You're saying Mary and Joseph were also invented to be the parents of the humanized god?
They could’ve been retconned into the story as needed until we got the version we have now. If Joseph Smith showed us anything he showed us conmen are good at coming up with new narratives and synthesizing them into the overarching story when the need occurs.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Starting with the Justin Martyr quote, let's say Jesus is a son of Jupiter, no more and no less.
Are you saying that instead of "from Jesus to Christ" it's really, "from Christ to Jesus"?
The normal claim is some guy did some preaching and his followers made him larger than life, until he was Christ. It sounds like you're saying start with Christ, a god, and then create a backstory that puts him as a local preacher.
Stem wrote:He was not given such station because Mary and Joseph's son was a real guy, but in hopes to outdo and out manuever the other myths that inspired the people all around
what station are we talking about, the station of Jesus the local preacher? You're saying Mary and Joseph were also invented to be the parents of the humanized god?
Yes. It may take a review of the previous threads. But you are correct, the traditional idea is there was some unknown and unreported guy who began Christianity. The take by different scholars of late is, (not necessarily MacDonald and miller whom I quoted in the OP but others) that’s more of a guess than a conclusion. The idea traditionally is Jesus the guy may have lived and the stories written about him were all myth. Not a bad thought and of course I have no issue when people propose it, except to say it doesn’t seem to be a supportable conclusion. It seems more likely jesus was simply a character created by early Christians much like all those who tend to fall in the same camp as he—a son of god, savior, hero, wise one, and magic healer. If so then perhaps there is no real difference in saying some guy who lived but was not the character written about and was at some previous time walking around Jerusalem and it’s environment was the subject who began the myth and the myth was first written down without any real person in mind.
The point I’m making here is to suggest the writings about Jesus were all from Greek and Roman influenced Jews. And their writings demonstrate their heavy familiarity with and dependence on previous Greek and Roman influence. They couldn’t help but make a story that runs in deep proximity to what a god and hero was to the people steeped in Greek and Roman tradition. Using similar themes, the same words and ideas. It surely could be these foreign guys wrote about a guy they heard about in jerusalem. But that seems less and less likely when considering the cultural context from where and when this all came about.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
I agree stem, it would be helpful to know what the basic timeline of your hypothesis is. Who started it, who created what and why, ect.
I’m very interested in alternative hypotheses, I just think they should be contrasted with the mainstream hypothesis for clarification.
The Christian one is different than the Mormon one is different than the Bart Ehrman one, so it’s useful to lay out which one we’re talking about. I think you’re laying out the popular but controversial mythesist position where Jesus didn’t exist at all.
I’m laying out the very unpopular and ill considered or poorly reviewed idea. My take is the idea has plenty of merit and ought to be given more consideration. There are scholars who have considered it and they tend to agree there is merit. There are scholars who disagree and from what I can tell they haven’t really considered it, in an evaluative sense. Much like ehrman, yes I think I reviewed his book here, they don’t really give us an idea that they even understand the points raised, on the sum. Odd thing for me is I wouldn’t even consider myself a full blown mythicist. I think the evidence, if you will, for historicity is basically non existent. And the context and culture of the actual writings about the character Jesus give us plenty of room and material to explore.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
If you had any idea what you were talking about you’d likely see what a silly comparison that is. MacDonald has written tons on this and his work, though often considered in the fringe, is also considered very astute and inspirational in a scholarly sense. I don’t think nibley’s work of finding obscure and tenuous parallels makes much sense in light of the situation which I’ve laid out.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
You're saying Mary and Joseph were also invented to be the parents of the humanized god?
They could’ve been retconned into the story as needed until we got the version we have now. If Joseph Smith showed us anything he showed us conmen are good at coming up with new narratives and synthesizing them into the overarching story when the need occurs.
- Doc
There’s no evidence for a Mary and Joseph as parents of a known Jesus person other than in tales written that seem to be nothing more than myths about a magic god hero. Not sure that qualifies as solid evidence of these two having lived any more than parents of Hercules, Romulus, or Æsculapius having existed.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
They could’ve been retconned into the story as needed until we got the version we have now. If Joseph Smith showed us anything he showed us conmen are good at coming up with new narratives and synthesizing them into the overarching story when the need occurs.
- Doc
There’s no evidence for a Mary and Joseph as parents of a known Jesus person other than in tales written that seem to be nothing more than myths about a magic god hero. Not sure that qualifies as solid evidence of these two having lived any more than parents of Hercules, Romulus, or Æsculapius having existed.
Eisenman, in James, the Brother of Jesus, laid out evidence that the ultimately dominant branch of Christianity worked to eradicate evidence of Jesus having a family. If Mary was not only a virgin when Jesus was born, but also remained one to rise to divine status herself, evidence of her having a family was a problem. They were largely but not entirely successful in doing so.
That process, that evidence would make little sense if Mary and Joseph were inventions themselves.
And that this may now become evident to you — (firstly ) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, related beforehand, through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised,
...
ch 25
And, secondly, because we — who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Æsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods — have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.
These are as close to what the opening post claims about Justin as I think can be found. I do not think they say what was proposed.
Not sure I understand your point, huckelberry. I linked to chapter 21 of the first apology. It makes the point I raised. I quoted the first sentence.
Stem, chapter 21 is an opening of an extended discussion through the next several chapters .I sampled these. At least to my reading they proceed on quite a different view than the view you extract from one line in chapter 21
I remember once I read all the way through Justin's apology. It is dull reading , I fell asleep several time in the process. Justin meanders and is slow to the point.
If so then perhaps there is no real difference in saying some guy who lived but was not the character written about and was at some previous time walking around Jerusalem and it’s environment was the subject who began the myth and the myth was first written down without any real person in mind.
Is the character at the stage of "without any real person in mind" called "Jesus"? Was Jesus the first name given to the character?
Stem, how do the parallels you cite support the conclusion that the mythical divine Christ wholly invented as opposed to being a mythologized real person? Why do you expect that there would not be parallels to other mythical figures if the myth of the divine Christ were based on a real guy named Jesus?
he/him When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.
Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
