Is the Christian story a myth?

[Mendalla]

The fundamental problem becomes that if you really, honestly strip things down to the historical Jesus, get rid of anything that is probably myth, you lose most of modern Christianity. You end up with a Jewish preacher/prophet who might have been executed for his radical engagement with the authorities. No Trinity or other divine Jesus. No salvation. No resurrection. No miracles. No virgin birth. None of the trappings of the modern faith. You might as well be a Jewish sect and meet in synagogues rather than churches with the Torah as your primary text.

 

[paradox3]

I was going to pick John but what I first thought of as myth may be just theology. In that case, I think I would pick Matthew. Just not sure where the line is between myth and theology.

Does Matthew make the most references to the Hebrew Scriptures? It is often said Matthew's Gospel had an intended Jewish audience.

 

[paradox3]

The fundamental problem becomes that if you really, honestly strip things down to the historical Jesus, get rid of anything that is probably myth, you lose most of modern Christianity. You end up with a Jewish preacher/prophet who might have been executed for his radical engagement with the authorities. No Trinity or other divine Jesus. No salvation. No resurrection. No miracles. No virgin birth. None of the trappings of the modern faith. You might as well be a Jewish sect and meet in synagogues rather than churches with the Torah as your primary text.

Well I don't know about that. Would a Jewish sect have been willing to incorporate the ethical teachings of Jesus? The sermon on the Mount and so on? The parables? His apocalyptic ideas?

He sought extensive reform of Judaism I think.

 

[Mendalla]

Well I don't know about that. Would a Jewish sect have been willing to incorporate the ethical teachings of Jesus? The sermon on the Mount and so on? The parables? His apocalyptic ideas?

Sure. Some already did. His apocalyptic ideas were already there in the Pharisees (who believed in a bodily resurrection on the judgement day) and Essenes. Many of the ethical teachings have antecedents in the prophets and even the law in some cases. Taken down to the historical level, Jesus really never comes across as anything more than a Jewish prophet.

And prior to Paul's mission to the Gentiles, Christianity basically was a Jewish sect. Some even fought to keep it that way if you look at the debates Paul got into about whether Gentile converts were under the law and had to be circumcised, keep kosher, etc.

It's the myths that made Jesus and Christianity what they eventually became, not the teachings.

 

[paradox3]

What would it look like if we tried to create a faith based solely on the teachings of Jesus? Would we want to?

Would we begin by scraping away 2000+ years of church history? Would we toss out our denominations, our creeds, our buildings and our hymn books?

What about the mythology in the New Testament? Would we go back to the synoptic gospels? Or maybe just to Mark???

It would be a fun exercise for a study group to create a faith system based solely on Mark. I wonder if the exercise would have us reaching for our Old Testaments.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Here's a question for anyone still following this thread.

Which of the Gospels do you think is the most mythologized? How about the least?

All of them.
There isn't one gospel that is free from exaggerated or idealized words or images, so to name one would be foolish. They all have their problems.
It is the consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was called Mark. (because we don't really know who the author was and that goes for all of them.)
There are several reason that this gospel has such words and images.
Apart from the obviously suspension of belief in regard to physics. it shows ignorance of Palestine geography, was most likely written in Rome for a Romen audience, and largely made up in response to the old testament. I.E. the structure of literature is crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations.
The gospel called Matthew is largely dependent on Mark it is almost copied word for word. only making changes to the theology not the history.
The gospel called Luke, also relies extensively on Mark.
And the gospel called John tells such a different, and fantastical, story.
They were all composed between 70 and 110 CE as biographies of a Jesus, written after a crucifixion of a Jesus around 30 CE.
Therefore not one single NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. Let alone an eyewitness.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

What would it look like if we tried to create a faith based solely on the teachings of Jesus? Would we want to?

There wasn't only a Jesus person wandering around at the time preaching. The teaching attributed to a Jesus person are most probably made up from all of the preachers teachings. If he even said anything. As said before a jesus could have existed. But we can never know.

 

[Mendalla]

The gospel called Matthew is largely dependent on Mark it is almost copied word for word. only making changes to the theology not the history.
The gospel called Luke, also relies extensively on Mark.

To be honest, if Q did exist and had survived, we could probably reconstruct Matthew and Luke even if they didn't exist by using it and Mark. And might not even need them. Mark, Q, and John would be enough.

 

[paradox3]

I have read that some scholars think the letter of James was written by an eye witness. By one of Jesus's brothers.

 

[paradox3]

So I have just been taking a look at Mark. It moves along at a fast pace, but my goodness, there is no shortage of the supernatural in the narrative. Lots of miraculous healings and casting out of demons.

Teaching wise there are parables and the call to repentance. Will keep reading.

The mythological overlay is present in the earliest of the Gospels, that's for sure.

 

[Waterfall]

There wasn't only a Jesus person wandering around at the time preaching. The teaching attributed to a Jesus person are most probably made up from all of the preachers teachings. If he even said anything. As said before a jesus could have existed. But we can never know.

Well I guess its salvation by science then....hopefully we don't push the ethical boundaries too far or not at all.

 

[Mendalla]

Well I guess its salvation by science then....hopefully we don't push the ethical boundaries too far or not at all.

Science isn't about salvation, though. It's about learning how the world works, knowledge that can help us save ourselves. But I would hardly say it's "salvation by science". Science is a tool. It's still human beings doing the saving. That's where the ethical boundaries come in. Not in science itself, but in how we use it.

 

[Luce NDs]

There wasn't only a Jesus person wandering around at the time preaching. The teaching attributed to a Jesus person are most probably made up from all of the preachers teachings. If he even said anything. As said before a jesus could have existed. But we can never know.

Jesus was only a spark of sentience in a sense of wakening that was turned down by the powers ... thus now dark and mysterious pall of naivete!

Some say that the word naivete is an evolved morph on ignorance and stupidity ... so the believers in the great void could tell those of the ultimate question to go to hell in a mystical misuse of freedom! Cn cannot say such things because it sets anger free in those that have no control over their sense of avarice ... thus a false control!

The spark may have been feminine in nature as it the the bright spot takes flight instead indulging in conflict ... so it goes! In some traditions this high sense of controlling war was Wotan (said to be a small wee thing)! Would that be a smear of excess capitalizing on opportunity? Its common ... an escaped essence ... imagine this scattering of indigents being collected ...

 

[paradox3]

Here is a quote from Amy-Jill Levine:

"There is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus's life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem and was crucified by Roman Soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate. (26-36 CE). But to use the old cliche, the devil is in the details."

Any reaction?

 

[Luce NDs]

To be honest, if Q did exist and had survived, we could probably reconstruct Matthew and Luke even if they didn't exist by using it and Mark. And might not even need them. Mark, Q, and John would be enough.

In some traditions Q is close to phi and love is put down by a society based on hating the alternate in order to gain advantage! This a a world with a working hate system where success for the few is guaranteed! It has nothing to do with secession ... and similar duties related to humility and the neigh Misses ... do not bad mouth Ur or you may get a blow behind the ears ... the great mother myth is virtue buried in self (that's d' IHC in Nordic and related to Wotan)! That mother is the diabolical personage ...

 

[paradox3]

In some traditions Q is close to phi and love is put down by a society based on hating the alternate in order to gain advantage! This a a world with a working hate system where success for the few is guaranteed! It has nothing to do with secession ... and similar duties related to humility and the neigh Misses ... do not bad mouth Ur or you may get a blow behind the ears ... the great mother myth is virtue buried in self (that's d' IHC in Nordic and related to Wotan)! That mother is the diabolical personage ...

It would make me happy if you would stop posting this sort of nonsense on my threads. But whatever.

I usually Show Ignored Content if you are the latest poster on a thread of mine. Once in a while I see something of value. Not this time

 

[ninj]

What I have read are hagiographies, which follow a set of rules in their format. They all aim to establish legitimacy of the subject's provenance and "proofs" of their special powers. This type of account doesn't concern itself with truth. It wasn't considered necessary. It's meant to persuade readers to believe, to provide acceptable edification, entertainment, and to cultivate patrons.
It predates christianity.
I guess the Gospels are different, right?

 

[Waterfall]

Science isn't about salvation, though. It's about learning how the world works, knowledge that can help us save ourselves. But I would hardly say it's "salvation by science". Science is a tool. It's still human beings doing the saving. That's where the ethical boundaries come in. Not in science itself, but in how we use it.

I fail to see the difference in saving ourselves through science or Jesus. It's all looking for answers...

 

[paradox3]

I fail to see the difference in saving ourselves through science or Jesus. It's all looking for answers...

Oh I see a big difference. It might come down to our definitions of salvation. If you mean physical survival as a species, then science may well hold the answer.

But Jesus talked about the fullness of life. I don't see how science addresses this.

 

[paradox3]

What I have read are hagiographies, which follow a set of rules in their format. They all aim to establish legitimacy of the subject's provenance and "proofs" of their special powers. This type of account doesn't concern itself with truth. It wasn't considered necessary. It's meant to persuade readers to believe, to provide acceptable edification, entertainment, and to cultivate patrons.
It predates christianity.
I guess the Gospels are different, right?

Hagiography is a new term for me. It seems to mean biography with an agenda. Is this fair?

You said upthread that you question whether Jeses even existed. For myself, I accept that he did.

We may not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt but I feel we have the balance of probability. Faith comes into play beyond this. What are we willing to accept on faith alone?