Originally posted by segovius
@MarcUK: Ok, re Jesus's historical existence - let's nail this bad boy down once and for all.
You say that the Jesus never existed but when pressed fall back on "the Jesus portrayed by the Church is a fiction".
Agreed, there is no need for an historical figure for the gospels, because as we know, it is based on the pagan/sun astro motif.Also
, there is no need for an historical figure for 'gnosticism' becuase it is a spiritual path, very similar to alot of other spiritual paths where to claim a historical figure existed as the centre of their theology, would border on insanity.
Of course this is true. Imo it is a fiction based on the astro/sun pagan motif of which you are so enamoured. These too are a fiction imo, so you have a fiction on a fiction. The latter one even being a lie while the first at least was sincere.
well, i was thinking about this the other day when a friend asked me a question. Here's roughly what I said.
Take for instance a well known story "snow white and the seven dwarves", (lets assume for arguments sake its a completely ficticious story), if we looked back how this story developed, we might find there were only five dwarves to start with, a different culture might have "sun yellow and the six elves", another "crystal green and the eight pixies" or even "coal black and the ten giants"...Yet are any of these alternate versions lies or corruption? NO, because its just a fun story, a myth, and each culture, each era has evolved a different meaning or tale of the original for their own purposes and maybe just for fun.
Infact the only way you can really misunderstand and corrupt a myth or story is if you suddenly thought "Snow White" was a real historical person.
As it is with Jesus, the story goes back far beyond 3B.C, you can see it in every culture, religion from all over the world. The closer to 1AD you get the story is more similar than it is if you look back to 3000B.C, but its still there.
Yet noone is foolish enough to believe the likes of Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Mithra, Dionysus ad infinitium are anything more than personifications of nature, spirit and soul.
BUT where we differ from each other is on that knowing that the second is a lie/fiction you infer that the central figure of the myth could have had no existence.
ok, so we differ...
1) When a myth accrues around a central figure it makes it all the more likely that they did exist in order for it to be grafted successfully - it is when the myth is dispersed amongst a nebulous 'group' or various figures such as in folklore (Till Eulenspiegel, Nasrudin, Joha, Ponchinello etc) that it is more likely the 'target' is completely fictitious. Also such motifs tend to be culturally exclusive and, where they do cross cultures, transmute into terms defined by that culture, updating over time.
I've italicized some of the above. You just shown exactly why Jesus is ficticious. His story was
built up amongst many groups, who all disagreed somewhat with eachother, taking several hundred years to be completed. If thats not positive proof that the stories aren't based on a ficticious character, what is? - and when the final story echoes exactly what has become before it, a collage of all the 'ficticious' characters i mentioned above, where is the 'historical person' in that?
2) There are historical inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible. All sane people know and accept this.
But, oth, there are factual accuracies also. Ones that place the Gospel accounts (or the originals they are based on) very near the time they claim to be written.
At very best, the gospels would be akin to you writing an historical account of WWII now, if no-one had bothered to document it at the time, and its history and events had only been transmitted by word of mouth for 60 years. No doubt such 'truths' such as "Germany, Hitler, Churchill, Pearl Harbour, Atom Bomb" would remain, but i wouldn't fancy your chances of getting anything else historically correct.
This does not constitute any proof but it does mean that if you are correct and Jesus never had a historical reality then a conspiracy involving hundreds of people - and the Roman/Jewish authorities knowledge if not consent - was under way very early on with no-one talking.
This is a serious flaw in your argument.
Hardly! we know there were hundreds of people working on the story of Jesus for hundreds of years, we know that alot of it got rejected, and we know that for several hundred years, people were debating, critisizing, even taking the piss out of the Christians for their story - and even that the Christians were pleading for their story to be accepted - because it was - paraphrasing - "little different than the mythology that came before it". Who needs an historical catalyst for that?
3) Following on from the above: The Church weren't even around at this point to do the conspiring. Nor was Paul. The only people who could have done this would be a group who wished to position themselves as the mundane equivalent of the 'Disciples' who would also be fictitious necessarily and who this Group X would have invented at the same time.
So you need to posit TWO conspiracies and TWO bad guys with TWO different agendas.
a) The 'Disciples' - a group inventing the original lie to aproject a teaching we don't know.
b) The Later Church warping the original lie into the lie we do know.
IMO, the Jesus story wasn't intended to be centered around a physical person from its outset, very few people could have been that stupid. Considering all the other similar myths around at the time, this would have been seen as just another. The only reason we have difficulty recognising it as a myth today, is that all the others have been exterminated by force.
All that really happened was the 'spiritual, mythical' Jesus story developed alongside other myths and a few psychotics ran with it to create an historical Jesus and then wriggled their way into power, and then conspired to destroy all evidence of the myth. No big leap of faith there.
Obviously this is possible and it would explain my first point n the post about the problem of a 'fiction on a fiction' but it is unwieldy and yiou need to continually resort to new theories and explanations to support it.
I think I've been pretty consistant in my theory, im not changing it every other week, yet as new things are uncovered by me, I incorperate them into my understanding.
Why not just accept the easiest obvious solution?
A man - a human being - called Jesus lived in Palestine 2000 years ago and, as humans do (as we are doing now) he talked a lot about religious stuff and philosophy. People even listened.
Well that isn't the easiest obvious solution. The easiest is that I just accept the gospels, ignore everything contradictory and shout off like a fundie. Thats easy.
Of this man called Jesus living in Palestine 2000 years ago? What do you know about him? How can his story be related in the gospels, when we know it is just a mismash of astrology and syncretization. Is this the same guy Paul was preaching in Rome about? Was he divine? Was he one of the many Jesus' Josephus mentions?
If there was such a Jesus, face the fact, that whatever he said or did, died with him the moment he died. There is no religion or church formed around him or his teachings, and give up your Bibles, Qurans and Talmuds, because they have nothing to do with him.
Infact, your theory makes no sense. You chose to claim that there was a historical figure, yet everything you do/think concerning religion or spirituality has nothing to do with him.