Mithras/Jesus Myth

[Mikefule]

Before we ask whether Jesus existed as an historical figure, we need to define Jesus.

At one extreme, Jesus might be defined as "a wandering religious teacher of Jewish origin, with a 2 syllable name beginning with J or Y who lived in the first half of the first century."

At the other extreme, we might define Jesus as "The only son of the only God, who was born to a virgin in a stable in Bethlehem, who fed 5,000 with fish and bread, raised Lazarus from the dead, turned water into wine, cast demons out of swine, and was crucified but never died."

Between these extremes, there are many many possible shades of grey.

I am sure there were many wandering religious teachers at that time in that place, and many of them may have been jews whose names began with J or Y.

I would accept that there was a real historical figure who, after he died, accumulated a number of characteristics and became the legendary Jesus that we now know. This is just as there may well have been an historical Robert or Robin Hood or Hode who was an outlaw, although he didn't necessarily live in Sherwood Forest with Maid Marian, Will Scarlet, Little John... and so on.

Was Mithraism the origin of Christianity? I doubt it. Was Mithraism even the origin or Mithraism? Probably not. Each new religion or belief system seeks to address the same basic human needs and to express the same basic human desires. It follows that they will mix and match from a similar palette of ideas, concepts, and images: memes in the original sense of the word. Every religion had its antecedents. Finding the first historical expression of those ideas is like trying to identify the first rock and roll record.

I could draw some pretty close parallels between Jesus and Socrates, or Jesus and Seneca, but I could also find some very substantial differences between the ways that Jesus is portrayed in different Christian denominations.

 

[escargot]

I like those drawings of Jesus joining in with activities like playing instruments and skateboarding.

There are also videos.

 

[Matt]

 

[Mythopoeika]

I like those drawings of Jesus joining in with activities like playing instruments and skateboarding.

There are also videos.

No need for a bike when you have a skateboard!

 

[Frideswide]

I would accept that there was a real historical figure who, after he died, accumulated a number of characteristics and became the legendary Jesus that we now know. This is just as there may well have been an historical Robert or Robin Hood or Hode who was an outlaw, although he didn't necessarily live in Sherwood Forest with Maid Marian, Will Scarlet, Little John... and so on.

tcha! you'll be telling me King Arthur isn't scottish next!0

 

[ramonmercado]

, cast demons out of swine,

Sadly he cast demons into a of herd swine who were minding their own business causing the aforesaid swine to stampede over a cliff.

 

[Mikefule]

Sadly he cast demons into a herd swine who were minding their own business causing the aforesaid swine to stampede over a cliff.

I feel so ashamed. What I wrote about the demons and swine thing made no rational sense. LOL
I thought I made a reasonably good rhyme, though.

 

[Cochise]

You would have thought there’d be enough evidence of proof before he turned up.

Well, what records do you expect? A minor religious enthusiast in a territory by no means short of them. Exactly what historical record would you expect? He was a largely unknown troublemaker before he was crucified.

You can draw your own conclusions from the fact the whole world knows about Him 2000 years later.

 

[Ermintruder]

A number of Forteans entertain the general concept of thoughtforms: the somewhat-nebulous concept that collective sincere belief in an entity can instantiate that projection such that others outwith the originating perceptors become aware of an embodiment that is more than a thought, but physically-less than a being.

Has this potentiality ever been considered specifically in the context of deities as opposed to demons? I'm sure this idea must've been thought about before, in the context of mainstream religion: that somehow a critical mass (no pun) of concurrent believers will consequently generate an energised good or evil archetypal essence that is a god or devil...even beyond all scale & significance of its potentially-humble true origins.

(ETA- with apologies: both to Encyclopaedia Dialectica for not properly-citing you (because I'm not sure if you're really real); and to the Forum, for quoting from that highly-curious source in the first place:

M = Mythology or Mythopoieia, stipulated starting point, or arché;
R = Religion, a 'meta-Mythology' made up out of multiple Mythologies:
P = Philosophy, a 'meta-Religion', made up out of multiple Religions;
S = Science, a 'meta-Philosophy', made up out of multiple Philosophies

 

[Ermintruder]

I am alway astounded (but not surprised) when I talk with many devout Christians, in that if one quizically enquires about detail within any single core aspect of the religion that is Christianity, this is seen as sacrilege.

A particularly troublesome area of doctrine which could be highlit for thought is that Jesus was (and is) seen officially by some during his time on Earth to be the King of the Jews: at least within the retrospective that is the Christian Bible. Yet clearly the vast majority of Jews did not see him as The Messiah: otherwise Judaism would have become Christianity.

In fact, I am completely ignorant as to whether mainstream Jews consider Jesus (the historical figure and/or the demigod) to have even been in any way a significant figure (unlike Islam, which I understand does at least in part recognise and name Jesus in some deity-level sense).

This paradox has always troubled me: was Jesus crowned King of the Jews by an informed-but-malleable minority of that religion correctly, or in error? Because if his primary role was meant to be the saviour of the entire Kingdom of the Jews, and be their spiritual/paramilitary leader in 35CE Palestine: why was he not more universally accepted within the very people he was meant to have been sent to save? And that is 'save' in both physical and metaphysical senses

 

[pandacracker]

I am completely ignorant as to whether mainstream Jews consider Jesus (the historical figure and/or the demigod) to have even been in any way a significant figure

There is a group called Jews for Jesus.

Here is a link to their website https://jewsforjesus.org/

 

[LymeswoldSnork]

I'm sure this idea must've been thought about before, in the context of mainstream religion: that somehow a critical mass (no pun) of concurrent believers will consequently generate an energised good or evil archetypal essence that is a god or devil...even beyond all scale & significance of its potentially-humble true origins.

It certainly occurred to Terry Pratchett:

https://wiki.lspace.org/The_gods

 

[Stormkhan]

As Kinky Friedman sang "They don't make Jews like Jesus anymore".

 

[Steven]

What I find especially interesting about Jesus (in reality or as written about in the Bible) is how different he was to what one might expect, given that the writers were surely keen on 'selling' him & the faith to readers. One would anticipate that he'd be presented to us as all sweetness and light; but, no - instead he's often confrontational, blunt to the point of rudeness, cryptic, though rarely less than interesting and thought-provoking. Very much an enigmatic person, and smarter/more nuanced than most too.

 

[Mikefule]

I am alway astounded (but not surprised) when I talk with many devout Christians, in that if one quizically enquires about detail within any single core aspect of the religion that is Christianity, this is seen as sacrilege.

In fact, I am completely ignorant as to whether mainstream Jews consider Jesus (the historical figure and/or the demigod) to have even been in any way a significant figure (unlike Islam, which I understand does at least in part recognise and name Jesus in some deity-level sense).

This paradox has always troubled me: was Jesus crowned King of the Jews by an informed-but-malleable minority of that religion correctly, or in error? Because if his primary role was meant to be the saviour of the entire Kingdom of the Jews, and be their spiritual/paramilitary leader in 35CE Palestine: why was he not more universally accepted within the very people he was meant to have been sent to save? And that is 'save' in both physical and metaphysical senses

There are many many inconsistencies. My personal favourite is the idea that the all powerful God sent his "only" son to save mankind. An powerful God could have as many sons or daughters as He chose to have.

I admire people who live according to the essential philosophy of Christ: love your neighbours, do not judge others, forgive your enemies, put the love of what is good above the love of material things. Similarly, I could admire anyone who lived according to the essential philosophy of most sincere and benign religious teachers from history.

What I find hard to understand is the acceptance of myth and story, and fable, as literal fact. I have a sister in law with a science degree who [claims to] believe in the literal truth of Adam and Eve, Eden, and the snake, as well as Noah's ark.

There is wisdom to be found in the fables of Aesop, but that does not mean that I have to believe in talking animals.

Messianic Jews identify as Jewish, and adhere to Jewish rituals etc., but believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Other Jews believe that belief that Jesus was the Messiah is incompatible with being Jewish.

I can't help feeling that an all wise, all powerful, benevolent God could have come up with a better plan.

 

[Sollywos]

He was a largely unknown troublemaker before he was crucified.

Apart from the new testament accounts as far as I know there are no records of his having been crucified and certainly none of the more supernatural elements are found in any other accounts from the time. You'd think if a load of Zombies walked aroud Jerusalem for a time, an Earthquake occured, or there was a period of unusul darkness plenty of other people would have noticed and written about it.

You can draw your own conclusions from the fact the whole world knows about Him 2000 years later.

You say 'Him' but it still doesn't necessarily make him a real person. The stories featuring the miracle working young man are indeed well known but they are not dependant on his having been a real person. That the stories proved useful to the people who promoted them (probably for their own ends) does not make them actually true.

We don't really know who wrote the gospels so we can't be sure what their intention/motivation was. There are many theories of course and I'm not qualified to come down in agreement with any of them. However they are certainly plausable and written by scholars who have spent many years studying the whole subject. As of course were the ones who have come down on the side of a real as opposed to a mythical Jesus although even they can not come up with any proof of the miraculous birth or spectacular crucifiction or all the miracles in between.

In any case the whole story does bear resemblance to many others in currency at the time ... Gods made human, virgin births, and what not.

 

[Ermintruder]

My personal favourite is the idea that the all powerful God sent his "only" son to save mankind

The stated differentiator of importance is something along the lines of "begotten not created". I'm very unsure of what this means.

 

[Frideswide]

The stated differentiator of importance is something along the lines of "begotten not created". I'm very unsure of what this means.

Nicene Creed? It means that Jesus is not a lesser entity that God. It's the final bit of an explanation and comes after

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God

So it's the essence, the very being of God which makes up Jesus. As equals, not in a hierarchy.

Then further down we get to the paraclete

the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I especially like the translations which go with consubstantial.

Any use @Ermintruder ? I hope I've never tried to fob you off or ignore your thoughts xx

 

[Floyd1]

no, confusingly he is 100% divine and 100% human. I know, please don't shoot the messenger!

@PeteByrdie


agreed. However, there are a non-trivial number of us (no, I won't estimate a number) who believe that our own personal experience, the gnosis, supercedes the question of historical fact. What you'd see if you could time travel would be seen through your own filters of course.
There's a really good bit about it in a crime novel about an old book/picture being taken from a british monastery. Robert Hardy played a senior monk in a tv adaptation... can anyone id from that? I may be able to find the quotation if you can!

Archdeacon perhaps?

 

[PeteByrdie]

What I find hard to understand is the acceptance of myth and story, and fable, as literal fact. I have a sister in law with a science degree who [claims to] believe in the literal truth of Adam and Eve, Eden, and the snake, as well as Noah's ark.

It's quite disturbing to find that virtually every brand of science denial is backed by multiple qualified scientists. The only exception I can think of is flat earth, and even then it wouldn't surprise me anymore if someone pointed out a couple. But you only have to go a step away from flat earth to young earth creationism to find plenty of scientists supporting it. Watching a geologist give a lecture about how the evidence shows the Earth is 6000 years old is surreal. That's why I'm never impressed by someone arguing against a scientific consensus by plucking a supporting academic from somewhere.

There is wisdom to be found in the fables of Aesop, but that does not mean that I have to believe in talking animals.

You don't even have to leave the Bible for loquacious critters, of course. The snake in Genesis, Balaam's donkey in Numbers.

In any case the whole story does bear resemblance to many others in currency at the time ... Gods made human, virgin births, and what not.

There are parallels, but personally I avoid the mythacist approach to the New Testament. The Old Testament, well that's different. But from the NT, it's probably impossible to disentangle history from myth.

 

[Frideswide]

You don't even have to leave the Bible for loquacious critters, of course. The snake in Genesis, Balaam's donkey in Numbers.

vegetation too! Exodus 3

 

[Sollywos]

I was of the mind set that Jesus was a real person who had strong feelings about how we should treat each other, how we think of God and so on but that much had been exagerated about his ministry. I was content to leave it at that, people are free to believe whatever feels right to them and I'll do likewise.

However I could imagine that the real man behind the legends, if he could time travel to our time, would be pretty dismayed about how people have interpreted his words. I find it difficult to imagine that he'd be over impressed by the architecture that's been built or those money making healing ministries.

It's only when I started to feel really appalled by the fundies especially those in the USA that I started taking an interest again and reading apologist and sceptic books on the subject that I found the notion that it could all be myth after all. It's fascinating following the clues. As I was once married to an historian I know something of the meticulous research that goes into the delving or original documents and how we can never be totally certain regarding authenticity of the same. So I keep an open mind ... well up to a point anyway!

 

[Steven]

Wilde wrote of Christ: 'He is just like a work of art'. Highly apt.

 

[Sollywos]

I find it difficult to imagine that he'd be over impressed by the architecture

Just to be clear I don't mean to imply that he wouldn't be impressed by them as structures per se but more exasperated by the fact they were done in his name.

(I'm rather partial to an ecclesiastical building I rather like it that we've got all these old churches in almost every village and town and the connection with the ordinary folk that have gone before me.)

 

[Stormkhan]

It's quite disturbing to find that virtually every brand of science denial is backed by multiple qualified scientists.

You might gain a qualification but the application of it is up to you.
To quote Blackadder - "Technically, it's called a lie."
There might be various reasons. The scientist might 'see the light' and suddenly doubt all they'd been told. They might get a nice little income, shilling* for special interest groups. They might've attained the qualification - put in the work - not believing it but wanting a form of confirmation.

* Word origins fascinate me. Being a shill might come from 'taking the Kings Shilling' I wonder?

 

[PeteByrdie]

However I could imagine that the real man behind the legends, if he could time travel to our time, would be pretty dismayed about how people have interpreted his words. I find it difficult to imagine that he'd be over impressed by the architecture that's been built or those money making healing ministries.

If Jesus was anything like the man of the gospels, and he time travelled to today, he'd be appalled by megachurches and prosperity churches. I'm not religious and I tend to think a person's relationship with their god is their own business, but these things seem to me so obviously at odds with the ministry of Christ I can't imagine how those who fall for them maintain faith in them.

 

[PeteByrdie]

You might gain a qualification but the application of it is up to you.
To quote Blackadder - "Technically, it's called a lie."
There might be various reasons. The scientist might 'see the light' and suddenly doubt all they'd been told. They might get a nice little income, shilling* for special interest groups. They might've attained the qualification - put in the work - not believing it but wanting a form of confirmation.

Well, certainly most of them under scrutiny are found to be misrepresenting evidence or science in ways that nobody with their background should be able to do honestly. There's often a question with science denial whether a claim is being made through ignorance or dishonesty. With the more qualified science denialists, various obviously dishonest methods are often clear to anyone who isn't just looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear.

* Word origins fascinate me. Being a shill might come from 'taking the Kings Shilling' I wonder?

Good call! I don't know if it's true but I like it. I'm going to look it up, but I'm not going to report back; I don't want to spoil it.

 

[Mikefule]

Just to be clear I don't mean to imply that he wouldn't be impressed by them as structures per se but more exasperated by the fact they were done in his name.

(I'm rather partial to an ecclesiastical building I rather like it that we've got all these old churches in almost every village and town and the connection with the ordinary folk that have gone before me.)

I doubt that the real Jesus would be impressed by any of the "structures" built in his name, whether architectural, ecclesiastical, or philosophical.

There is not much in the New Testament to justify the building of enormous cathedrals, or the development of an overarching religious authority such as the Roman Catholic or Anglican churches, or ideas such as weekly confession, purgatory, and just wars, etc.

The sort of people who rise to the top in any field of endeavour have always used religion to justify self-aggrandisement: the building of massive churches or temples to the glory of God (and coincidentally their own legacy); complex hierarchies and rules for promotion (Jesus had very little to say about Bishops and Cardinals); and systems of thought that coincidentally justify what they want to do. Some people even (ab)used their own idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity to justify the slave trade.

This is not me knocking religion, but me knocking the people who abuse religion for their own purposes.

As soon as a prophet says, "We should all be humble," some people start competing to demonstrate that they are more humble than everyone else. As soon as a prophet says we should be selfless, some people start promoting themselves to the world as selfless. As soon as a prophet says we need to stop and think, someone will come forward to tell everyone what to think. As soon as a prophet defines something as sinful, someone will devise and impose a system of enforcement.