quote:
The Time Problem With A Mythical Jesus...by Jasonb
Jasonb writes:
We have a fragment of the gospel of John (John Rylands Fragment, p52) that has been dated to circa 125 AD. ...lets assume the first NT book written was the gospel of John and it was written sometime after the death of the last apostle, say 100 AD. This would give us a starting time of 70 years after the death of Christ for the second generation Christians to begin preaching a mythical Jesus.This is simply not enough time for a mythical Jesus to emerge. No one could make these claims to so many people without them being refuted by the many religious groups in opposition to Christianity at that time, unless the claims were grounded in fact....It is my assertion that even a liberal date of 70 years after the death of Christ for the first NT book to be written is simply not a sufficient amount of time for a legend like the mythical Jesus to even evolve, let alone spread.
Not to mention why the story did not die out as most other ancient legends and fables did.
portmaster1000 writes:
If we have a large percentage of the population that already believes in supernatural cult events then news of more supernatural events will probably be seen as plausible.
Does this mean that people even today who are very rational, methodical, and even a bit skeptical will tend to disregard an authentic Risen Christ as implausible? The largely superstitious(Pagan and Jewish) population of that time was thirsty for any shard of hope to explain their world. Myself having witnessed supernatural events, I believe the myth to be reality! Jesus lives!
Ifen writes:
The two problems I see are Paul and Mark. The mythicists have to show that Paul did not know or refer to an earthly Jesus and the Mark was doing a midrash. The debates on these issues involved language and textual analysis. The historicist appear to have the broadest options. They only need a figure who caught the attention of a few who carried stories after his death, and those stories grew into a myth the way Elvis is becoming a myth.
OK...what do you tend to think,Ifen? Are you a strict scientific method type of guy? I see that you have our favorite antiMcDowell guy in quotes. I personally think that Josh has some good research.
Chiroptera writes:
The first popular UFO reports started shortly after the second world war. By the time I was a kid, in the 1970's, UFO's were a big industry -- it seemed "everyone" believed in it, and there was a huge industry pumping out supposedly non-fiction magazines, as well as fictional TV shows and movies. This occurred in about 30 years. In a time where communications were poor, the scientific method had not yet developed, and the miracles claimed by Christians were well withing mainstream thought, I see no reason that such legends and myths could not have developed in a generation or two.
First of all, UFO legends are not a mainstream item. In a time of limited communication, the communication that DID occur between groups of people would be important. If it took me several months to travel to your village, I would not waste my time spreading some fable unless it burned within me as a necessary bit of information. This is why the "personal experiences" and "changed lives" arguments support an actual Jesus as Son of God rather than a myth that tickles the hopes and imaginations and is later seized upon by a control minded church.
Iasion writes:
If the original Jesus was a mythical being, then the story could have been developing for centuries - which is exactly what we DO see - the various elements of the Jesus story can be clearly seen in the prior Jewish scriptures and pagan writers.
So then, do you see me as a fanatical story teller that is merely spreading my myth on a posting board such as this? What is my motive?
Iasion writes:
Many religious writings of this primitive period were not "refuted" - e.g. the Golden Ass of Apuleis written in the same period as the Gospels was not "refuted" - that does not make them true.
What would make them true? Truth, for me, is not based entirely on material evidence. Truth is based on internal awareness. Concerning this post, what are we trying to do? Consider the three motives:
1)Convince people that Jesus is no myth.
2)Show people that Jesus well could be a myth
3) Discuss and commune verbally with each other, sharing ideas and emotions.
Iasion writes:
In 70CE the Romans conquered Jerusalem,
in 135CE they destroyed the whole city and dispersed the Jews that remained. Only AFTER that, did the Gospels become known to Christians - 2 wars and several generations after the alleged events. Legends have been known to arise in DAYS.
Remember, also, that a legend is not necessarily a myth or a fable. A legend can be an actual event or an effect from an event communicated to others.
legend \"le-jnd\ n [ME legende, fr. MF & ML; MF legende, fr. ML legenda, fr. L legere to read] 1 : a story coming down from the past; esp : one popularly accepted as historical though not verifiable 2 : an inscription on an object; also : caption 3 : an explanatory list of the symbols on a map or chart
Also, I found what you said about Aristedes:
Aristides dates the Gospel
Interestingly, one Christian church father Aristides refers to "...the Gospel as it is called, which (has been) preached a short time among them".
This tells us that in his day -
* the Gospel was un-named,
* the Gospel had only been preached "a short time".
The Gospel was un-named? The name of Jesus Christ is the good news, and that is what was spreading. I will admit it. I am biased.
Jasonb writes:
Any one of the many religions in opposition to Christianity could have simply checked the facts out and presented the masses with the counter proof. Many of these converts suffered death rather than deny Christ. It would have been so simple for the Jewish religious leaders to disproof these claims, or at least presented doubt in the converts mind. They were outrageous claims, which usually are not immediately taken at face value, especially when there are groups teaching something else.
I realize that there was a fanaticism which can be compared with the modern day terrorists. I also understand that willingness to die does not make a belief correct. Skepticism CAN be a useful thing. As much as I believe, I don't know if I could die for my belief. I believe that Jesus was no myth and that He lives today.
Jasonb writes:
All it would take is one piece of evidence that Jesus never existed or that he was simply a man and that would be the end of the Christian movement.
There is quite a bit of evidence that Mohammed was not that saintly and nobel, but that does not stop Islam. (I am playing Devils advocate, here)
jar writes:
You keep refering to the mythical Jesus claim as though there were something unique about the Jesus stories. I'm not sure that I understand what it is you are saying. Can you outline for us what you find unique or unusual about the Jesus stories?
I realize that you were talking to Jasonb,jar, but allow me to answer this question. I do not find the Bible stories to be unique or unusual in any way except that when I am in prayer groups or church and certain scriptures are read, they seem to take on a life and a meaning of their own. The same scripture read at two or more different times may inspire me in many seemingly unrelated ways. I am not a fanatic or a robot who takes the scripture literally, but I sense a living presence behind and within the words and meaning. For those of you who see no such magic in the Bible, I can see why you consider it unimportant.
Jasonb writes:
But for this thread let focus on the time question, is 70 years enough time for a legend like the Mythical Jesus to evolve.
OK, Jason...its your thread. I will say that SOME myths did develop along with the true story and that the true story has carried through to this day.
Ifen writes:
Which claims do you consider outrageous in terms of those times?
When I hear a claim or consider one, I often note the character and personality of the author or speaker of such a claim. The more that people believe in a personality, the more that they are likely to accept the claims made by such a personality.
Ifen writes:
Lots of sects survived at least until Constantine adopted Christianity and the christians began to stamp out other religions.
Yes. A Christian is not a Christian by education, indoctorination or mere persuasion. To me, a true Christian is a Christian through spiritual impartation. In "Christian Rome", much of the church that claimed to be christian was not. Many Popes did bad things, as we all do but the power of religion cannot be denied in these times. The truth survived those times....not because of a printed book or political/religious agenda used by fallible humans but because of a true impartation within a few of them.
Ifen writes:
I think Constantine saved Christianity by giving it the backing of the Roman Empire.
I disagree. The truth would have spread without Constantine, and there would always be a lot of myths to go along with it...yet we can tell the difference.
Chiroptera writes:
So, seeing how quickly legends can develop, even to the point where we have "eye witnesses", how are the Jesus legends sufficiently different to preclude this? I recall that about 40 years is the accepted time between the alleged ministry of Jesus and the writing of the first narrative Gospel.
So why do people like myself believe in this one particular story? Why in this modern age can not a better story...say a UFO one...capture the popular imagination en masse and start a revival? Why do people still cling to this one story that happened in a small country so many years ago? The way that the N.T. was written shows me that it is either a very convincing fraud or a true epic. Consider:
NIV writes:
1 John 1:1-4=That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.
When I respond and communicate with all of you, I do it with joy. I like to chat with people...even those whom I disagree with. I have no real motive or quota to meet, but if the spark of joy that is within me influences any of you, that would be a GOOD thing!
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-02-2004 01:17 PM
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-02-2004 01:20 PM
™ Version 4.2