Jesus myths? Perhaps a skeptic can conclude that Jesus is a myth, but how can anyone, especially believers, say Christians believe Jesus is a myth? We don’t, but perhaps we believe in a myth or myths about him. After all, from the time Jesus founded the Church, nearly 2000 years ago, that united spiritual body has splintered up into thousands of parties, each claiming to defend the truth. So, in the wake of so many tribal denominations of Christianity, having so many conflicting ideas about him, how could it be possible that any of these groups are able to honestly and logically claim “we’ve got it all correct?”
In the context of N.T. Wright’s book, Simply Jesus, we’ll be particularly interested in two myths about Jesus, one coming from Christianity and the other from skepticism. Keep in mind that the context of this idea concerns the building of a perfect storm out of the northern winds of the cold front (modern skepticism), meeting and clashing with the “high pressure system” out of the west (conservative Christianity). Both of these weather patterns will eventually have to meet with the “low pressure system,” a hurricane coming in from the south (the historical Jesus), concerning which we’ll speak of in a later study, but for now, we’ll satisfy ourselves with the two myths.
The first myth is Jesus, the Son of God, coming out of heaven to live on the earth, born into mankind through a virgin. God sent his Son into the earth to rescue mankind by dying in their place. Although in appearance of a man, he proves he is God through the miracles he performs, culminating in his own resurrection from the dead, after having been crucified. After this he ascended into heaven, out of which he came to become man, and there he awaits his faithful followers to welcome them to heaven after their own deaths. There are slightly different versions of this myth coming out of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but basically, this is the simple form of the myth.
The second myth about Jesus is embraced by the skeptics and even some mainline churches. Herein, Jesus was nothing more than a mere man, born in the same manner all children are born. Although he was surely an extraordinary teacher and preacher in his day, he was not a miracle worker. That sort of thing developed later in the writing of the texts by well-meaning followers. Moreover, he didn’t die to save mankind; he simply sought to teach folks to behave differently, to love one another, especially the weak, like widows and orphans. Contrary to what is often preached by some today, he wasn’t the supernatural “son of God.” He spoke of God, but not himself as God, and he did not rise from the dead. That tale was added later through misinterpreting earlier writers, and the story snowballed into what it is today. Consequently, if we wish to learn about the real Jesus, we need to work our way back through the misinterpretations and the hero worship of his followers. In doing so, we might find it essential to become familiar with the “other gospels,” which didn’t make it into the Biblical canon. They could be useful in determining what the Jesus of the first century AD was really like.
Both groups would like us to believe that their version of Jesus is the real deal, but at the end of the day, neither version of Jesus would be able to stand up to a real honest study of the history of the Jesus of the first century AD. In the spirit of “the dialogue of the deaf,” neither party will admit error or change one iota of their position. If asked about the Gospel narratives, “Did it really happen that way?” Conservative Christians will claim adamantly, yes, it did. The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it! On the other hand, liberal Christianity and the skeptics will shake their heads, no it did not, and their no is just as adamant as their conservative opponents! To disagree with either and seek a third explanation of the Jesus story, would meet with misinterpretation from both parties, because neither party is capable of thinking differently from the path they embrace. Anything contrary means we’ve embraced the position of the other opposing party. Nevertheless, there is that third storm, the low-pressure hurricane that is coming in from the south, and we’ll speak of it in due time.
Smoodock's Blog 