For those who think Jesus is a myth...

[zengirl]

The two major schools of Buddhism emphasize supernatural phenomena differently (as do some within them), but there are certainly many elements of that in Buddhism. I've no issue if someone calls a non-historically documented (some are, some aren't) Buddhist story with supernatural elements a "myth." All religions likely have SOME history inclusive in them, but we'd have to pick them apart to find it. Eastern religions do a better job at separating the historical stuff from the supernatural stuff, IMO (both are prevalent, but it's easier to see where the history ends and the supernatural begins, as well as to see multiple versions of the history itself -- there are many stories to how Gautama Buddha began his spiritual journey, and the complete history is not certain, for instance, but Buddhists don't need it to be, really. They don't need "one agreed upon version" for the religion to work, as all the versions have similar elements and themes.

 

I always find it funny when people think Buddhists don't believe in the supernatural. I've heard that from Atheists and Christians and all kinds. There are quite a few supernatural explanations in my own religion (Buddhism) that I find unlikely and consider metaphors, but my particular school of Buddhism does not emphasize those features as heavily as other schools.

[BetheButterfly]

However, I understand why many Jewish people do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. From what I understand, the Jewish people awaited a Messiah who took care of earthly business (maybe like a superstar politician we're familiar with in our own experiences 2000 years later?) and were disappointed that this dude who was revealed as the Son of God was talking about existence on a whole 'nother plane. While he addressed certain needs, his eye was on the afterlife, not this earthly life, and they were hoping for someone who would deliver them from the situation they were in.

 

if you ever had a chance to read Ann Rice's "Christ the Lord" books, the second book addresses this very thing. Even Jesus' followers were expecting him to shake up the world in a very real, socio-political sense ... it wasn't until they came to accept that he was about "his Father's business," i.e., paving the way to heaven for believer and non-believer alike, that they understood his true mission.

 

IMO, *this* is why people have such a hard time accepting the whole idea of Jesus even now. They expect someone to address real-time needs of hunger and injustice and etc., etc., without realizing the solution lies in their own hands (if they work together, they can answer those needs); they don't want to put their faith in someone who addresses the question of eternal life, because it's not a "real" thing to them. They're focused on the temporal realm, not the supernatural one that involves heaven and hell ...

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to read Ann Rice's book. It does sound interesting.

[Eve]

The two major schools of Buddhism emphasize supernatural phenomena differently (as do some within them), but there are certainly many elements of that in Buddhism. I've no issue if someone calls a non-historically documented (some are, some aren't) Buddhist story with supernatural elements a "myth." All religions likely have SOME history inclusive in them, but we'd have to pick them apart to find it. Eastern religions do a better job at separating the historical stuff from the supernatural stuff, IMO (both are prevalent, but it's easier to see where the history ends and the supernatural begins, as well as to see multiple versions of the history itself -- there are many stories to how Gautama Buddha began his spiritual journey, and the complete history is not certain, for instance, but Buddhists don't need it to be, really. They don't need "one agreed upon version" for the religion to work, as all the versions have similar elements and themes.

 

I always find it funny when people think Buddhists don't believe in the supernatural. I've heard that from Atheists and Christians and all kinds. There are quite a few supernatural explanations in my own religion (Buddhism) that I find unlikely and consider metaphors, but my particular school of Buddhism does not emphasize those features as heavily as other schools.

 

What does this mean in practical terms? Is it possible to capture this in terms of an actual experience you have had with your faith? I am having trouble imagining what what you say looks like.

 

Something is either a myth or not, no?

 

H'mmm... or do you mean that the philosphical element of Buddhism is regarded as most relevant beyond any supernatural claims?

 

Interersting.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[CarrieT]

10 Christ-like Figures Who Pre-Date Jesus

 

And that list didn't even include Mithras!

 

Was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds

Was considered a great traveling teacher and master

Had 12 companions or disciples

Promised his followers immortality

Performed miracles

Sacrificed himself for world peace

Was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again

Was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)

Was called "the Good Shepherd"

Was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion

Was considered to be the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

Celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the "Lord's Day,")

Celebrated a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper"

[zengirl]

What does this mean in practical terms? Is it possible to capture this in terms of an actual experience you have had with your faith? I am having trouble imagining what what you say looks like.

 

I don't quite understand the question. For an example of supernatural phenomena in Buddhism, we can look at say, the devas (kind of a godlike state) or the hungry ghosts, or even the notion of karma and reincarnation, which can be compared to principles of energy but is not at all scientific or provable. I think it's important religious people separate their religious convictions, faiths, and beliefs from anything akin to fact or science, personally. That's a value of mine, not of Buddhism, but most Buddhists are cool with that notion as well, IME. Buddhism is not a terribly restrictive religion in this way -- it doesn't require exclusivity even. My relatives are both Buddhist and Shinto. Despite being Shinto, they will openly call the creation myth of that religion a creation myth (or a Japanese equivalent that translates thusly). They appreciate metaphor. However, many Buddhists do take the supernatural elements literally themselves, though they do not have the expectation all will. Japanese Zen Buddhism puts very little emphasis on the literal aspect, though karma and reincarnation and the samsara (cycle we're stuck in), and enlightenment and Nirvana are all generally accepted by all Buddhists. Does that help any?

 

Something is either a myth or not, no?

 

Well, sure. But myth is a particular type of story. All stories with supernatural elements that are attached to religions have elements of mythology. They'd have to have a handful of other elements to be proper myths. The Bible has many stories in it that, if no one worshiped that religion it today (as we don't the ancient Greek religion), we would classify as myths. It has other parts we'd classify as philosophy. It also, like most religions, including that of the Ancient Greeks which we routinely call myths, has some historical basis in terms of times/places/empires/etc. Myths and history are always linked. The myths of Camelot are linked to real historical figures, etc.

 

H'mmm... or do you mean that the philosphical element of Buddhism is regarded as most relevant beyond any supernatural claims?

 

Not really. To some sects, yes, and to some sects, no. All sects value certain supernatural claims. I don't think you'll find any Buddhist who doesn't believe --- to some degree --- in karma and the samsara.

[BetheButterfly]

I believe Jesus is a myth and that the Bible is full of myths because it is structured very much like the ancient myths that we consider to make up mythology in a literature sense.

 

Do you believe the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) is also full of myths?

 

Know that I am using the 1st and original definition of myth: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

 

Oh sure, noted and appreciated. I have never had an issue with the term "myth" because it is not used to insult nor is derogatory. I do like knowing why people believe Jesus is a myth, however.

 

To me, the Christian stories are no different from the Greek myths because I am not Christian and they are no less fantastical (they're perhaps a little less fun to read, and the religion differs in many ways from the ancient Greek religion, but they all fit the bill of mythology). The fact that some people currently believe in it does not make it factual. No religions are based in fact.

 

Do you believe the Jewish Bible is full of Hebrew myths, such as the following?

 

The ten plagues God had Moses do in Egypt?

The parting of the parting of the sea so the children of Israel could cross on dry land?

The pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day that God used to lead the children of Israel?

The winning of the Israelites by Moses keeping his hands up?

And so on?

 

 

I don't need a source to cite to prove it is not a fact.

 

When I went to university, one thing that my professors stressed what the importance on reliable sources and how reliable sources help people understand what they believe and why.

 

The truth is that very little of it is factually proven, and there is no factual source that Jesus existed (the Bible is not an accepted work of nonfiction).

 

There are sources other than the Bible that show that Jesus existed.

 

1. Greco-Roman sources - Before the time of Jesus, the Romans had conquered Israel. They wrote much about what was going on with the Jewish people, and once Christians (who began as Jewish people and then quickly included Gentiles as well as Jews) appeared on the scene, they wrote about them too, and they were not all that pleased with either group who clung to their beliefs.

 

Included in the Greco-Roman sources are the following:

 

the writings of Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96–97

 

Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (Latin, English and also at Fordham.edu)

 

and so on

 

2. Jewish sources (Most of the Jewish people did not accept Jesus' claims of being the Messiah. However, Jesus' apostles and disciples (-ollowers- did. Sad to say, most of the Jewish followers of Jesus were persecuted and died, leaving the leadership to predominately Gentile hands. Gentile Christians were also persecuted by Rome, but they multiplied, even in the face of severe persecution.) Back to the Jewish people who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, they believed he died and was not resurrected, but rather was a false Messiah. There are many "false Messiahs" in Jewish history.

 

Josephus Antiquities 18.3.3 is one Jewish source, and even though some people think a later scribe tampered with Josephus' writings, most scholars do believe he mentioned Jesus.

 

There are other sources but I have to go soon, so I have to keep this short.

 

 

Many scholars do believe that Jesus was likely a composite of many men who lived, and -- aside from the miracles -- I think perhaps he was in terms of the philosophical statements. I certainly think some version of Jesus lived, but not as the son of god (which is the myth in question -- several interrelated myths and stories really).

 

What versions of Jesus do you believe are not myths?

 

Concerning the Son of God, what do you believe concerning the Messianic promises/prophesies that God gave to King David, in 2 Samuel 7:13-17, 1 Chronicles 17:11-15, and Psalm 2?

 

The Jefferson Bible is an interesting read that reads more like historical fiction, without the supernatural parts, but with the supernatural parts, the literary genre closest is myth. Certainly we could discuss historical Jesus, but few people do. Most people who pretend to discuss historical Jesus still claim he is the son of God. That is not historical. It can be your belief, but we have to separate that away from the notion of "Jesus in history" to attempt any kind of accuracy. The same is true of many Greek heroes, many of whom did live in some form but were likely (IMO at least) not helped or hindered by mythical gods or creatures and certainly we would never claim that the claims they were could be considered non-fiction.

 

I haven't read the Jefferson Bible but would like to. Concerning the Tanakh, do you approach the ancient Patriarchs, including Abraham and Moses and King David, with the same scrutiny?

 

Thanks. Have to go now!

 

Peace and God bless

[TaraMaiden]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

History of the Devil: Buddhism

Mara, Lord of Death -- About the Buddhist Demon Mara

The Buddha's Encounters with Mara the Tempter: Their Representation in Literature and Art

 

Ok cool. Will read this info.

 

I knew that there can be a supernatural element to their faith but was not really sure what it was.

 

I was only aware really of The Wheel Of Life.

 

Interesting.

 

Cheers,

 

*Eve skips off with a new reading interest to unleash on Amazon*

 

Take care,

Eve x

 

The whole Buddha thing is so full of holes I could use it as a colander....

I have no idea where to start on this....

Mara is an allegorical personification of our own sceptical fears, doubts and negative perceptions. when the Buddha confronted Mara, all he was doing was wrestling with the contradictions and doubts in his mind, not an actual demon or devil.

Mara is not the lord of Death.

The Lord of Death is Yama, who holds the wheel of Life and rebirth, which is in and of itself an allegorical set of realms of rebirth....

 

for starters...

[zengirl]

Do you believe the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible) is also full of myths?

 

There are some myths in it, though it's closer to folktales or allegories in most cases (many of the stories do not emphasize the supernatural in the same manner myths do, just speaking from a literary perspective). Many Jewish people see the stories as allegories themselves. A lot of the difference with Judaism and Christianity in this is tone. Myths do have a particular tone, and the Jesus myth would fit that tone.

 

The ten plagues God had Moses do in Egypt?

The parting of the parting of the sea so the children of Israel could cross on dry land?

The pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day that God used to lead the children of Israel?

The winning of the Israelites by Moses keeping his hands up?

And so on?

 

Moses would be a good example of a myth, yes, but only if it is not an allegory. Since a lot of Jewish scholarship suggests it is to be considered an allegory, it is harder to call it a myth in the Jewish faith. Whether something is an allegory or a myth would be difficult to classify without context. To be fair, I don't think most Jews would be offended if you said, "the mythological Moses parted the red sea." At least not those I know.

 

When I went to university, one thing that my professors stressed what the importance on reliable sources and how reliable sources help people understand what they believe and why.

 

Sure, but you prove something IS, not that something IS NOT. I don't have to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real to assume he is not, and there is never any way to do so, really. If I were to assert he was real, I would require reliable sources.

 

There are sources other than the Bible that show that Jesus existed.

 

A version of Jesus (not the son of God), just as a version of many Greek heroes existed. Those historical sources do suggest that a figure with some similarities and perhaps the same name existed, but they also more strongly support the assertion that he is a composite of many people with the addition of mythological elements to wind up with the "Jesus" most people are talking about. Just as the Hercules who lived or the Achilles who lived or so forth were not likely the same men as they are in the myths.

 

What versions of Jesus do you believe are not myths?

 

I believe we can source the Greco-Romans and even some Jewish historians. I don't believe much scholarship has been done on the historical Jesus by many objective parties. I would be very interested to see an objective historian who is not Christian look into it. I do believe, as XXOO said, that many events put down in stories (myths, folktales, philosophies, etc) are based upon real events to a slight degree.

 

Concerning the Son of God, what do you believe concerning the Messianic promises/prophesies that God gave to King David, in 2 Samuel 7:13-17, 1 Chronicles 17:11-15, and Psalm 2?

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't believe in any prophesies, particularly not Christian ones.

 

I haven't read the Jefferson Bible but would like to. Concerning the Tanakh, do you approach the ancient Patriarchs, including Abraham and Moses and King David, with the same scrutiny?

 

Of course. I just think we should approach all religions -- our own or someone else's, alive or dead -- with the same scrutiny. If we can call the stories of the Greek Gods myths, then we can call the stories of our own God(s) myths, IMO.

[Professor X]

And that list didn't even include Mithras!

 

Was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds

Was considered a great traveling teacher and master

Had 12 companions or disciples

Promised his followers immortality

Performed miracles

Sacrificed himself for world peace

Was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again

Was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)

Was called "the Good Shepherd"

Was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion

Was considered to be the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

Celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the "Lord's Day,")

Celebrated a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper"

Jesus is a copy paste story in the era prior to Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V!

[TaraMaiden]

the birth of the buddha was not miraculous. He came from his mother's side, scrutiny of written accounts denote she needed an emergency caesarian; in fact, certain passages recounting his birth allude to this.

his mother never recovered form the ordeal.

 

If we go further back into history, in India we find that the Buddha was possibly born by an [caesarian] operation.

 

Caesarean Birth - Performed First by Muslims (www.islaam.org.uk)

 

also here;

Birth Is Suffering < Killing the Buddha

 

so it is by no means a supposition.

documentary evidence further exists speaking of the Shakya clan, to which Siddharta Gautama belonged.

 

Buddhism in Nepal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quankanne]

Errrr, no. Ummm, yes. I'm referring specifically to Jesus, the Christ. Not any other figure who is suggestive of him.

[TaraMaiden]

Errrr, no. Ummm, yes. I'm referring specifically to Jesus, the Christ. Not any other figure who is suggestive of him.

If you're talking to me....responding more to Professor X and Eve, more to clarify than to correct....

 

Buddhism may be one of the World's 6 great religions, but i never cease to be amazed at how little even so-called authoritative sources really know...

Because there is no omnipotent, everlasting god, Buddhism is discussed in ways that verge on ignorance...people fail to understand it, but it's really quite basic....

[zengirl]

You know, frankly, I've never understood comparisons of Buddha and Jesus. I mean, they're both figures in religious texts, but that's where the similarities end, isn't it?

 

If you're talking to me....responding more to Professor X and Eve, more to clarify than to correct....

 

Buddhism may be one of the World's 6 great religions, but i never cease to be amazed at how little even so-called authoritative sources really know...

Because there is no omnipotent, everlasting god, Buddhism is discussed in ways that verge on ignorance...people fail to understand it, but it's really quite basic....

 

One of the misconceptions annoying me lately is the notion of "prophecy." There are several things, most common the Maitreya, which some seem to want to paint with messianic flair, that people refer to as "Buddhist prophecy," but I find it hard to stretch them as such. This is perhaps because the Lotus Sutra is so influential to me. Perhaps it is only in Zen that prophecy is more likely to mean "metaphor."

[findingnemo]

I have met many good people, great people who are Christians by faith. I think it's wonderful to have faith in something. To not have faith is like dying and your body is tossed to the wolves. (That's an African phrase meaning you are worthless).

 

What I find amusing about Christians (a faith I choose to stick with since I was born in it) is the dogged determination to not read and find out more about other faiths. Many of them don't even know the Bible properly.

 

If any one were to read a little about other cultures, civilizations and religions, they will find that Christianity is the one religion that seems to have spread everywhere while assimilating other people's religious beliefs. Almost all the major Christian symbols today have their origins in what is known as Paganism. Madonna and child, the Immaculate Conception, Moses in a Basket, etc. The 10 plagues have happened after the time of Moses. That they do happen is a miracle in itself, IMO. But the fact is that The Nile River floods every 40 years and red soils erode in massive quantities into it turning it red as blood. Frogs escape the waters, cattle die and flies and gnats invade depending on how catastrophic the floods are.

 

I believe that Jesus existed and isn't a myth. But I know from reading the Bible that he tried to turn people back to their true religion - Judaism - and never coined the term Christianity. I know that he was a threat to the Romans but mainly to the Pharisees who then wanted to get rid of him in the most shameful way. So they saved a thief and instead crucified Jesus. Does this knowledge invalidate his teachings for me? No. It makes the man all the more remarkable.

 

Read about Egypt and it's ancient esoteric knowledge. Learn how Moses was taught this knowledge and this will explain how he was able to do what he did starting from the Mt. Sinai adventure. Jesus too spent most of his life in Egypt where he did what? Studied esoteric knowledge. The more I read the more I know that God exists and that there is a plan for mankind. For how else could all these cultures, some completely independent of others, have come up with such fantastic but similar stories?

[TaraMaiden]

You know, frankly, I've never understood comparisons of Buddha and Jesus. I mean, they're both figures in religious texts, but that's where the similarities end, isn't it?

Yes, and i remind myself that the Buddha was born at least 550 years BC.

there are verifiable written accounts of the Buddha's life, and his teachings were written down verbatim after having been recited from memory for around 100 years. this is no different to Shakespeare's plays being memorised and still enacted 4-500 years after being written.

If you read the original Pali Suttas, in the Tripitaka, they are relatively monotonous and repetitive, because, just like nursery-rhymes, they are lyrical, rhythmical and easy to remember. Memorising holy teachings is an extremely reliable way of continuing the lineage and traditions, and due to the recitation being done largely in groups, one wrong word and the others in the group were quick to point out the error and correct it.

[Eve]

Taramaiden and Zengirl. Thanks for the elaboration.

 

I have noted a curiosity towards the supernatural in some Buddhists met in real life but had thought that they considered that it came from themselves rather than from outside of themselves. More like an interest in the subconscious mind than anything else really. H'mmm.. it will be interesting to read the myths associated with these beliefs now that I know some exist. Cheers for that.

 

In total, I suppose I am interested in religion and daily life being well matched and can fully see why people would be concerned if they cannot find this balance.

 

 

Take care,

Eve x

[zengirl]

Yes, and i remind myself that the Buddha was born at least 550 years BC.

there are verifiable written accounts of the Buddha's life, and his teachings were written down verbatim after having been recited from memory for around 100 years. this is no different to Shakespeare's plays being memorised and still enacted 4-500 years after being written.

If you read the original Pali Suttas, in the Tripitaka, they are relatively monotonous and repetitive, because, just like nursery-rhymes, they are lyrical, rhythmical and easy to remember. Memorising holy teachings is an extremely reliable way of continuing the lineage and traditions, and due to the recitation being done largely in groups, one wrong word and the others in the group were quick to point out the error and correct it.

 

Right. In my view, the Buddha is not an active player in any supernatural stories associated with Buddhism really. That is why I say the supernatural is easier to distinguish and sort of pick out of many Eastern religions. In a religion like Christianity, it's all mixed together. In Buddhism, we consciously acknowledge what is historical, what is philosophy, and what is supernatural. At least I feel we do. I never felt that way as a Catholic.

[Professor X]

Errrr, no. Ummm, yes. I'm referring specifically to Jesus, the Christ. Not any other figure who is suggestive of him.

 

Still no..

[BetheButterfly]

There are some myths in it, though it's closer to folktales or allegories in most cases (many of the stories do not emphasize the supernatural in the same manner myths do, just speaking from a literary perspective). Many Jewish people see the stories as allegories themselves. A lot of the difference with Judaism and Christianity in this is tone. Myths do have a particular tone, and the Jesus myth would fit that tone.

 

Hello Zengirl,

 

 

Sorry for not responding earlier. It's been a busy week!

 

I am curious about this, because I know Jewish Orthodox people who do not believe their Scriptures, the Tanakh are myths, but rather historic accounts.

 

So apparently, there are people who dub the Tanakh to include myths, and there are people who do not.

 

Moses would be a good example of a myth, yes, but only if it is not an allegory.

 

Do you and the people you knew in the faith of Judaism believe Moses is just an allegory and not a real person who truly experienced what is written in the Tanakh?

 

Again, that is completely different than my experience with Jewish Orthodox people.

 

 

 

Since a lot of Jewish scholarship suggests it is to be considered an allegory, it is harder to call it a myth in the Jewish faith. Whether something is an allegory or a myth would be difficult to classify without context. To be fair, I don't think most Jews would be offended if you said, "the mythological Moses parted the red sea." At least not those I know.

 

 

Do most Jewish people you know, who believe in God, consider Moses to not be a true person. but rather the "mythological Moses"?

 

Sure, but you prove something IS, not that something IS NOT. I don't have to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not real to assume he is not, and there is never any way to do so, really. If I were to assert he was real, I would require reliable sources.

 

What I am asking is for people who think that Jesus IS mythological, to please provide proof as to that claim, because the idea that Jesus is a true, real person who did miracles has been acknowledged by real human beings who follow him, since the time he lived until today and continuing. For example, Jesus is not a monster or a flying animal, but rather a real person. Real people did exist and still do, and other real people can testify that the people they knew existed, and tell future generations what those people did and said.

 

A version of Jesus (not the son of God), just as a version of many Greek heroes existed. Those historical sources do suggest that a figure with some similarities and perhaps the same name existed, but they also more strongly support the assertion that he is a composite of many people with the addition of mythological elements to wind up with the "Jesus" most people are talking about. Just as the Hercules who lived or the Achilles who lived or so forth were not likely the same men as they are in the myths.

 

Again, I would appreciate reliable sources that claim this, because I would like to see how they arrived to such a conclusion.

 

I believe we can source the Greco-Romans and even some Jewish historians. I don't believe much scholarship has been done on the historical Jesus by many objective parties. I would be very interested to see an objective historian who is not Christian look into it. I do believe, as XXOO said, that many events put down in stories (myths, folktales, philosophies, etc) are based upon real events to a slight degree.

 

Do you consider Josephus to be an objective historian who was not Christian? Josephus was not a Christian, and was quite objective.

 

 

Below is a source that talks about Josephus.

 

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

 

"How Would Josephus Have Learned About Jesus? Having concluded that Josephus originally did refer to Jesus, would he have been in a place to offer any reliable information about him? Yes. According to leading New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders, "y the standards of the day, [Josephus] was a very good historian, and for some parts of his historical narratives he had excellent sources." (Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, page 16). Moreover, having lived in Judaea and Galilee, Josephus would have been in an excellent position to learn from Jewish sources about the early Christians and Jesus. Indeed, according to Josephus' own writings, he was in Jerusalem at the time that James the brother of Jesus was martyred. Additionally, Josephus -- living as a member of the imperial family in Rome -- would have had unprecedented access to Roman records. That he obtained accurate information about other religious sects, such as the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, and a similar historical figure in John the Baptist, is undisputed. That he had similar access to such traditions about Christians and their founder is therefore also very likely.

But some argue that since Josephus likely learned about Jesus from Christians, his evidence is worthless. There are too many problems with such an accusation to take this charge seriously. Not the least of which is that, for Jesus Mythologists like Doherty, that the only story Christians were telling Josephus in the first century was of a historical Jesus would be very troublesome indeed. In any event, there is no reason to believe Christians were Josephus' source and good reasons to believe that they were not.

[T]hat explanation will not do.

Firstly, the distinctively non-Christian terminology we have noted suggests that Josephus is giving his own account. Secondly, there is no reason whatever for Josephus to even mention Jesus and Christianity at this point in his work at all unless he was convinced that the career and execution of Jesus was an actual event which occurred during the governorship of Pilatus. And thirdly, Josephus, a Jew who lived for much of his life in Palestine, is in a very different situation from Tacitus to know whether what he is told is true or not, and to have an interest in checking what he is told. Nor does the rest of his work encourage us to believe that he was in the habit of talking to Christians or using them as source of information.

If then . . . Josephus did originally include an account of Jesus in his record of the governorship of Pilatus, we have every reason to be confident that he had his own good reasons for believing what he wrote to be true.

(France, op. cit., page 31).

Meier also points out that the notion that Christians are Josephus' source is unlikely given that he seems to know much more about Jesus than he does about Christians themselves. This is especially true if Meier is correct that the TF did not include a reference to the resurrection:

Yet there is a problem with supposing that Josephus used the oral reports of Christians as a direct source. Strange to say, the Testimonium is much vaguer about the Christians than it is about Jesus.

If my reconstruction is correct, while the Testimonium gives a fairly objective, brief account of Jesus' career, nothing is said about Christian's belief that Jesus rose from the dead--and that after all, was the central affirmation of faith that held the various Christian groups together during the 1st century (cf. 1 Corinthians. 15:11). That Josephus drew directly on oral statements of Christians and yet failed to mention the one belief that differentiated them markedly from the wide range of Jewish beliefs at the time seems difficult to accept. My sense is that, paradoxically, Josephus seems to have known more about Jesus than he did about the Christians who came after him.

(Meier, op. cit., page 67).

In addition to the above, I would stress how unlikely it would be that Josephus would uncritically accept the word of a few members of a strange off-shoot of Judaism if Josephus had heard nothing of Jesus or Christians while he lived in Palestine for so many years. This is especially true of his reference to Jesus' brother James, given that Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time of James' martyrdom. Moreover, it is unreasonable to conclude that Josephus would have so uncritically taken their word for so many things, but then proceeded to repeat their account in such blatantly un-Christian language. Accordingly, given that this theory has so little to commend it, it is best seen as a last-ditch attempt to deny the historicity of Jesus (or at least the confirmation it offers for many of the Gospel details) rather than a viable historical alternative.

What Josephus Tells Us

What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:

Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.

(Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).

F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:

We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, © His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.

(F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112)."

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. I don't believe in any prophesies, particularly not Christian ones.

 

Do you believe in prophesies that the Jewish people have in the Tanakh, concerning the Messiah (offspring of King David) and the prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18)? These are not "Christian prophesies", though Christians do believe that Jesus fulfills them. Jesus is Jewish and is a descendant of King David.

 

There are many, many Jewish people who believe in God who are waiting for the Messiah, because of those prophesies, which again, are not "Christian ones" but are ones from the Tanakh, which Christians believe Jesus fulfills.

 

Of course. I just think we should approach all religions -- our own or someone else's, alive or dead -- with the same scrutiny. If we can call the stories of the Greek Gods myths, then we can call the stories of our own God(s) myths, IMO.

 

To me, that does not make sense, to call one's own beliefs: myths. If I believed Jesus was a myth, I would not be a Christian. I also do not believe that Moses was a myth, or what is written in the Tanakh to be a myth. However, I agree that we should approach all religions with research in order to understand what we believe, and why, and if we truly believe it.

 

Peace and God bless you

[TaraMaiden]

So why exactly do you believe in God, and not believe Christ was a myth, a composite of several different people, or just a re-hash of previous stories?

 

the big problem is, you only cite your bible as the only credible source of truth, whereas those who do not believe, cite a broad and verifiable spectrum of:

historical research, scholars and scientists, archaeological archives and wide and broad literature expounding different facts to counter any biblical stories.

we have given you many examples of different studies, accounts and literature, whereas you still continue to insist your truth - based on one book that has been through so may hands, been translated, updated and modified so may times, that nothing in it can truly be said to be original any longer.

 

so, while you're asking us to explain why we think Jesus is a myth - which we have done - the onus is now on you, to categorically prove us wrong.

 

Dear heart.

 

[quankanne]

If you're talking to me....responding more to Professor X and Eve, more to clarify than to correct....

 

oops, TaraMaiden, my reply also was to Professor X!

[quankanne]

Dear heart. Is that like the Southern "bless your heart" thing? Just wondering

[TaraMaiden]

Yeah, it's a term of endearment... like, my dear, or sweetie...

[Eve]

So why exactly do you believe in God, and not believe Christ was a myth, a composite of several different people, or just a re-hash of previous stories?

 

the big problem is, you only cite your bible as the only credible source of truth, whereas those who do not believe, cite a broad and verifiable spectrum of:

historical research, scholars and scientists, archaeological archives and wide and broad literature expounding different facts to counter any biblical stories.

we have given you many examples of different studies, accounts and literature, whereas you still continue to insist your truth - based on one book that has been through so may hands, been translated, updated and modified so may times, that nothing in it can truly be said to be original any longer.

 

so, while you're asking us to explain why we think Jesus is a myth - which we have done - the onus is now on you, to categorically prove us wrong.

Dear heart.

 

 

There is plenty of research which places Christ as a historical figure. But I don't think anyone needs to prove anything, rather it is a personal journey in which the 'outcome' is that we become the evidence of Christ ... or the other side of things, as in an anti-christ. This to me is very clear...

 

Personally, I love how the Bible is still used as new and valid inspiration/evidence of what it means to be divinely touched via the Sermon building of the past 2000 years or so. So, methinks that the point of contact with the Bible is what makes all the difference.

 

Biblically those who followed Christ just seemed to 'know Him' and this is typically the experience being followed by Christians throughout time. Clearly this means nothing to you and that is fine but to those who do have faith something does seem to lead them and this is their testimony. The same for those recorded who do not recognise Christ. Two way street here.

 

Until I experienced some serious **** paranormal activity, tbh, I believed in Christ but did not understand the power in His name. So, in the end I have come to the conclusion that there probably is not often a means of proving **** to anyone .. but those who know, know from experience/s.

 

Overall, I think it really is about knowing who to listen to and why from a soul view of things. We are the evidence on a continum. I mean if someone read about my life, would they believe I existed? How would they know my internal world?

 

So yeah, myth on. I will keep listening as there are other senses, intuitions and experiences at play here which really are about contact, awareness, the subconscious coming to life and yes, magical happenings.

 

Somewhere in there faith is born.

 

 

 

Take care,

Eve x

[TaraMaiden]

Taramaiden and Zengirl. Thanks for the elaboration.

 

I have noted a curiosity towards the supernatural in some Buddhists met in real life but had thought that they considered that it came from themselves rather than from outside of themselves. More like an interest in the subconscious mind than anything else really.

 

I think first of all we need to define what a person considers to be 'supernatural'...some traditions of Buddhism are full of parables and allegorical stories and illustration....

 

Right. In my view, the Buddha is not an active player in any supernatural stories associated with Buddhism really. That is why I say the supernatural is easier to distinguish and sort of pick out of many Eastern religions. In a religion like Christianity, it's all mixed together. In Buddhism, we consciously acknowledge what is historical, what is philosophy, and what is supernatural. At least I feel we do. I never felt that way as a Catholic.

 

Any 'supernatural' tales about the Buddha are exactly that.

Tales.

all of the Buddha's teachings are condensed into the Dhammapada, and all his teachings can be followed back to the 4 Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. Buddhism is so simple, it defies belief. People fail to see how simple it is, they're always looking for deeper, more complex meanings, and trying to create a mysticism around the suttas, whereas in actual fact, What the Buddha taught, can be summed up in just a few lines.

 

To me, Catholicism went out of its way to overly complicate things, which I feel stems back to an historical desire to control hoi poloi. History would indicate this is more than speculative guesswork.

 

 

There is plenty of research which places Christ as a historical figure. (...)

Not so.

There might well be plenty of research to suggest that Christ might have been an historical figure. There is absolutely no concrete documentary historical evidence whatsoever that establishes his existence as fact.

 

(...) So yeah, myth on. I will keep listening as there are other senses, intuitions and experiences at play here which really are about contact, awareness, the subconscious coming to life and yes, magical happenings.

See, this is where for me, it needs to be black and white.

I cannot for the life of me accept 'magical happenings'. that asks too much of me. Fortunately, with all the tools and instruments at our disposal, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest or recommend I should. quite the opposite in fact.

 

Somewhere in there faith is born.

That again, all depends on a person's definition of faith.

 

for me, faith is defined as having and educated confidence in... not as an acceptance of something which is ultimately un-testable.

Edited April 14, 2012 by TaraMaiden