On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gmx
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by gmx » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:52 am

Paul's letters are ignorant of the bulk of Jesus' words and deeds, but Paul's sect does know Jesus as the crucified messiah. Q and GThomas tell us that another early Jesus tradition was all sayings-based, no treble. It was all about what Jesus taught. Eventually, Mark came along and reconciled these two disparate branches, trawling the pages of the LXX to invent a biography of Jesus' life and setting it in a definite time and place. Big Matthew and Luke came along and smoothed out the rough edges of Mark's effrots and completed the big picture. John smoked pot.
To me, what doesn't make sense about this narrative of Christian origins is that the gospels are basically unmodified for 1800+ years from about 200CE (or what's a better date?), we are expected to believe that from 40CE-150CE the Jesus story is being constantly updated and revised and rebooted, and communities which are already established and indoctrinated in whatever yesterday's story was are happily consuming the expanded / changing narrative as it came along, and not batting and eyelid.

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by Adam » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:16 am

Whose ox are we goring here?
Let this play out for a while, but I request gmx state sometime his agenda here.

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by outhouse » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:55 am

gmx wrote:
To me, what doesn't make sense about this narrative of Christian origins is that the gospels are basically unmodified for 1800+ years from about 200CE (or what's a better date?), we are expected to believe that from 40CE-150CE the Jesus story is being constantly updated and revised and rebooted, and communities which are already established and indoctrinated in whatever yesterday's story was are happily consuming the expanded / changing narrative as it came along, and not batting and eyelid.

What is it you do not understand about the REAL origins of this movement exactly?


Jesus could be mythical for this example. But the origins of Christianity are FACTUAL and questions like yours are admission that you don't have a clue what your debating here.


YES we are expected to believe that based on a "possible" martyrdom at Passover, that legends in theology and mythology spread through out the diaspora, and many different versions and traditions developed and were in WIDESPREAD use, BEFORE the popular versions became orthodox.

YOUR lack of knowledge here is quite outstanding. Did Jewish text evolve? FK yes it did. Did Hellenist have their own version of this text FK yes they did. Did Hellenist change Jewish text FK yes they did is come places.


So why is it strange to you?????????? that Hellenist divorcing Judaism and perverting its text would have so many different versions WHEN Fkn Judaism in itself was so widespread and diverse?

Giuseppe
Posts: 2828
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:13 am

and many different versions and traditions developed and were in WIDESPREAD use
Mmm. I would opt for a middle way.

From this article I read:
Klinghardt follows the trail that the theologian David Trobisch had shown 29 years ago in his post-doctoral thesis in Heidelberg.
According to this view, the 27 books of the New Testament were all assembled in the middle of the second century, was not the complicated selection process among communities widely dispersed, but it originated as an innovative publishing project.
I think that the time necessary to historicize (in the meaning of euhemerizing) Jesus was very soon, maybe only a month, maybe even few days. Because the first Gospel was a very powerful narrative! It was sufficient that only the leaders of other communities did read it, to persuade themselves that it was extremely convenient to join to the mythology created by that so powerful narrative.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by outhouse » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:02 pm

Giuseppe wrote: Mmm. I would opt for a middle way.

From this article I read:

.

This "middle way" remains very unsubstantiated at this time.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by toejam » Mon Oct 26, 2015 12:35 pm

somebody quoted by gmx wrote:John smoked pot.
That certainly has some high explanatory power :D
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

gmx
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by gmx » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:26 am

outhouse wrote:But the origins of Christianity are FACTUAL and questions like yours are admission that you don't have a clue what your debating here.
A lack of understanding is, I guess, one reason why a forum member might ask a question.

Secondly, of course there is no doubt the origins of Christianity are FACTUAL - the question is whether we are in possession of those facts. As far as the development of 1st century Christianity goes, I'd contend that we know very little. We don't know where the gospels were written, for what purpose, or anything of substance about the communities that produced them, or the origins of the oral and/or written traditions that underpin them. There is enough "wiggle room" for example, to argue such polar opposite views as Jesus being a completely fictional character, to the gospels being largely based on the actual teachings of a 1st century Jewish messianic preacher. But for some reason, you think the origins of Christianity are a closed book, done and dusted, nothing further to learn here. Move along.

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by outhouse » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:06 pm

gmx wrote:[
. We don't know where the gospels were written, for what purpose, or anything of substance about the communities that produced them, or the origins of the oral and/or written traditions that underpin them.

.
Speak for yourself. The anthropological context is known in detail. We know far more then you might ever consider.

There is enough "wiggle room" for example, to argue such polar opposite views as Jesus being a completely fictional character, to the gospels being largely based on the actual teachings of a 1st century Jewish messianic preacher.
No there is no said wiggle room. Your creating a mythical debate that doesn't exist. Your giving way to much credit to a fringe movement that cannot provide a replacement hypothesis that isn't laughable.
But for some reason, you think the origins of Christianity are a closed book, done and dusted, nothing further to learn here. Move along.
False. That's part of your ignorance that bothers me. There is plenty to learn and details added. But there is foundation most educated people build from, and you don't see the forest for the trees.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8265.html


There is a great source for the context of historical Jesus, and elements of the movement.

Robert Baird
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by Robert Baird » Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:17 pm

gmx wrote:
outhouse wrote:But the origins of Christianity are FACTUAL and questions like yours are admission that you don't have a clue what your debating here.
A lack of understanding is, I guess, one reason why a forum member might ask a question.

Secondly, of course there is no doubt the origins of Christianity are FACTUAL - the question is whether we are in possession of those facts. As far as the development of 1st century Christianity goes, I'd contend that we know very little. We don't know where the gospels were written, for what purpose, or anything of substance about the communities that produced them, or the origins of the oral and/or written traditions that underpin them. There is enough "wiggle room" for example, to argue such polar opposite views as Jesus being a completely fictional character, to the gospels being largely based on the actual teachings of a 1st century Jewish messianic preacher. But for some reason, you think the origins of Christianity are a closed book, done and dusted, nothing further to learn here. Move along.
I could flood this board with support for your contention. See thread Know Rome - Know Jesus for one.

Perhaps it is understandable that Rome used propaganda - is there any doubt/ And they like Lao Tzu knew brainwashing was the most important battle to be won.

Then we can treat the investigation as if it was a murder - it was (of Course) far more than murder and was an attempt at genocide. There are many Rabbinical authors who know Rome tried to blame the Jews for doing what Rome did - crucifixion in that region of their Empire because it was the most terrible local torture and form of execution - Rome did other things in other regions. But always Rome did what it could to buy off local authorities. To that end we had the Roman Minister of Mines sitting on the Sanhedrin (J of A) and the assassin Paul/Saul who as well as stoning Stephan is implicated in the attempt on James (The Righteous and older brother of Yeshua). Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen and more importantly a Benjaminite. If he was that he was a lot like J of A). He also claimed to have attended the Pharisaic school of Gamaliel (Golden Rule contributor) but we know that is a lie because we have the school records.

In a murder investigation you look for motive - does Rome like Power and money? Did a smaller number of citizens share in the spoils - and those who ran the show called The Holy Roman Empire got more money and power than any organization this earth has ever seen.

Josephus sold out, Philo was bought and even Herod was beholden to Rome. It is possible to argue Judas was the only TRUE believer in Jesus as the son of God because he wanted God to get involved and throw the Romans out of his country.

As to government set-ups to hide what they are doing, I have no doubt they plant mummies, bodies, do skits, projections and anything else that might work. In one incredible case the CIA paid the parents of Beth Goobie to allow them to do genital electrification and cause disassociation in the fetus before birth. I hope it is just a myth but I met a top Mercenary Colonel on layover in Dover, England who was involved with a woman fitting Beth Goobie's description some 15 years before I read her story in Paranoia Magazine. After ten years of therapy which stopped her from allowing the suicide activation triggers you see in the movie Conspiracy Theory, she won the Governor General's award for writing children's stories.

I have lots of proof the CIA uses alters, concubinage, couriers, prostitution and more. They had created each of these personalities in her from birth. I have a good case for Colonel Edward Mandell House doing this to "RUN" Woodrow Wilson. I think the Manchurian Candidate Movies are fact based and Shrub was used at Averill Harriman's Jupiter Island complex to that end. He was developed to be perfect at the Standard Operating Procedure of Plausible Deniability. When he says "I don't know." He is believable.

Religion as Fukayama says in his book The End of History and the Last Man has always been a social engineers tool. He was congratulated by Clinton as he moved up the ladder from US Policy Manager to the Rand Corporation.

Hitler learned how to wend a wonderful charm over his people. It was not allowed for the defense of the criminals at Nuremberg to explain the use of religion and occult means but in the end they were all let go with a lot less than they were charged with. My father was at Nuremberg with the Judge Advocate.

Here is a little quote from Hitler to give some insight into how he and Mussolini worked with the Vatican. "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith... we need believing people." [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

Was Ivan Illich ex-communicated for trying to stop schooling people through the present brainwashing of his era - which still is going on.

The more things change - the more they remain the same. In my lifetime I heard the phrase "They killed our Savior!" It was directed at the Jews who did not crucify Jesus (If he was - I know how he knew how to appear dead.). Then the liar Paul sees him after he left town or went to Heaven - Want some swamp land at a good price?

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: On Historicizing the Jesus Myth

Post by outhouse » Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:05 am

Robert Baird wrote: I could flood this board with support for your contention.
But for once could you bring something credible to the table?

Then we can treat the investigation as if it was a murder - it was (of Course) far more than murder and was an attempt at genocide.
Not a supportable position.

It seems based on a complete lack of knowledge

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, Giuseppe, Jax, lsayre, Peter Kirby and 76 guests