neilgodfrey

"agree he existed" ? or is it more correct to say they take his existence as a starting point of any discussion? In other words, in what other area does history pose the question: "Did Mr/Mrs/Ms X" actually exist? That's simply not an historical question.

History asks questions like: "How/why did Christianity emerge and replace the old religious order?"

Christianity is the foundation (or at least asserted to be the foundation) of much of our contemporary western culture and values. The facts of its origins cannot help but throw some sort of light on its nature today. The only question of interest to me is "Whence/what Xianity?" -- this 'thing' on which so much of our cultural/psychological phenomena today claim to be based.

Chris Weimer

The study of the historical Jesus is no more nor less worthy than the study of Siddhartha Gautama, Zi Kong Qiu, or Gaius Julius Caesar.

Peter Kirby

Yes, and that's kind of the reason for the second question, Chris. Why care about the lives of Caesar or Siddharta or Confucius, or about whether they existed? The answer may apply mutatis mutandis to Jesus.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

I care about the lives of Buddha, Confucius, and Caesar because I'm interested in the history of people who have helped shaped the world as it is today in antiquity. For the same reason I'm interested in the historical Jesus - no more, no less. I do have a personal distaste for those who are in the HJ/MJ field merely to prove that he existed or didn't because it is popular at the moment or one can make a quick buck off of them.

Chili

Not really Peter, we should care since life itself belongs to the mythology. Out temporal life is extracted (they call it "the gift of life") from eternal life which is ours in Christ the universal wherein we are fruits of our vine, just as Nathanael was a fruit of their vine and a true Israelite without guile.

I would say that 'Rome sweet home' is our dream in Christendom wherefore all raods lead to Rome where wisdom reigns also without guile.

Toto

You keep misinterpreting the original question. If the origin of the character of Jesus was an insignficant wandering preacher who was run down by a roman chariot, and the entire edifice of the gospel stories and Christianity was the product of the fervid imagination of people who never met him but might have heard something about him, would it matter whether he existed or not?

Chris Weimer

By "entire edifice" do you mean the whole gospel in and of itself, as in every single word was fabricated? Then no, it matters not. But then again, I don't think that this is the case.

krosero

I'm going to suggest a possible reason for confusion, since it's confusing to me. Your statement is, "If Jesus was insignificant, would it matter whether he existed or not?" I think you're asking that if Jesus was nobody special, why should we care whether such a man lived? Well, I personally don't care if someone who was never thought to be significant did not exist. But someone who has been regarded as significant is another story: we do care if such a man existed, because the significance attached to Christ would be of interest to both theists and atheists (even if they have contrary interests in the matter). So it's a bit confusing to ask about a hypothetical insignificant man; what we're actually dealing with is the concept of Christ that has been handed down to us. That's what people are trying to talk about as far as I can see. Are you talking about something else? Are you asking whether there's any point to trying to argue for historicity if all you can prove is a meager man of no report?

Chili

The significance of his existence is not found in the history of his existence but in his return and consequent presence in our life as the way. Jesus is the way, let me remind you, and that way is an archetypal truth in our theology. Did he not say something like "nobody comes to the father except through me" in this regard?

Our definition of existence is not the same. I wrote earlier that Jesus did not exist as a physical being by that name but as the transformation force in the mind of Joseph who, as a believer was earnestly looking for the reign of God.

It is true that the bible story as a historic event means nothing but the story is still important as milk fed to babes.

You may have heard me bitch at Jesus worshipers but that is only because they are lost in their own imagination.

Toto

You phrase this so unfortunately, and you certainly are confused.

We're not talking about the concept of Christ that has been handed down to us.

The claim is that there was a historical person at the origins of the Christian religion, but that his character has had a certain amount of legendary accretion. Liberal Christians seem to assume that you can peel off a few legends, and there was a remarkable man who inspired them.

But what if you peel the onion of legends off, and all you find is a very insignificant man, who had some followers but was never crucified, never resurrected. His followers invented a story about him and borrowed some sayings to attribute to him. How does this differ from peeling the onion and finding nothing at the center?