Jesus Growing Over Time

[Niko92]

Hi Guys,

Sorry if this has been answered before (please point me to it if it has) but wanted to ask a question in regards to what I have been reading recently.

I have been reading up on the reliability of the New Testament in regards to it early composition etc etc but have come across this apparent view from non-believers that the Jesus Myth as they like to call it grew over time.

What I mean is they claim that if you look from the start until around the time of John and his gospel that bit by bit more and more supernatural claims started creeping in until we get the Jesus we have now but that at the start it wasn't like that and the myth grew more and more as the years passed.

I was wondering what the view of Orthodoxy is to that or if i can read up on some sources that would help me understand this better? Also if anyone can share their views with me it would be great!

Thanks heaps

 

[ArmyMatt]

sure, the Apostolic Fathers (those just after the Gospel writers) show the supernatural Christ that we confess in Orthodoxy. the idea that He is a myth that was expanded upon is just silly.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't know anything about this, but considering that John focused more on the supernatural, one who was looking to come up with an argument against faith could probably easily come up with such a charge, based on the idea that John's gospel was written last.

But the synoptic gospels don't ignore the incarnation or resurrection (which neither is a small thing!) as well as enough miracles to be clear that we're not talking about your average "moral teacher".

It seems to me just more attempts to discredit the faith.

 

[buzuxi02]

We reject this notion, other than certain elements were kept hidden from the prince of this world until it was safe to reveal them.

 

[truefiction1]

Hi Guys,

Sorry if this has been answered before (please point me to it if it has) but wanted to ask a question in regards to what I have been reading recently.

I have been reading up on the reliability of the New Testament in regards to it early composition etc etc but have come across this apparent view from non-believers that the Jesus Myth as they like to call it grew over time.

What I mean is they claim that if you look from the start until around the time of John and his gospel that bit by bit more and more supernatural claims started creeping in until we get the Jesus we have now but that at the start it wasn't like that and the myth grew more and more as the years passed.

I was wondering what the view of Orthodoxy is to that or if i can read up on some sources that would help me understand this better? Also if anyone can share their views with me it would be great!

Thanks heaps

While this may be a 'somewhat true' assessment of Christian mythos, bear in mind that the disciples of Jesus did in fact believe that He died and the rose again, being that they witnessed these things, along with His Ascending to Heaven and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. They sacrificed everything for Christ, suffering greatly but with unspeakable joy nonetheless. Common sense points to Jesus as truly the Savior of mankind and indeed the Only begotten Son of God, as told in the Gospels.

 

[gzt]

In Mark, the earliest, we see the transfiguration, death, and resurrection of Christ. What is more supernatural than that? I just reread the gospels last week and when giving over them quickly the "feel" is clearer - the earlier ones are more get-the-word-out while St John is more "we have this community who have come to know this Jesus, now we need to write down the deeper teachings".

 

[All4Christ]

In Mark, the earliest, we see the transfiguration, death, and resurrection of Christ. What is more supernatural than that? I just reread the gospels last week and when giving over them quickly the "feel" is clearer - the earlier ones are more get-the-word-out while St John is more "we have this community who have come to know this Jesus, now we need to write down the deeper teachings".

Great explanation!

 

[buzuxi02]

The internal evidence presented in the texts (gospels) is pretty good actually.

For example the gospels teach that the women were the first to discover the empty tomb. If it was a myth then the evangelists would have said the male apostles discovered the tomb.
To this day women are considered unreliable eyewitnesses. Note that this argument was used against the christians hence the gospel had to insert the qualifier that the women knew exactly the spot he was buried (Mark 15.47)
There is more anecdotal evidence than just this, basically the opposition never argued that the missing body was a fabrication, they only made accusations as to what may have happened to that missing body.

 

[ArmyMatt]

plus the fact that the four Gospels come from differing POVs, and have slight variation shows their legitimacy. one way you can pick out a lie about a witness account is if multiple people describe an event completely identically. there is no history of the Apostles trying to "get the story straight" shows that it is true.

 

[Joseph Hazen]

The slight element of truth in this claim might come from the uber-detailed aspects of Theology which could be known if a believer was careful to stick to the scriptures, but which later on came to be defined very clearly when people began getting creative and formulating heresies. So, for example, the earliest Christians did not really go into depth about the inter-relations of the Persons of the Trinity, or the idea of the natures of Christ's hypostatic union, but that was recognized later as they were challenged. However from the earliest days of Christianity (even in the Old Testament if one was carefully able to discern the signs, with God's help) one could realize everything about Christ.

It's that element of somewhat-truth that all of the best deceptions have which make them so dangerous. What I've written above is this one's. Someone hears the idea you've posted, and then learns about the Councils, and comes to conclusion that these doctrines were all made up at the Councils. That's not true.