The Jesus Myth

I am probably the worlds worst at starting something and not getting around to finishing it. At any one time I will have as many as half a dozen of these studies in varying stages of completion. By posting them here it actually spurs me to dedicate the time to finish them, or continue working on them. This one I have been working on for a while now. I need to really buckle down and finish it.
So I thought I would post what I have so far here. Also I will have it in another place in case I lose my files on my computer. SM tends to be my cloud storage!LOL. Anyway, here is what I am working on at present.



The Jesus Myth

There is no Jesus. Jesus is a myth created by man.

You may have heard that before. It probably wouldn't surprise you to hear it from an atheist. But would it surprise you, even shock you to hear it from a devout Christian? From a biblical scholar, an ordained minister? Someone who has spent decades in in depth biblical study?

I hope so. That is my intent. To shock you, to make you sit up and take notice. I want to shock all of Christiandom. Shock them into examining their long held preconcieved notions and beliefs.

There never in ancient history was a person named Jesus. Certainly no one in the land of Judea at the time of Christ. Not one single Isrealite or Judahite ever bore that name. Actually it is not even a name, it is a title.

It was not until the 16th century when catholic monks who were transliterating holy scripture into English that the name Jesus was first spoken by human lips. Why?

In the ancient languages, the languages that the very first scriptures were written in, there was no letter "J". No (juh) sound in those languages. Ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin all lacked that particular letter and sound.

But first I want to tell you that this study is not just about the name it is also about the man himself. But first let's look at the name.

The trouble with translating ancient Hebrew names is that they are written in a tetragramatton form. Meaning that they are written with only the consonants with the vowels omitted. The reader inserts the vowels as to common understanding of pronunciation. When the Tanach (the Hebrew old testament) was translated into, first Greek and later Latin the proper pronunciation of these tetragrammatons was not understood by the translators. Several other factors conspired to hinder a proper rendering of Christs true name. It was a superstition among the Hebrews that to speak the name of God was to violate the commandment to not take his name in vain. After the captivity of the nation of Israel and later of Judah they were strangers in foreign lands. They were probably demeaned and ridiculed for their faith by the heathen nations they lived among. To hear the true name of God demeaned by a heathen would have been a grave blasphemy. So they began to change the letters of the tetragrammaton to disguise the true name.

When Christ came along, this practice continued. At first the Jewish hierarchy would not allow any reference to the true name of Christ due to it's prophetical significance. The followers of Christ revered his name and like the true name of God refused to speak it or to write it correctly.

Then later members of the new gentile churches tried to distance themselves from all things Jewish. To differentiate themselves from the Jews.

So the Greek translators instead of trying to decipher the true Hebrew name of Christ they assigned a title to him, a title and name that they were familiar with, one that their Greek audience would recognise and associate with.

The Greeks worshipped the God Zeus and his son was Dionysus (son of Zeus) and in Greek mythology he was known as the "sin bearer". The name given to Christ by these Greek scholars was Iaysous. The sous is the same as in Dionysous, meaning son of Zeus. The Iay was the name of the Greek goddess of healing. So Iaysous can be properly translated "the healing son of Zeus (or God)" This name, Iaysous, becuse he (Dyonysous) was also a "sin bearing son of God" would have been an acceptable and more palatable alternative to the Hebrew name.

The name Jesus is simply an anglicized rendition of Iaysous. It still retians the sus or sous ending. It is in effect a title and not a proper name. And it is the title of a pagan God.

So what is his real name and does it matter?

Scripture puts a great deal of importance on names. In biblical times, as in much of the modern world outside of the western nations, names have meanings. They are not just a moniker given to a child by their parents. Their names represent who they are, or who their parents hope they will be.
To the ancient Isrealites a name was much more than that, it was the embodiment of all a person was. To them a name stood for the full character of a person and all that he was and did.

Ex 20:7 (NRS) [The third commandment:] "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

Deut 5:11 (NIV) "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."

Mat 6:9 (NIV) "This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name...'"

Ps 139:20 (NIV) ...your adversaries misuse your name.

Jer 23:25,27 (NIV) "I have heard what the prophets say who prophesy lies in my name. They say, 'I had a dream! I had a dream!'... They think the dreams they tell one another will make my people forget my name, just as their fathers forgot my name through Baal worship."

We see that the name of God was revered, hallowed and the misuse of it a grave offense. The unpardonable sin. So much so that the Hebrews were afraid to even utter it in fear that they might mispronounce it and be guilty of "misusing" it.

I won't get into the true name of God as that is the topic of another entire study, but lets just accept the current accepted translation of the tetragrammatton for the name of God. And that is YHVW or Yahu'weh, or Yahweh.


note: this is where I am so far on this. My outline is to examine the name issue first then continue on into the Gandhi like pacifist image that is pure fantasy and myth. Then into the prophesies that are misused and misunderstood and what they really say. Stay tuned.

This looked a whole lot longer in "WORD" format!

 

Just a few highlights that I will be exploring. The true name and where I am going with this part of the study is important in that it gives us insight into who and what he was. The name is Yah'hu shua. Or commonly Yahshua. Now many wrongly state that this is the same name we anglicize as Joshua and is a common hebrew name but that is not the case. The one letter, "A" makes all the difference. Yeshua amd Yahshua have two very different meanings. I liken it to Tommy And Tammy. That one letter completely changes the entire meaning. Yahshua contains the Yah prefix which means from God and the name Yahshua means God saves. Which is saying to the world, this is your savior. And remember that the name was given to Mary by an angel from God, it was not picked out of common names of the day.

The pacifist nature of Christ is a myth also. It stems form his teachings to love one another and to "turn the other cheek". But a true reading of scripture shows that he was speaking of how his followers were to relate to each other. A true reading of scripture shows that Christ and his followers were far from the meek and humble saints portrayed in fiction and myth. They were to coin a modern phrase "badasses". The brothers James and John were known as "the sons of thunder". Sounds more like a tag team than a meek and mild disciple. And Christ himself exhibits his righteous anger when he goes bat... crazy in the temple and starts beating the crud out of the moneychangers. He whipped them with a rope and turned over their tables and chased them out of the temple. Doesn't sound too Gandhi like to me.

Like I said I hope to work more on this in the future. I have an idea of where I am going with it. The work comes in searching out all the scriptural references. I've never had a memory for chapter and verse. I know what it says I just have to search to find it.

 

Never heard of any Dewitt. And if you haven't heard some of the info I post that is a good thing as I try to enlighten people and make them evaluate our beliefs and where they come from and why.

Relationship to other religions? Don't know what you're going for there. Unless you are referencing my countering Islamaphobia. I would do the same for any type of type of fear mongering. We have to many real problems and threats to our way of life as Americans to waste time on perceived bogey men.

And please tell me how you read Matthew 21:12-13 and John 2:15 any differently than I or most bible scholars do.

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves," Matt 21:12-13

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;" John 2:15

"And Christ himself exhibits his righteous anger when he goes bat... crazy in the temple and starts beating the crud out of the moneychangers. He whipped them with a rope and turned over their tables and chased them out of the temple. Doesn't sound too Gandhi like to me."

How is that "uncalled for"? Is it the term bat.. crazy that you object to? I was trying to put it into modern context.

You are correct that the term Christ is a title, which is actually Meschiac in Hebrew, and means Messiah. But the name Jesus is not a name in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. I use the phrase, and the mistaken moniker as a literary device to illustrate the myth that surrounds Yahshua Meschiac and his life and teachings.

An enlightening article on this can be found here

Yahshua VS Jesus - The Righteous and Faithful Few.

Just one of many that I could cite but so you can see that this is not some new and mysterious teaching but one that has been studied for some time. And of course there are always sites that can be found that will argue the tenets of whether or not it matters.
But the intent of this study is not about sacred names and whether or not they matter. That is a whole other study that I will get into some other time. This study is about the misperception of exactly who Christ is and what he said and what he stands for.

Are you saying that you disagree, and believe he was the meek, humble Gandhi like character that modern media and especially liberals like to portray him as? You don't think that he was a radical who came to overthrow the established order of the day and bring in God's true kingdom? Do you think the fact of Peter cutting off the guards ear with his sword in the garden of Gethsemane wasn't evidence of his followers being strong and fearless men of action and not the meek, timid and girly men that media portrays?

If you think showing our Lord and his disciples as strong and powerful men of action is "casting shadows" then I really don't know how to respond. I take this study as affirmation that the Lord I serve is a powerful and strong God and I don't like him being portrayed as weak and timid and a pacifist who abhorred (righteous) anger and violence. Wasn't it he who told his followers to arm themselves, even if they had to sell their cloaks in order to do so?

The man is so much more than the myth. So if my teachings make people think about things in a different light and if you hear things you never heard before, well I take that as a compliment. That is my goal.

 

I have been thinking about this all day. I have come back here and reread my post and yours half a dozen times. I am just completely bewildered by your response. I can't see what you think you read into my post or what you are trying to object to. Unless you are simply reacting to the title and not the content. Did you read it all the way through and if so was I not clear in my intent and where I was taking the study? Maybe I shouldn't post works in progress if they can be so easily misconstrued.

I had to google this Dewitt fellow and for the life of me I can't see how you could possibly equate me with a leader of the atheist movement. Chelloveck will love that one.

As to material you may not of heard before, that is why we study is it not? To learn new things? I come across things all the time that I never heard before.

Relationships with other religions. At a complete loss as to what you mean by that.

Christ losing it in the temple. You can't be inferring that it isn't true. There is no way to read scripture and come to any other conclusion. I can only think that maybe you were objecting to the nomenclature I used to describe it.

Casting shadows. Quite the opposite. I try to shine a light on subjects. So they can be explored and studied and as Paul exhorts us to do "prove all things to see if they are true."

The title of Chaplain is a moniker that was given me by another staff member several years ago and one I adopted. However, I am an ordained minister and hold a (honorary) degree in theology.

Jesus is a title and not a name, as is Christ, but that in no way demeans who or what he is. To the contrary, my discussion of his true name, to me anyway, illustrates his divinity and the wonderful hand of God in his life and the very nature of his mission here on earth. It amplifies him not diminishes. Man's faulty understanding of his true name is just part of the weak, pacifist stereotype that many portray him as, that is the "Jesus Myth".

If you somehow misunderstood the meaning then I apologize and hope that you will read more as I work on this.
I think you will find it a fascinating and spiritually uplifting study.

 

You guys are actually making a lot of my points. The "myth" surrounding Christ and his life is what this study is about. Too many times in Christianity we repeat what we have been told, what we have heard, what the common perception is. And many times that is either completely wrong or completely unsupported by scripture. We accept tradition as fact. This is what I term "The Jesus Myth".

For example;

"who grew up under the leadership of his carpenter dad"

"He worked as a carpenter, using hard Russian olive wood, using crude tools, he walked everywhere, not riding a cart or an ass, and he ate the finest foods."

This is the tradition that is accepted by many, but the reality is that no where in scripture does it say that he spent his life in Nazareth as a carpenter, working for his earthly father. Joseph is not mentioned again after the temple story, Mary and Christs siblings are but Joseph is conspicuously absent. Jewish writings, and biblical circumstantial evidence support the idea that he died at and early age.

There is no mention of Christ being in Judea from 12 years old on and much evidence to suggest that he traveled as an apprentice to his uncle who many believe to be Joseph of Arimathea. He was known to be a tin merchant and have mining interests throughout the then known world including the British isles.

Why when Christ appeared at the temple in his hometown did the people say "Who is this man? Is he not the son of Joseph the carpenter?" If he grew up in the very small community of Nazareth, why did they not recognize him? Would anyone think that he had lived from 12 years old to 30 and never attended temple? There are many references like this where he was not known or recognized by people he would have grown up with and around if he had of grown up a carpenters son in Nazareth.

Add the fact that Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate to demand Christs body for burial. No one but a family member under Hebrew law would have that right and also no one without immense power and clout would have dared to try. And if Joseph, Mary's husband, would have been alive it would have been his right and no one elses to demand his sons body.

Many of our cherished beliefs and Sunday school stories are just simply not found in the pages of scripture. And much more plausible scenarios can be assumed and adopted from the actual word than many that have been passed down from generation to generation.

I don't recall who said it but a famous quote is "The bible is the most widely sold book in the history of the world. And the least read."

 

You are correct that the top piece of the cross portrayed in many pictures is a device made up by medieval aged painters. A Roman cross was a "T" with no piece protruding above the head of the condemned. Painters needed a place to place the sign that is mentioned. So they created this extension for that purpose. Thus another facet of the "Jesus Myth".
And as for what it said, the rendering in our modern bibles is an anglicized version from the Latin. It was not Jesus of Nazareth. It was his true and known name which as I said was Yahshua but the name in itself was a slap in the face to the pharisees and religious leaders. They considered the name as blasphemy.

 

No, you shouldn't be afraid, " To Offend" just be sure to state that what you post " is your belief, or Opinion" and you will be fine.... We do not get upset with ANYONE who posts their "Beliefs, or Opinions" .....