lpetrich

Aside from the view that the Gospels were pure fiction, which I tend to agree with, I find it hard to take that view seriously. First, the story of Krishna appears after the Vedas were composed, though it has been a popular story among Hindus. And second, Jesus Christ's biography has lots of differences in detail from Krishna's, and what they have in common is what many hero myths tend to have in common, like a miraculous conception and a wicked monarch who tries to kill them in their infancy.

There are lots of differences in detail -- Jesus Christ never frolics with some sheperdesses, and he is never some general's charioteer. Etc.

Vorkosigan

I voted agnostic.

copernicus

Like crocodile deathroll, I also voted agnostic on this issue, but I now lean toward the opinion that Jesus was a completely mythical figure. The similarities to other godmen are too coincidental, and I find it unlikely that we would lack modern verifiable evidence of his existence. I favor Gandy and Freke's view that the Jesus cult was a Jewish version of a Greek mystery religion. (Not that I endorse everything else they said or their pro-pagan polemics.)

Jayjay

It's my gut feeling that the character of Jesus as described in the bible is based on a real person, though there's no way of knowing how much was made up by the authors. Birth story in Betlehem certainly sounds bogus. But, the whole portrayal is riddled with petty little things that a real person might do or say, such like cursing the fig tree or slurs like "you'll always have the poor, but you won't always have me". Jesus' family seeing through his "I am God" nonsense also makes sense if Jesus was a real preacher, instead of figment of gospel authors' imaginations (if that were the case, then I'd expect them to write about Jesus rebuking and convincing his family, coming out as a winner.)

Also, there's the compulsive need for the authors to emphasize that Jesus was the messiah and he did miracles (which makes sense if these were the primary questions the target audience of the gospels was to be convinced of), but the question whether Jesus actually existed or not seems not to be addressed at all.

Buffman

If these folks aren't sure, then it strikes me that those who claim that they are sure do so from a quicksand bog.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/new.html

spurly

When reading Christian opinions on Jesus, Biblical Criticism, the resurrection, etc., one has to remember that there are both liberal schools of christian thought, conservative schools of christian thought, and everything in between.

The Jesus Seminar people definitely come from the liberal side of Christian thought.

So many Christians can discount what they say, because their beliefs, in their mind, are way out there.

Kevin

Mageth

I voted "agnostic" because I can't give a definitive "yes" or "no" on whether someone existed as a basis for what I consider the mythical Jesus of the bible.

Buffman

spurly

Yes! I am quite familiar with those who are detractors of this group. However, those detractors seldom offer the level of professional scholarship found within this group. These people at least offer verifiable evidence for their biblical analyses. Can the detractors offer the same level of expertise rather than just their opinions of why they disagree with the findings?

Inerrant bible believers find fault with evolution but never offer any verifiable evidence for their creationist beliefs... other than blind faith. What is the verifiable evidence for a historical Jesus? I have read all the claims and can find none that can not be discounted. Its much like those who claim that they have been abducted in UFOs. Lots of hypotheticals, but little, if any, material evidence....and none that is verifiable.

Jayjay

It seems to me that now you are sounding like the creationists when they say that evolution is "just a theory" and cannot be verified. To me, believing in historical Jesus is simply a matter of a more plausible hypothesis. We have plenty of verification of other regular people being elevated to gods, but is there any verifiable instance of another mythical figure being written about in as much detail and taken that seriously by (almost) contemporaries?

(Seriously, I'd like to know...)

seesaw

I think he probably existed, but I don't think he was the son of god, and I don't think he did any kind of "miracles". I think he started a small religious cult, and the rest if history.