Just back from vacation. I want to weigh in on this: __stephen's original question: Jesus, man or myth? I believe that the answer is "Yes." Remember, "myth" doesn't mean something that is made up. Marion-Webster: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon." George Washington, in our current cultural context is a myth.
To the extent that one can prove the existence of any common person in the first century, historical references make it reasonably certain that Jesus lived. On one hand, there are *no* contemporary references to him and he left no writings. The only first century references to him are from his followers. (Bart Ehrman; From Jesus to Constantine: the History of Early Christianity). Josephus and others may well be reporting the oral history as fact. On the other hand, there was no reason to make him up. His disciples followed him, just like other itinerant preachers of the time (of which there were many) had their followers, too. The Jesus that emerges from my studies was a rebel and a apocalypticist. He rebelled against the corrupt power structure of the Jewish church, much as Luther did against corrupt Catholicism later. Again according to Ehrman (The Historical Jesus), he preached that the end of time was coming and that God would save that souls of those who affirmed his version of god. There was no "christianity" in the way we understand it now in his preaching. He was a Jew and wanted people to be better Jews, much like the Essenes, keepers of the Dead Sea scrolls. The myth began with his death. His followers needed some justification for their faith, so they started us moving toward the thing we now call Christianity. The Disciples and Paul/Saul were good salesmen. The latter, who never actually met Jesus, was the best and really invented the core of the "redemption" belief system. Why he did is a very interesting question. I believe he was ambitious and power hungry, but I don't have any citations for that, but if you read his letters, most of the text is not made up of the definitions of the beliefs that we all know. The preponderance of the text is defensive, denouncing other Jesus evangelists and their versions of the stories and beliefs. How did they convert the ignorant masses? They used magic tricks, couched as miracles (again, Ehrman). They co- opted the Jewish bible, proclaiming that it was all a prologue to Jesus, and invented the "proof" that Jesus fulfilled biblical prophesies. They co-opted other religions' myths and rituals, including Zoroasterism,if it helped them convert more followers. There was nothing new about this, the OT is replete with stories adapted from earlier traditions. For example there are many stories of great leaders or gods being saved by floating them as a baby down a river that predate the Moses story. (Campbell: The Power of Myth). It makes sense, for example, that they said that Jesus was crucified. According to J. D. Crosson, crucifixion (as well as burning and throwing "criminals" to wild animals) was a way for Roman leaders to deny or even negate the person-hood of the offender. To be a true martyr, the oppressors have to deny the martyr fully. The faith grew because of social changes. For many people this time was the beginning of living in community. People before this time worshipped gods as a way to survive the day. Jews, still. For people other than Jews, gods were freely added to or removed from the roster to appease the current rulers. The Jews were the first successful faith to preach singularity. With social structures, there was the beginning of specialization and commerce. IOW, people had an easier time making it through the day, got more rudimentary social education, and had the convenience of thinking about deeper, more philosophical issues. The Jesus followers filled that void. The problem lay in that these pre-Christian movements were the first (other than Judaism) to demand that followers disavow other gods. Rulers, who promoted these gods (or were these gods) naturally didn't like that. So, persecuting Jews and pre-Christians was purely a political move to hold power. Constantine was the first major leader to realize that this was no longer possible, so he "converted" and created the beginnings of Christianity as we know it today. He based it in Rome and controlled it completely. He built churches and installed the dead of the church (now "Pope"). He constituted the first "business meetings" that resolved the many versions of the pre- Christian beliefs, decided which writings made up the official book -- our Bible, and other organizational messiness. Then, he enforced this version brutally. After some backsliding, future emperors completed the transition and made the official religion of the Empire. So what does all of this matter? As others have said, if you are a Christian, it shouldn't. You have your Faith, and it doesn't matter if Jesus actually existed. Personally, I have always been interested in mass movements, and there is no more interesting one to study that this one. Ken _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
