Jesus of History and Myth

Tom 1 · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Um, you left out the part where He was claimed to raise the dead, heal the sick, and rise from the dead Himself. Last I checked, the term 'hagiography' means something along the lines of...

'a very admiring book about someone or a description of someone that represents the person as perfect or much better than they really are, or the activity of writing about someone in this way'

Furthermore, I trust you acknowledge that being a martyr does not lend to the truth of a claim.

Yes - a hagiography is a biography that is overwhelmingly positive, to the point of being sycophantic, like some of the less balanced books about Che Guevara, for example. Stating that someone performed miracles, and rose from the dead, are claims of a different nature. You can make the comparison yourself - read some different books on a controversial hsitorical character, like Che Guevara, or Jesus, and you can get a feel for what the differences are between the pro, anti and more neutral approaches. The gospels don’t fit easily into the same model, with the apostles being as frequently perplexed and amazed at Jesus’ teachings and actions as everyone else. Their attempts to make sense of it all are authentically human. What detail from the gospels do you take as being hagiographic?

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
If what you are suggesting was true, why wouldn't some of the first century historians like Josephus have 'called out' the NT accounts regarding Jesus' supernatural status?

Can you please elaborate a bit? I'm not sure what you are specifically driving at, and I do not want us to speak past each other.

Tom 1 · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Furthermore, I trust you acknowledge that being a martyr does not lend to the truth of a claim.

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. What’s the relevance to my post? In what way was Jesus a martyr? Jesus’ atoning sacrifce and martyrdom don’t represent the same idea.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

Tom Farebrother said:
Yes - a hagiography is a biography that is overwhelmingly positive, to the point of being sycophantic, like some of the less balanced books about Che Guevara, for example. Stating that someone performed miracles, and rose from the dead, are claims of a different nature. You can make the comparison yourself - read some different books on a controversial hsitorical character, like Che Guevara, or Jesus, and you can get a feel for what the differences are between the pro, anti and more neutral approaches are like. The gospels don’t fit easily into the same model, with the apostles being as frequently perplexed and amazed at Jesus’ teachings and actions as everyone else. Their attempts to make sense of it all are authentically human. What detail from your gospel do you take as being hagiographic?

Read Mark, then read John. 'Growing legend 101'. Jesus refers to Himself as God, and that there exists no way to heaven but through Him. Pretty bold if you ask any lay person...

Tom 1 · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Read Mark, then read John. 'Growing legend 101'. Jesus refers to Himself as God, and that there exists no way to heaven but through Him. Pretty bold if you ask any lay person...

Yes, he does. In what way are Jesus’ claims about himself hagiographic? Do you think he was composing a live hagiography of himself as he spoke? I think you are confusing terms.

inquiring mind · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Can you please elaborate a bit? I'm not sure what you are specifically driving at, and I do not want us to speak past each other.

It's pretty straight-forward... Josephus was a renowned historian of Jesus' time. If the Gospel story of Jesus was legend-in-the-making and fantasy, why wouldn't he have disputed it? I don't think he did.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

Tom Farebrother said:
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. What’s the relevance to my post? In what way was Jesus a martyr? Jesus’ atoning sacrifce and martyrdom don’t represent the same idea.

If such a historical event did actually happen, the default would be for one to conclude that Jesus was a martyr for His beliefs. Meaning, He was tortured and killed for what He believed was true.

You, on the other hand, are asserting that He did atone and was a sacrificed to fulfill prophecy. You see the distinction? So My last point was.... How does a man whom claims to be the Messiah, and even does it in a way that may be considered rather unorthodox, make His claims actually true?

The answer... You must investigate the claims of what He stated He would later do. Which in His case, is to resurrect from the dead

And when you read from Mark 16:8, all the way to John, you see clear 'legend 101' developing. Couple this with the fact, that among the 100/1,000's of claimed witnesses, you only read it from a bias based perspective, you have to wonder

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
It's pretty straight-forward... Josephus was a renowned historian of Jesus' time. If the Gospel story of Jesus was legend-in-the-making and fantasy, why wouldn't he have disputed it? I don't think he did.

Are you speaking about flavius testimonium? You are aware of the 'golden paragraph' aren't you? You also realize that Josephus was born after Jesus died right? Not quite the contemporaneous account one may hope for. Josephus wrote what people of the age believed.

yeshuaslavejeff · Dec 24, 2018

Jesus is Truth, He knew the Truth before all Creation was Created by the Father Yahweh through Him.

The religous leaders planned to kill Him for what He Said and for what He Did - they did not necessarily care what He believed.

Today the same happens - Ekklesia , born again believers in Christ Jesus,
are persecuted daily and put to death frequently for what they SAY,
while others
stay safe (they think) and snug and alive by not saying anything.

Tom 1 · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
If such a historical even did actually happen, the default would be for one to conclude that Jesus was a martyr for His beliefs. Meaning, He was tortured and killed for what He believed was true.

You, on the other hand, are asserting that He did atone and was a sacrificed to fulfill prophecy. You see the distinction? So My last point was.... How does a man whom claims to be the Messiah, and even does it in a way that may be considered rather unorthodox, make His claims actually true?

The answer... You must investigate the claims of what He stated He would later do. Which in His case, is to resurrect from the dead And when you read from Mark 16:8, all the way to John, you see clear 'legend 101' developing. Couple this with the fact, that among the 100/1,000's of claimed witnesses, you only read it from a bias based perspective, you have to wonder

Ok, I see what you mean. Jesus - or anyone else - doesn’t make his claims true, they are either true or they aren’t. He doesn’t promise to do things, and then follow through as such, he refers to what will happen - one of the distinctions that makes Jesus wholly different to anyone else. His actions and his aims are entirely unified, even in the middle of the struggle to achieve them. Obviously some people think that these claims are false, made up etc, but the idea of hagiography doesn’t really fit the way Jesus is portrayed.
With your comment about witnesses do you mean the eye witnesses at the time, or something else?
If you can make some literary comparison to clarify your ideas about ‘legend 101’ that would help to clarify what you mean.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

Tom Farebrother said:
one of the distinctions that makes Jesus wholly different to anyone else. His actions and his aims are entirely unified, even in the middle of the struggle to achieve them. Obviously some people think that these claims are false, made up etc, but the idea of hagiography doesn’t really fit the way Jesus is portrayed.

Yes it does. The NT states Jesus is the Messiah, in so many words. So this must be proven, not instead merely asserted. Doing stuff while on earth lends no claims to being a Messiah. As I'm sure you are fully aware, even the Bible states '14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.'

So to conclude, what you are saying about His accomplishments before crucifixion means nothing really. It is the resurrection, that the Bible uses to attest that He is for real

Otherwise, at best, He is deemed a true magical character with greater delusion.

Tom Farebrother said:
With your comment about witnesses do you mean the eye witnesses at the time, or something else?
If you can make some literary comparison to clarify your ideas about ‘legend 101’ that would help to clarify what you mean.

I did in that post

Read Mark 16:8, then read John. You can see the growing tales, as Mark was written first, then the later addition of Mark 16:9-20 was written later. All the way to John, which was written possibly decades after... Legend can grow very quickly.

And by eyewitnesses, I mean the only kind. First hand testimony from the ones whom actually witnessed the event. It's obviously lacking, from this definition, within the Bible. And in such a case, how else are you going to verify a very specific ONE TIME event?

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

Tom Farebrother said:
Yes, he does. In what way are Jesus’ claims about himself hagiographic? Do you think he was composing a live hagiography of himself as he spoke? I think you are confusing terms.

I care not to squabble further over minutiae. However, the very first search result from Google states:

'A hagiography is a type of biography that puts the subject in a very flattering light. Hagiographies are often about saints. The two halves of hagiography refer to holiness and writing, and it is something written about holy people.'

Jesus never wrote anything to paper that we know of. So of course the flattering biography came from others

inquiring mind · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Are you speaking about flavius testimonium? You are aware of the 'golden paragraph' aren't you?

Yes, the golden paragraph seems to substantiate Jesus’ story.

cvanwey said:
You also realize that Josephus was born after Jesus died right? Not quite the contemporaneous account one may hope for.

Yes, but Josephus was born only a few years after the crucifixion… there would have still been eyewitnesses remaining in his lifetime.

cvanwey said:
Josephus wrote what people of the age believed.

As a historian himself, I would think he wrote what he thought was true.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Yes, the golden paragraph seems to substantiate Jesus’ story.

Yes, but Josephus was born only a few years after the crucifixion… there would have still been eyewitnesses remaining in his lifetime.

As a historian himself, I would think he wrote what he thought was true.

As a historian yourself, then you must also be aware of the conclusions made about the 'golden paragraph'. If not, then you may want to brush up a bit.

1) This piece does not even discuss a resurrection in any way. 2) The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, demonstrating additions made by a later re-copiest. So basically, this paragraph was a forgery. 3) The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed. 4) When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book, further eluding to an addition made later by another writer.

inquiring mind · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
Yes it does. The NT states Jesus is the Messiah, in so many words. So this must be proven, not instead merely asserted. Doing stuff while on earth lends no claims to being a Messiah. As I'm sure you are fully aware, even the Bible states '14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.'

So to conclude, what you are saying about His accomplishments before crucifixion means nothing really. It is the resurrection, that the Bible uses to attest that He is for real Otherwise, at best, He is deemed a true magical character with greater delusion.

Jesus' disciples panicked and even denied Him at the time of the crucifixion. Yet, a short time later they were willing martyrs for Him... they saw something.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Jesus' disciples panicked and even denied Him at the time of the crucifixion. Yet, a short time later they were willing martyrs for Him... they saw something.

If being a martyr is the gauge to determine reality, then the Muslims hold the truth in spades

Furthermore, people die for beliefs all the time. They cannot ALL be true, can they?

So what exactly is your point?

inquiring mind · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
As a historian yourself, then you must also be aware of the conclusions made about the 'golden paragraph'. If not, then you may want to brush up a bit.

1) This piece does not even discuss a resurrection in any way. 2) The 'golden paragraph' was demonstrated to not appear until centuries after the original publication, demonstrating additions made by a later re-copiest. So basically, this paragraph was a forgery. 3) The piece was merely reports of what others claimed, and is nothing more than reporting what other people believed. 4) When one looks at the 'golden paragraph', it's literary style looks to not match any of the other text within the same book, further eluding to an addition made later by another writer.

My point exactly. Why did he not 'call out' the Gospel story in his original document if he thought it was not true? I do not accept that a historian would not write it as he understood it, regardless of what people believed.

inquiring mind · Dec 24, 2018

cvanwey said:
If being a martyr is the gauge to determine reality, then the Muslims hold the truth in spades

Furthermore, people die for beliefs all the time. They cannot ALL be true, can they?

So what exactly is your point?

Yes, people die for what they believe to be true... no one dies willingly for something they know is a lie.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
My point exactly. Why did he not 'call out' the Gospel story in his original document if he thought it was not true? I do not accept that a historian would not write it as he understood it, regardless of what people believed.

The Gospels were not really in circulation yet. He wrote his piece in 94 AD. But even if they were, who cares?

You addressed absolutely nothing from my prior post. We have documented augmentations from his writings. Why not address that???

I am not a mythicist. So I'm not even going to doubt what Jesus did, or claimed to do, while He was alive. My focus is really on the only things that would really distinguish Jesus, from any other claimed character walking the planet, making such claims. Being, that He did what He said He would actually do post mortem. And Josephus lends absolutely no credence to such a claim, under any circumstance.

cvanwey · Dec 24, 2018

inquiring mind said:
Yes, people die for what they believe to be true... no one dies willingly for something they know is a lie.

You have completely missed my point.

I never stated they were lying. I stated that people die for beliefs all the time.

So how are we to determine which believed claims were/are actually true?

Jesus of History and Myth

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads