these allegations next.

[koan]

As I am drawing from accusations in support of myth first it takes a bit longer to find the appropriate response. I'm working hard on it but don't take any delays as meaning there is not a good response.

In the meantime....

From Bede's Library

Language is important. Christian terms such as 'salvation', 'Eucharist', 'word made flesh' and 'lamb of god' are common currency today. Therefore when translating or paraphrasing pagan sources always use modern Christian language. Never mind that the ancient pagans would not have known what you were on about - you are not talking to them. In this way you can call a woman being raped by various kinds of wildlife a 'virgin birth', you can call having ones body parts stuck back together a 'resurrection' and you can call just about every Greek hero a 'son of god'. Also it is helpful to use King James Bible phrases and style when quoting pagan texts. It gives them some more gravitas.

[Ted]

Koan :-6

An understanding of how the Bible came to be and the nature of midrashic writing and the consequent use of metaphor will answer to most of the questions raised. I'm afraid I don't have time today to go into that but if you are interested I will do so in a day or so.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Ted]

koan :-6

I have a few moments. The stories of Jesus are a combination of history remembered and metaphor historicized.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

Thanks for joining, Ted!

I was hoping you would have time to stop by.

[Ted]

koan :-6

Most Biblical scholars have no trouble with the historical Jesus. Now I suppose one could say they are biased but generally they try to remain true to the nature of academics.

When you ask about Jesus as man or myth are you referring to Yeshua of Nazareth or the Risen Christ? Modern theologians make a serious distinction here.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

I'm talking of the historical man. The spirit of Jesus or a form he took after physical death would be capable of any number of miracles that could never be proven. But what is literally taken as fact about the physical, historical man is a topic that can be discussed as far as "proof" is concerned.

The next point that "Jesus Myth" supporters argue is (quite long and from the same source as the first issue, MM Mangasarian):

THE ORIGIN OF THE CROSS

Only the uninformed, of whom, we regret to say, there are a great many, and who are the main support of the old religions, still believe that the cross originated with Christianity. Like the dogmas of the Trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, the sign of the cross or the cross as an emblem or a symbol was borrowed from the more ancient faiths of Asia. Perhaps one of the most important discoveries which primitive man felt obliged never to be ungrateful enough to forget, was the production of fire by the friction of two sticks placed across each other in the form of a cross. As early as the stone age we find the cross carved on monuments which have been dug out of the earth and which can be seen in the museums of Europe. On the coins of later generations as well as on the altars of prehistoric times we find the "sacred" symbol of the cross. The dead in ancient cemeteries slept under the cross as they do in our day in Catholic churchyards.

In ancient Egypt, as in modern China, India, Corea, the cross is venerated by the masses as a charm of great power. In the Musee Guimet, in Paris, we have seen specimens of pre-Christian crosses. In the Louvre Museum one of the "heathen" gods carries a cross on his head. During his second journey to New Zealand, Cook was surprised to find the natives marking the graves of their dead with the cross. We saw, in the Museum of St. Germain, an ancient divinity of Gaul, before the conquest of the country by Julius Caesar, wearing a garment on which was woven a cross. In the same museum an ancient, altar of Gaul under Paganism, had a cross carved upon it. That the cross was not adopted by the followers of Jesus until a later date may be inferred from the silence of the earlier disciples, Matthew, Mark and Luke, on the details of the crucifixion, which is more fully developed in the later gospel of John. The first three evangelists say nothing about the nails or the blood, and give the impression that he was hanged. Writing of the two thieves who were sentenced to receive the same punishment, Luke says, "One of the malefactors that was hanged with him." The idea of a bleeding Christ, such as we see on crosses in Catholic churches, is not present in these earlier descriptions of the crucifixion; the Christians of the time of Origin were called "the followers of the god who was hanged." In the fourth gospel we see the beginnings of the legend of the cross, of Jesus carrying or falling under the weight of the cross, of the nail prints in his hands and feet, of the spear drawing the blood from his side and smearing his body. Of all this, the first three evangelists are quite ignorant.

Let it be further noted that it was not until eight hundred years after the supposed crucifixion that Jesus is seen in the form of a human being on the cross. Not in any of the paintings on the ancient catacombs is found a crucified Christ. The earliest cross bearing a human being is of the eighth century. For a long time a lamb with a cross, or on a cross, was the Christian symbol, and it is a lamb which we see entombed in the "holy sepulchre." In more than one mosaic of early Christian times, it is not Jesus, but a lamb, which is bleeding for the salvation of the world. How a lamb came to play so important a role in Christianity is variously explained. The similarity between the name of the Hindu god, Agni and the meaning of the same word in Latin, which is a lamb, is one theory. Another is that a ram, one of the signs of the zodiac, often confounded by the ancients with a lamb, is the origin of the popular reverence for the lamb as a symbol -- a reverence which all religions based on sun-worship shared. The lamb in Christianity takes away the sins of the people, just as the paschal lamb did in the Old Testament, and earlier still, just as it did in Babylonia.

To the same effect is the following letter of the bishop of Mende, in France, bearing date of the year 800 A.D.: "Because the darkness has disappeared, and because also Christ is a real man, Pope Adrian commands us to paint him under the form of a man. The lamb of God must not any longer be painted on a cross, but after a human form has been placed on the cross, there is no objection to have a lamb also represented with it, either at the foot of the cross or on the opposite side." We leave it to our readers to draw the necessary conclusions from the above letter. How did a lamb hold its place on the cross for eight hundred years? If Jesus was really crucified, and that fact was a matter of history, why did it take eight hundred years for a Christian bishop to write, "now that Christ is a real man," etc.? Today, it would be considered a blasphemy to place a lamb on a cross.

On the tombstones of Christians of the fourth century are pictures representing, not Jesus, but a lamb, working the miracles mentioned in the gospels, such as multiplying the loaves and fishes, and raising Lazarus from the dead.

The first representations of a human form on the cross differ considerably from those which prevail at the present time. While the figure on the modern cross is almost naked, those on the earlier ones are clothed and completely covered. Wearing a flowing tunic, Jesus is standing straight against the cross with his arms outstretched, as though in the act of delivering an address. Frequently, at his feet, on the cross, there is still painted the figure of a lamb, which by and by, he is going to replace altogether. Gradually the robe disappears from the crucified one, until we see him crucified, as in the adjoining picture, with hardly any clothes on, and wearing an expression of great agony.

[Ted]

koan :-6

I don't know who the author of that epistle is but he is certainly not listed among the recognized scholars of the world. Perhaps he is a Theosophist. If he is they are not recognized among scholarly circles.

That being said the cross is mentioned in Matt27:33, Mark 15:30 and Luke uses the term crucifixion which in fact means to hang on a cross or a stake being nailed at times and somtimes just being tied on and left to die. All three mention that Jesus was Naked as well. I have not dealt with John but he does use the term cross as well.

Further to that Paul who wrote as early as 20yrs after Jesus death also referred to the cross.

The author is also incorrect on the timing of the useage of the cross in the early church. The gospels themselves are not history as such but history remembered and metaphor historicized. However, they reflect what the early church had come to believe about this Yeshua of Nazareth. John being the last gospel written and written somewhere around 95 CE shows clearly that the early church accepted the crucifixion as being death on the cross.

Crossan and world renound Jesus Scholar has no trouble with the historical crucifxion on the cross p388 "The Historical Jesus". Joshephus even mentions the cross and is quoted in the same book p392.

Crucifixion is noted by Petronius in his novel Satyricon in 61 C.E. p542 "The Birth of Christianity" by Crossan.

I have just viewed an icon from the 600's clearly depicting a cross.. p194 of "Everyday Life in Bible Times" National Geographic.

In 312 C.E. Constantine reported seeing visions of the cross."Christian History Time Line"

Will look further.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

That's a good response to the issue so far, Ted.

Here's some other stuff that's "out there":

This writer believes Jesus was put on the cross but not that he died there. He is questioning the doctrine that Christ died for our sins.

Essays on geopolitics

history and the future

Palden Jenkins

24. The Crucifixion of Jesus

Yet, in the approved New Testament gospels, many clues exist which give the game away. When Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus (two leading Essenes) took Jesus down from the Cross, why was it they took with them healing herbs rather than embalming lotions? Why were the legs of the thieves crucified with Jesus broken by the Romans, but not those of Jesus himself? Why, when Jesus' right side was pierced by a soldier's spear, did blood and water emerge, when clinical death would not allow this? Why was Jesus kept on the cross for but 3-6 hours, when it was known that this man had demonstrated abnormal powers and that it often took longer than this to die on the cross? Why is it consistently accepted that the Joseph's sepulchre, in which Jesus was placed, was emptied by (presumably) supernatural means, when the most logical explanation would be that he escaped or was removed? Why was Jesus' close association with, if not membership of, the Essenes, covered up? Going back further, how is it that the 'lost years' of Jesus' life, covering eighteen years (from age 12 to 30), remain so mysterious and unrecorded?...

...Evidence, first unearthed by Nicolas Notovitch in the 1870s-90s, of Jesus' extensive travels in Asia, and subsequently further researched by Meer Izzutoolah, Janet Bock, Nicolai Roerich, Elizabeth Prophet and others, offers far too much information contradictory to Christian doctrine to be ignored. This evidence seriously and plausibly suggests that Jesus spent significant periods of his youth in Persia, Afghanistan, India and Tibet, even China, and that he returned that way after the crucifixion, eventually to die in Kashmir. There is some dispute over the authenticity of his tomb at Rozabal, Srinagar, Kashmir , though remains and traditions in Kashmir are quite, though not incontrovertibly, convincing. However, contending burial places such as the Egyptian pyramids, the South of France or Afghanistan do not point to a simple demise at the hands of the Romans outside Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion. They imply that Jesus' life and mission was not simply local to Palestine - Professor Hassnain, a Sufi Muslim, goes as far as to say that Jesus was a well-travelled world teacher who was, in a sense, posthumously hijacked by Christians to be their own spiritual patron and even an eschatological aspect of their God. This matter split Christians in the first few centuries after his time, causing some to be murdered, others (such as the followers of Arius and Pelagius) to be suppressed, and others, such as the Nestorians, to be exiled as far as China....

...central to this question is the use of the crucifixion as the core of the Christian teaching, and the Pauline notion that our sins were somehow spiritually alleviated by Jesus' death on the cross. Hassnain suggests, with some logic, that Saul met Jesus in the flesh on the Damascus road after the crucifixion, and that Jesus' challenge to him ("Wherefore persecutest thou me?") probably shocked Paul to the root! After all, this guy was supposed to be dead! Thereafter, Paul, an organisation man, zealously did his best to make up for the tragedy of Jesus' sabotaged mission by creating the beginnings of the Christian religion - there is even reasonable evidence that Paul was later invited to Rome by British residents there. Paul's and his successors' created crucifixion myth later had a very insidious effect: it was used to sanction European guilt over the moral depravity of medieval times, offering a 'sin now, pray later' deal. This severely bent the age-old teaching of 'As you sow, so shall you reap' or the law of karma into a more politically convenient form. It brought a fundamental shift of cultural psychology which permitted the perpetration of many later European evils.

[Ted]

koan :-6

Unfortunately in both "The Origin of the Cross" and that last piece of writing the author gives absolutely no references whatsoever.

This leaves everything s/he said in doubt. It could be purely an attempt at creative writing or an out and out attmept to deceive the reader.

???????

S/he is also taking a literalist view of the Bible which of course is contrary to the way it was written and its intent and purpose. Midrash cannot be taken that way it must be read as midrash.

The fact of the matter is we know very little about the crucifixion of Jesus other then he was crucified. A close reading of the Gospels clearly shows discrepencies between the stories and also the facts concerning the burial of Jesus, Thus his/her criticisms are of little value since the facts are themselves not clear.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

I've really busy lately but just got a link to some very interesting stuff. I will post some better formed arguements (hopefully) after the stress is reduced. Moving. Ug.

[Ted]

koan :-6

A quote from re the use of the cross in the early church. It clearly shows that it had been used into the 200"s and why it's use may have appeared to disappear.

"The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd Century because of its pagan origins.

I think it is quite clear that the use of the cross began certainly at the time of Paul who is the earliest Christian writer and has continued to the present.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Ted]

George :-6

Welcome. That you are young is of little matter. We are all children of God and thus we all count regardless of our age. Your experience here in the fg can be very worthwhile but please remember you will hear (see) many views and opinions.

I would suggest that instead of one long post without a break into paragraphs makes it difficult to read. As I am visually impaired it makes it even harder.

In learning, it is wise to keep an open mind and think carefully about what is said: Especially here in the religious forum. You will hear things from the far left and the far right if such is an appropriate description. Folks here generally do not engage in personal attacks but do engage academic ones. Do not take offense. Give each some thought and come to your own conclusion. Don't be afraid to add your own thoughts. That is how we learn as we exchange thoughts and ideas.

Personally I am a follower of the emerging paradigm in the Christian faith while others are of the more traditional paradigm. I express what I believe concerning the topics but I do not necessarily expect others to think as I do.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Ted]

George :-6

In response to your post above I have a few comments to make. The Bible becomes for Christians the "Word of God" not because of who authored it but because God does indeed speak to us through the very human words of the Bible.

The Bible is a Jewish document written by Jews in a style that was called midrash. This relies heavily on metaphor. It was not a book that was intended to be read literally but with great thought. It contains myth, legend, folk tale, fiction, short story, poetry and has kernels of history spread throughout. Because it is not all historical does not mean that it does not teach profound truths. Profound truths can be presented in many forms including history. It is not an attempt to deceive or lie. It is simply the way ancient religious documents were written.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[koan]

George wrote: I realize now that my post does not answer the questions now being considered, but I propose it as an answer to the original question. Also I apologize for my little rant in the paranthesis (?). Although I truly believe what I said there, sticking it in the middle of the argument is confusing and does not much pertain to my original line of reasoning. It should have been put elsewhere.


Okay. I'll pretend it isn't there. :wah:

Just kidding! Every comment and view point is welcome. I'm glad you found somewhere to jump in. Welcome.

My apologies again that I started this thread at a time when I have no time. I am thinking about it though.

[Ted]

George :-6

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. This does not mean and in no way can be interpreted as meaning that all scripture is inerrant and historically accurate. It means exactly what it says; God inspired the writers to write down their experiences of the Divine.

Truth comes in many forms. It does not have to come as history. I like the comparison to Dickens' "Oliver Twist". This story is a novel. It is pure fiction and yet is was written to tell some truths about the social era in which Dickens lives. In spite of it being fiction it presents a great many truths about Dickens' era.

The traditional paradigm was a result of the reformation and the renaissance. With the rise of science the idea that all things that are true had to be historical arose. The heresy of inerrancy came in about 1590 (Marcus Borg). Before these times the folks knew what the Bible was and understood how it was written and should be understood.

With our present understanding of science especially physics, biology and archaeology we now realize that the Bible is simply not historically correct in all places that there are both internal and external discrepencies.

An external discrepency comes from archaeology or history. For example we know that Joshua did not bring down the walls of the city of Jericho. At the time of Joshua the city was derelict and totally abandoned and most of the walls had crumbled away. One is then tempted to say that the Bible is lying. But this is not so. If one understand Haggadah Midrash then such discrepencies are of no significance whatsoever because the truths that the story are tying to tell are still profound truths.

So when we begin to look at all the evidence we are arriving at a point where we begin to understand the writing style and the use of metaphor. This is actually taking us back to what the original writers intended. This is the emerging paradym.

The approach has made the Bible a far more powerful book then it ever was as a literal book. It present truths in a far more profound way then it ever did before. This is not just my experience but the experience of many others including highly trained and recognized scholars. This leads to an interpretation in light of the knowledge that we have today and is in no way contradictory of reality.

If your faith contradicts reality then you either have to choose to ignore the recent discoveries in the world and insist they didn't happen or you seek a way to make a unity of both the Bible and reality.

God has led me to my position. That is my belief after much study, prayer, meditation, reading, discussion etc. That is my experience.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[DrJ]

Jesus,,,A man, who looked at the world and all its equasions and found a relationship between his life, on earth, and the purpose for it..

A Simple man



Jesus the myth,, A spin if you will, of a truth only discovered by walking the path.

Shine it up,, make it pretty, and they will come,, but they will know not,,

until they walk in his shoes,, and realize he was as human as they....

The truth comes from within,,,

I and my father are one,,,

The collective perspective

[DrJ]

Jesus: Man or Myth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus,,,A man, who looked at the world and all its equasions and found a relationship between his life, on earth, and a purpose for it..

A Simple man,,,, who understood himself before he understood anything else in this life.... a model for all who follow...

Jesus the myth,, A spin if you will,

of a truth only discovered by walking the path,,

and living the story that does the math..

Shine it up,, make it pretty, and they will come,, but they will know not,, until they walk in his shoes,, and realize,, he was as human as they...

How can any possibly think they understand,, a man with any message,,

when people are getting it second hand,, and spun to a point that can never be reached by any other who was born and dies,,,,, in a world of lies!

We are in a new,, and to me,, a very interesting part of a discussion,

that has been going on in this world for centuries,

I believe it will bring out the best in what this whole idea was about when the plans were being drawn up for different perspectives to live in the same place,,

and actually understand one another,,,,,,, in a world of leather and lace......

I imagine this discussion as merely part of the process..

How do you think we are doing so far?

The best part about it,, is realizing what we all already know,,

The truth comes from within,,, I and my father are one,,,

The collective perspective,,,,as the higher power on earth!:yh_yinyan

Exploring the mind is definitely one of the hazards you find,,

after you realize yourself as a "work in progress",

which I am sure you will find,, as it is promised to be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, the ride of your life!~

:-6 :-6 :guitarist :-6 :-6

What the hell,, you might as well have fun,, imagining your limits........