Amaleq13

The consensus among professional scholars is that Jesus is an historical figure. This consensus is challenged by mythicists who argue that it is based more on assumption than fact and that they can explain the evidence better without a historical figure.

As you might expect, this topic has been discussed a few times in the past. I encourage you to utilize the search engine with "historical" and "Jesus" in the title to review the views held on this discussion board.

Emil

I'm aware it has been discussed in the past. But I was merely trying to get an idea of what the accepted opinion was on Jesus. Of course he's not magic nor god. I'm an atheist. I don't want to commit the fallacy that Bertrand writes about here:

(unsourced)

Edit
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/digest.html
A lurker sent me a link to that site. The historical Jesus there seems superficially convincing.

Toto

If you are an atheist and "lack education & interest to read a lot" as you say, may I suggest that you just be an agnostic on the subject?

Is there any important issue that requires that you form an opinion on the Historical Jesus? I suspect not. You would do better to accept the consensus on a subject where experts have, in fact, reached a consensus, and where there are real consequences.

lpetrich

Negachrist, where did you get that stuff?

For my part, I find Lord Raglan's mythic-hero profile much more convincing. It is a generalized biography of legendary heroes that Jesus Christ fits very well.

No Robots, why do you get so worked up over the question of Jesus Christ's Jewishness?

But beyond that, what do they think that he was like?

Toto

If you are looking for a consensus, Bernard Muller is an amateur on the subject and does not represent a consensus. Which is not to say that he is wrong, or that he is not valuable. But if you are not interested in reading up on the subject, it's probably best not to start there.

Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalytic Prophet is probably the best single book you could read.

Peter Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories gives a summary of the variety of theories. The page has not been updated in a while, but is still the best indication of a lack of consensus among the experts.

aa5874

You could be completely wrong, that is, if Jesus did not exist then the bible was not correct about him, some-one invented him out of nothing and he was a complete myth.

This is pure speculation, you have no non-apologetic source to support you. You are dreaming.

No Robots

Worked up? I merely quoted a young atheist NT scholar who succinctly states the academic consensus on the historical Jesus, ie. that he is a Jew. I do appreciate that this makes mythicists squirm; that, with their Raglan index, their Mithras parallels, etc., etc., they just can't see the Jewish man through the mythology.

gdeering

Deleet

As a long time lurker and some one who has done a little reading on the subject, I used to have the same opinion as you about a "kernel" of a real Jesus in the myth. No doubt the experts here could go present pictures that could be convincing either way, but over time I have been persuaded that there is not enough evidence to support even the bare bones "there must have been some one" argument. On the other hand the board is a hot-bed of JMyth activity, so I might have been swayed by the company I keep (er...haunt)

Among many interesting discussion on the board, and a few HJ/MJ books two things have been persuasive in changing my mind:

1) The huge amount of Midrash in the formation of the Gospels. Particularly, in the origin of "oh father why have you forsaken me?" One of the most important parts of the "why would that be in there is he wasn't real," argument (at least for me). I suggest you check out the concept of Midrash and how pervasive they are in creating the structure of the narrative and the reasons for may of Jesus' actions.

2) There was a conversation on BC&H on Paul's lack of curiosity during his trip to Jerusalem. The presumption being that if he actually talked the apostles (or some one with first hand knowledge) then he would have learned a lot of history in his two week stay. Yet, he doesn't learn anything (at least nothing historical). Also, there is Paul's ignorance of the Christian mythology that would have made his arguments much more persuasive. There is back and forth on this topic (particularly on the reasons for Paul writing the letters - and if they are real and untampered with - but that quickly gets far a field of the question here).


There is still the question of some core philosophy in the NT, but over the course of 200 years there was ample time to add to the sayings of Jesus, and flush out the stories. It is equally possible to assume there were gifted writers or those gifted with the right sentiment that could create, at once or in part, the story of Jesus. Take a look at all of the early Christian books that are outside of the cannon (over 200 years worth of texts), one has to assume that someone actively set about to write a history or interpretation with same motives as the accepted NT authors.

A little psychology and some awareness on how stories, urban myths or fan literature quickly mushroom will show you how much people with some time on their hands, and a will to believe something, can accomplish. So obviously the voice of a non-expert, just someone who asked the same question.


Gregg
Why do I have the desire to use a waving emoticon?

Doug Shaver

The consensus is that he existed. Beyond that bare fact, there is little agreement about anything. In particular, there is substantial diversity of opinion as to how close is the match between the gospel stories and the facts of his life.

However, I suspect you'd be hard put to find a professional historian who doesn't also believe that (a) he was an itinerant preacher of some sort, (b) he was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and (c) his followers had something to do with getting Christianity started within a short time after his execution.

aa5874

Do you mean Christian scholars and not professional historians believe he was an itinerant preacher? I am not aware that professional historians have a consensus about Jesus of the NT as being an itinerant preacher.