The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth?

[F L E S H]

Ok, we all know that the Church tells us that Jesus really did exist, that the Gospels are historical documents and should be taken at face value. But are they indeed historical? Did Jesus really exist? Does it matter?

Simple answer to all 3 questions: No.

Here's a passage from a book I've been reading, called The Pagan Christ written by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest who teaches Theology at the University of Toronto.

"Can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth actualy existed as a historical person? I have grave doubts that we can. It is abundantly clear to me that while there are indeed certain historical elements in the Gospel accounts -- specific place names, actual persons (such as Herod, Pilate, and Caiaphas the High Priest), and alleged dates -- these alone don't constitute a genuine history or biography in any modern sense. When we review the exact parallels between early saviour stories and the sayings and actions of Jesus, it's more than obvious that what we're dealing with is another variant of the overarching archetypal theme of the same mythos in all ancient religion -- only this time in Jewish dress.

[...]

"The reality is that God calls us to use his divine gift of reason, and we ignore this not just at our peril but to our ultimate loss. What we are considering now is the logical consequence of all we have been through so far. Be patient and hear the argument to its end. You will find, as I have promised from the start, that we are being called not to an impoverished vision but to one that radiates with fresh understanding and hope. Jesus lives on for us, but in a new way.

[...]

"In spite of a mass of scholarship on the topic, in spite of the evidence from the study of comparative religion in particular, the historical view of Jesus's life is still stubornly maintained. Kuhn is correct when he says that all this scholarship 'points with steady directness' to the truth that the events of the Gospel narratives are matched with amazing fidelity 'by the antecedent careers of such world saviours as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Tammuz, Adonis, Atys, Orpheus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Marduk, Izdubar, Witoba, Apollonius of Tyana, Yehoshua ben Pandera, and even Plato and Pythagoras.'

[...]

"Massey testifies that neither Philo, the brilliant Alexandrian Jew who laboured so hard to effect a syncretism of Greek Platonism, Egyptian mysticism, and Mosaic Hebraism, and who was an exact contemporary of Jesus (c. 20 B.C. - A.D. 50), nor Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200), bishop of Lyons and one of the earliest Church Fathers, believed that the divine Word (Logos) could ever become incarnate in one man. Kuhn says that Philo no more knew of a Christ that could be made flesh than he knew of a Jesus in human form -- and he lived at the time of the alleged historical Jesus! The same is true of Tatian, the Christian apologist and Gnostic (c. A.D. 160) who wrote the first-ever attempted harmony of the four Gospels, the Diatesseron. He completely disclaimed the notion of the Christ having assumed an actual body, as did all the Gnostic Christians. They declared it impossible that he (the divine Logos) should suffer, since he was by nature both incomprehensible and invisible, a divine emanation of the one God.

[...]

"What is even more curious is that the closer one gets to Jesus' actual alleged time, the greater and more general is the denial or ignorance of his existence. But the further one draws away from it, the greater and more insistant are the 'proofs' of it. This again entirely reverses the universal phenomenon of a historical recording. Most living characters are familiar entities during and immediately after their lives, and they wax romantic and are haloed only after centuries have elapsed. But Jesus was airy and ethereal in the first century and crystallized into quite a concrete personality only after several centuries. Something quite strange was going on."

---

Ok, that's enough typing for today, but this was just a small exerpt from a very good and interesting book, and ultimately makes me want to return to Christianity, but not the one promulgated by any organized Church with dogmas and literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.

In the end, Harpur argues, and correctly, I might add, that the Gospels are as true as the many parables Jesus relates in them. The story of Jesus is not true in a superficial way, it didn't actually happen the way they say it does in the Gospels. However, there is a deeper truth, an allegorical or metaphorical truth, which makes God and Jesus relevant to us.

F L E S H Reviewed by F L E S H on 02-01-2005. The Historical Jesus: Fact or Myth? Ok, we all know that the Church tells us that Jesus really did exist, that the Gospels are historical documents and should be taken at face value. But are they indeed historical? Did Jesus really exist? Does it matter? Simple answer to all 3 questions: No. Here's a passage from a book I've been reading, called The Pagan Christ written by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest who teaches Theology at the University of Toronto. "Can we say with any authority that Jesus of Nazareth Rating: 5

[juggalo420]

i think jesus and the jewish/christian god are myths built upon older myths. but i dont see any real truth in any of these myths that relates to a divine being, the number one reason i think theres a common thread of, creation, a fall from grace, and a redemption, among western religions is due to geography and not a type of universal truth. what i mean by geography is the western mediteranian world is pretty small and ideas flowed from egypt to greece and rome and palestine.

[F L E S H]

You're right, Jug, in another chapter of the book the author talks about just that, and goes into detail about similarites between Jesus and Horus, son of Osiris and ancient Egyptian religion. The similarities are striking, and numerous. I swear, in some passages you could replace one name for the other and it would be the same thing.

But his point in the book is to show that the bible, and the Gospels in particualr, were never meant to be taken literally, as any Christian church would tell us. They are allegory, myth, and possess a certain truth the same way a Shakespeare lay, or Greek mythology, possess a certain allegorical, satiric, or moral, truth. His point is that it's absolutely irrelevant whether Jesus actually existed or not, it's the moral message behind the story is where the truth lies. In essence, Jesus stands for the kernal of divinity which resides in all human beings, thus every one in other words has God withing them, and Jesus' life is an allegory of every one's life. His suffering represents our every day trials, the hard moments in our life, and that if we believe in ourselves, in our potential to surpass these difficulties, our ability in effect to become God, we will have a much more fulfilling spiritual life. That is the salvation, and that is the Kingdom of Heaven.

What's the most striking in the book, though, is that this idea was, contrary to what most believe, around for maybe as long as 3,000 years before Jesus allegedly live. In fact, the author, and countless other scholars, have proven that this concept existed all over the world, and that virtually all spiritual faith derives from this concept. He lists examples of divnities in other religions, whether existing or not, who had at least a section of their story that was identical to Jesus, and many their entire story. I listed some in my first post, and if you look it up and look at their stories in this light, you'll be amazed.

As for myself, I can say that it also caused anger in me, knowing that the Christian establishment has consisitently lied since almost the beginning, withholding knowledge from the rest of humanity just to keep them docile and obediant. But, in the end, it encouraged to be more spiritually aware, without being outright religious. God, or Jesus, or whatever you want to call it, truly lies within us all, and that's comforting thought, because know I know I can really make a difference to myself and others.

[Herbaholic00]

Hi flesh, have you ever read anything by Jodan Maxwell, he has some good stuff on religion similar to what you are saying. He talks aboutt the ancient mystrys etc and how they are as prominent today. He's also an expert on symbology...ancient, masonic, lucifarian, any way just wondering if you know of him.



Peace



Peace

[F L E S H]

Do you mean Jordan Maxwell? I never heard of him, but I might check him out.

[kronick]

y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?

[F L E S H]

y does everyone think their assumption of something they dont know for sure...is the right one....if u cant even prove it?

Umm, wrong!

Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it

[GHoSToKeR]

On TV tomorrow night there's a show called 'The Real da Vinci Code'.. its basically exploring whether the claims made in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code are real or not. The books premis is basically that Jesus WAS real, but that he wasnt the son of God, he was only a politican/king, and the idea to make everyone believe he was the son of God was decided a long time after he died. I believe it.

[kronick]

i dont believe that book or the story...but i do think its more probable than the idea of god and the first post in this thread.

Umm, wrong!

Everything written here IS proven, you just choose not to believe it

there is that opinion again....forcing your beliefs on someone else.


if i give you the impression that im forcing my thoughts on you....im sorry but that is not my intention.

[F L E S H]

It's not a question of forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact I'm trying to dispel wrong beliefs that the church forced on all Christians.

Besides, it's not a belief, everything I wrote in the first post is completely factual and verifiable. However, it's my belief that these facts do not destroy christianity, but make it better.