fallingblood
New Blood
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2013
- Messages
- 12
This sprouted from another topic. Instead of getting off topic there, I have decided to open a new thread. I am aware that there have been other threads on this subject, but I would rather not resurrect an old thread. So I wanted to start a new thread.
Before I go more into detail on the subject though, I do want to define what I mean by Jesus. I do not accept the idea of miracles. I also do not accept that the resurrection or virgin birth are historical. Instead, I see such events in the same way that I see those events when included in other ancient biographies (such as Augustus, who also had a miraculous birth, and was said to have done miracles). Instead, I see Jesus as a Jewish teacher, who some thought was the Messiah, who was crucified because of the message he was preaching, and later his followers believed he was resurrected (which was a common idea in Judaism at that time). As in, he was a mortal man who was later written about in an extravagant fashion, in the same manner that other ancient individuals were written about.
Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah? And why would they create such a figure when there were other historical individuals that could simply have been followed instead? When the story of Jesus is looked at, it is clear that he failed as the Messiah. The fact that he was crucified, and died, would have, for most Jews, been seen as a failure. The Messiah was not suppose to die. For Jews to just make up such a story simply does not make sense. In addition, if they were looking for such an individual (a religious leader who was killed), they had a handful of individuals during that time. Josephus lists a number of individuals who would have fit the bill, including John the Baptist (as well as Jesus).
The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?
Now, some claim that since they are religious, they can't be accepted as being credible. The problem with such an idea is that most ancient biographies also were religious in some manner. We can look at the writings in regards to Augustus, and they also are religious. Augustus is also called the savior, he was the son of a god, he was even worshipped. Religion and politics were intertwined, and thus with many of the emperors we see religious ideas attached to them, including in their biographies. Yet, we don't reject such works. If they were rejected, most ancient biographies would have to be rejected, and we would have very little left to go on. Basically what is happening is special pleading.
I believe those two points are good enough for now.
Before I go more into detail on the subject though, I do want to define what I mean by Jesus. I do not accept the idea of miracles. I also do not accept that the resurrection or virgin birth are historical. Instead, I see such events in the same way that I see those events when included in other ancient biographies (such as Augustus, who also had a miraculous birth, and was said to have done miracles). Instead, I see Jesus as a Jewish teacher, who some thought was the Messiah, who was crucified because of the message he was preaching, and later his followers believed he was resurrected (which was a common idea in Judaism at that time). As in, he was a mortal man who was later written about in an extravagant fashion, in the same manner that other ancient individuals were written about.
Now getting to the meat. When discussing the Jesus myth, the question must be asked why would Jews create a figure who was a failed Messiah? And why would they create such a figure when there were other historical individuals that could simply have been followed instead? When the story of Jesus is looked at, it is clear that he failed as the Messiah. The fact that he was crucified, and died, would have, for most Jews, been seen as a failure. The Messiah was not suppose to die. For Jews to just make up such a story simply does not make sense. In addition, if they were looking for such an individual (a religious leader who was killed), they had a handful of individuals during that time. Josephus lists a number of individuals who would have fit the bill, including John the Baptist (as well as Jesus).
The second problem with the Jesus myth is the rejection of the New Testament. The defense for such is that it is in the Bible, and thus is biased, or not credible. This is a horrible argument though. The authors of each of the books that compromised the New Testament never thought they were writing scripture. They had no idea that after they died, their writings would be collected into a larger work. Paul himself was even clear that his works were not scripture, as he reserved such a term for the Hebrew Bible. How does it make sense then to reject the New Testament just because they were later collected into a larger work?
Now, some claim that since they are religious, they can't be accepted as being credible. The problem with such an idea is that most ancient biographies also were religious in some manner. We can look at the writings in regards to Augustus, and they also are religious. Augustus is also called the savior, he was the son of a god, he was even worshipped. Religion and politics were intertwined, and thus with many of the emperors we see religious ideas attached to them, including in their biographies. Yet, we don't reject such works. If they were rejected, most ancient biographies would have to be rejected, and we would have very little left to go on. Basically what is happening is special pleading.
I believe those two points are good enough for now.
