Prominent Christian Scholar Admits: Christ Never Existed

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaMar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LaMar

Guest
Anyone here read this book? What did you think?

eden.co.uk/shop/messiah-myth-1006740.html

**Since the eighteenth century, scholars and historians studying the texts of the Bible have attempted to distil historical facts and biography from the mythology and miracles described there. That trend continues into the present day, as scholars dissect the gospels and other early Christian writings to separate the ‘Jesus of history’ from the ‘Christ of faith’. But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed.

Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah – a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection – is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. In Thompson’s view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions. Challenging widely held assumptions about the sources of the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus, The Messiah Myth is sure to spark controversy and heated debate.**

About the author:
Thomas L. Thompson (born Jan 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian who lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen.

Thompson obtained a B.A. from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962, and his PhD at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1976. He has held positions at the University of Dayton (instructor), Detroit (assistant professor), Tuebingen (research associate), École Biblique (visiting professor), Lawrence University (visiting associate professor), and Marquette University (associate professor), and is presently professor at the University of Copenhagen (since 1993). He was named a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow in 1988. He is general editor for the Equinox Press monograph series Copenhagen International Seminar and associate editor of the “Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament,” and serves on the editorial boards of the journals “Holy Land Studies” and “Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift”.[1]
 
I guess that means “The Da Vinci Code” is a work of fiction. :rolleyes:

:yawn:

:sleep:
 
Dear La Mar,

What do you think according to yourself? not according to those experts you quote.
 
I can’t understand how someone can read the books of the new testament, in their seperateness and their entirety and come to the conclusion that they ‘of course’ were all referring to a symbolic Jesus and not a real one.

I just can’t see that at all.

For me the credibility of the claims, vanish right there.
 
Well I guess he’s not a prominent Christian scholar anymore, is he?
 
LaMar said:
Anyone here read this book? What did you think?

eden.co.uk/shop/messiah-myth-1006740.html

**Since the eighteenth century, scholars and historians studying the texts of the Bible have attempted to distil historical facts and biography from the mythology and miracles described there. That trend continues into the present day, as scholars dissect the gospels and other early Christian writings to separate the ‘Jesus of history’ from the ‘Christ of faith’. But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed.

Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah – a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection – is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. In Thompson’s view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions. Challenging widely held assumptions about the sources of the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus, The Messiah Myth is sure to spark controversy and heated debate.**

About the author:
Thomas L. Thompson (born Jan 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian who lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen.

Thompson obtained a B.A. from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962, and his PhD at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1976. He has held positions at the University of Dayton (instructor), Detroit (assistant professor), Tuebingen (research associate), École Biblique (visiting professor), Lawrence University (visiting associate professor), and Marquette University (associate professor), and is presently professor at the University of Copenhagen (since 1993). He was named a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow in 1988. He is general editor for the Equinox Press monograph series Copenhagen International Seminar and associate editor of the “Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament,” and serves on the editorial boards of the journals “Holy Land Studies” and “Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift”.[1]
Click to expand...
Can he still be considered a Christian then ?
 
LaMar said:
Anyone here read this book? What did you think?

eden.co.uk/shop/messiah-myth-1006740.html

**Since the eighteenth century, scholars and historians studying the texts of the Bible have attempted to distil historical facts and biography from the mythology and miracles described there. That trend continues into the present day, as scholars dissect the gospels and other early Christian writings to separate the ‘Jesus of history’ from the ‘Christ of faith’. But in The Messiah Myth Thomas L. Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the gospels never existed.

Like King David before him, the Jesus of the Bible is an amalgamation of themes from Near Eastern mythology and traditions of kingship and divinity. The theme of a messiah – a divinely appointed king who restores the world to perfection – is typical of Egyptian and Babylonian royal ideology dating back to the Bronze Age. In Thompson’s view, the contemporary audience for whom the Old and New Testament were written would naturally have interpreted David and Jesus not as historical figures, but as metaphors embodying long-established messianic traditions. Challenging widely held assumptions about the sources of the Bible and the quest for the historical Jesus, The Messiah Myth is sure to spark controversy and heated debate.**

About the author:
Thomas L. Thompson (born Jan 7, 1939 in Detroit Michigan) is a biblical theologian who lives in Denmark and is now a Danish citizen.

Thompson obtained a B.A. from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1962, and his PhD at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1976. He has held positions at the University of Dayton (instructor), Detroit (assistant professor), Tuebingen (research associate), École Biblique (visiting professor), Lawrence University (visiting associate professor), and Marquette University (associate professor), and is presently professor at the University of Copenhagen (since 1993). He was named a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow in 1988. He is general editor for the Equinox Press monograph series Copenhagen International Seminar and associate editor of the “Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament,” and serves on the editorial boards of the journals “Holy Land Studies” and “Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift”.[1]
Click to expand...
Except that what we have from the early Christians (the people the NT was written for) doesn’t seem to be in agreement with what this scholar is saying. .
 
The biggest problem is that some atheist is going to read this book, and 6 months from now is going to come on here claiming that Jesus never existed… oh wait, that has already happened.

The claim is not new; it sells books so publishers keep publishing it, however, just like the **** about the “Jesus Family Tomb” last year, it doesn’t really have any academic credibility. Even most scholars who deny that Jesus was the Messiah and who deny the resurrection, admit that Jesus was a historical person who probably took on the role of teacher and prophet (in the sense that he spoke out against what he saw as wrongs of society, not the religious sense).

Ultimately, any claims that Jesus did not exist as a historical person have to find a way to explain the zeal of the Early Christian movement.

Oh and right… David did exist as a historical person and at the very least as a king in the land now known as Israel; I remember reading maybe a decade ago that they had found a bronze age inscription referring to him.

–
Bill
 
Oh boy…some man 600 years later says His crucifixion was an appearance, and now we have a claim His existence is a metaphore 😃 who knows what the next claim will be…😉
 
Oh, that’s it, close the board, we were wrong, it’s time to go atheist.
 
On the one hand, I think that the notion of a fisherman from a small lake village (Simon-Peter) and his buddies in Judea 2,000 years ago were all experts in the royal mythologies of Bronze Age Egypt is hilarious. 😛

On the other, I think it is depressing that Ph.D. degrees are apparently handed out so freely. 😦
 
I can see why this would be surprising to someone not from the post-christian western culture (not sure where you are from). Perhaps the fact that angry mobs haven’t torched the man’s house and beaten him in the street is misinterpreted in some places as a widespread acceptance of his views.

It is not. Rather the lack of violence against the man reflects the worldview that people can believe whatever nutty and crazy idea they want to as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others around him.

Personally, I think certain elements of ‘academic freedom’ in university tenure policies go too far towards licensing craziness. On the other hand, it sure beats what goes on in other parts of the world. In the end, truth overcomes lies.
 
manualman said:
I can see why this would be surprising to someone not from the post-christian western culture (not sure where you are from). Perhaps the fact that angry mobs haven’t torched the man’s house and beaten him in the street is misinterpreted in some places as a widespread acceptance of his views.

It is not. Rather the lack of violence against the man reflects the worldview that people can believe whatever nutty and crazy idea they want to as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others around him.

Personally, I think certain elements of ‘academic freedom’ in university tenure policies go too far towards licensing craziness. On the other hand, it sure beats what goes on in other parts of the world. In the end, truth overcomes lies.
Click to expand...
This response says a lot about you, and possibly about the collective psychology of Catholics. Thanks for being honest enough to post it.
 
LaMar said:
This response says a lot about you, and possibly about the collective psychology of Catholics. Thanks for being honest enough to post it.
Click to expand...
😉

ah; but honestly this post says a lot about you, and your own psychology. 😛

Psychology goes both ways, and it is a poor tool in a setting like this since we are all participating in a conversation, and to psychologically analysis someone else is to objectify them down to their motives and strip them of the level of respect one usually affords another in conversation.
 
The pseudohistoriography that leads to separating the “Jesus of history” from the “Christ of faith” (which is nothing more than Nestorianism in a new form) has been going on for centuries.

I believe it was Albert Schweitzer who said that when people peer into the well of the past for the historical Jesus, they find reflected their own faces.
 
ALotLessThumb said:
😉

ah; but honestly this post says a lot about you, and your own psychology. 😛

Psychology goes both ways, and it is a poor tool in a setting like this since we are all participating in a conversation, and to psychologically analysis someone else is to objectify them down to their motives and strip them of the level of respect one usually affords another in conversation.
Click to expand...
Well, I see about a half dozen people responding. A couple in good humor (which is cool). Others talking about violence, mob actions and murder, simply in response to someone writing a book.

What’s most interesting is the fact that no one has read the book, and the group consensus seems to be that simply reading material which might question official doctrine is “bad” or “evil”. The author is implied to be stupid, mentally ill or deserving of physical harm – rather than mistaken or wrong on the facts.

This is a very cult like response. I honestly would never have guessed that Roman Catholics would display this reaction so prominently. It’s something I’d expect from Scientologists.

A more normal reaction would be for somebody to say, “I’ve read it, and in Chapter 2, the author says this, and if you look at that journal article you can see he’s not supported by his peers”.

Whether you guys know it or not, this is the way a normal discussion, with normal opponents progresses. It’s what I expected from Roman Catholics before I arrived here. Not what I got though.

Very, very interesting. 😉
 
LaMar said:
Well, I see about a half dozen people responding. A couple in good humor (which is cool). Others talking about violence, mob actions and murder, simply in response to someone writing a book.
Click to expand...
Um, I think you’re seeing what you want to see. Only one person mentioned mob violence and as far as I can tell, that person didn’t appear to be calling for it.
LaMar said:
What’s most interesting is the fact that no one has read the book, and the group consensus seems to be that simply reading material which might question official doctrine is “bad” or “evil”. The author is implied to be stupid, mentally ill or deserving of physical harm – rather than mistaken or wrong on the facts.
Click to expand...
Maybe not read the book but his claim that Jesus didn’t exist isn’t new. It’s been made before and most of my fellow Catholics here are well aware of that. We’re also well aware of numerous works out there that present compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus, so much so that few academics or scholars actually disagree that Jesus really existed. There seems little need to read this new work unless he has something truly new or groundbreaking. From the description posted here, I can’t say that he does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top