Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Emil · 01-25-2008, 03:08 PM

I voted yes. I'm not a scholar or history major or anything. I just find it more probable that a person called Jesus(or the like) started the christian sect in the first century, than he did not. I'm pretty sure he was not magical though also the stories contain many typical mythology stuff, suggesting that they are either pure fiction or partly fiction. I'm leaning towards partly fiction.

Spanky · 01-25-2008, 03:15 PM

I voted no. To me, the gospel accounts and the writings of Paul fit more under the "myth" category than it does the "history" category.

gurugeorge · 01-25-2008, 03:39 PM

I voted "no". Over time on this board arguing with historicists my opinion of the kind of myth he was has changed - at first I felt he was initially more of a wholly spiritual entity who gradually got concretized. But now I think there were some (albeit scanty) "historical" elements from the beginning. But evidence that would disambiguate him from "myth with some pseudo-historical details" to "man mythologised" seems to me to be lacking, so to me there's simply no reason to believe he was ever a man. He's just a Jewish religious "superhero" figure with strong spiritual aspects partly taken from surrounding cultures and ideas.

RandomCoolzip · 01-25-2008, 06:03 PM

I voted yes, even though we don't have much in the way of corroboration, because I do not find it plausible that the Jesus legend could have grown up around a fictitious person. His earliest followers would not have gone to the trouble of founding what became a new religion around nobody.

Minimalist · 01-25-2008, 06:28 PM

No.

No more real than any other 'god' or 'goddess.'

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2008, 06:46 PM

I voted "Yes". Paul is evidence of a belief in a "Jesus Christ" who was crucified, arguably died in the recent past, and in Jerusalem. Explanations to account for Paul like Doherty's "fleshly sublunar realm" don't appear supported from beliefs known at the time of Paul. "Marcion-as-Paul" seems speculative. So "Yes", driven by Occam's Razor.

itsamysteryhuh · 01-25-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Did the stories of Robin Hood also contain things like, say, prophecies?

In other words, who cares if Robin Hood existed or not? It is completely irrelevant in this thread (irrelevant to the existence of Jesus Chist)? In addition, I think most would agree that the Bible is a much more complex book than any stories written about Robin Hood.

I disagree, since "The Bible" is merely a collection of books.

Robin Hood wasn't Jesus Christ.

makerowner · 01-25-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I disagree, since "The Bible" is merely a collection of books.

Robin Hood wasn't Jesus Christ.

omg, really? I'm so glad you're here to straighten us infidels out!

aa5874 · 01-25-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deleet

I voted yes. I'm not a scholar or history major or anything. I just find it more probable that a person called Jesus(or the like) started the christian sect in the first century, than he did not. I'm pretty sure he was not magical though also the stories contain many typical mythology stuff, suggesting that they are either pure fiction or partly fiction. I'm leaning towards partly fiction.

This poll does not cater for look-a-likes. Jesus of Nazreth is described in the NT and according to the authors there was no-one like him.

I get the imprssion that you think that anyone named Jesus who did anything like Jesus of Nazareth is Jesus, even if his mother's name was not Mary or his body was not stolen.

joedad · 01-25-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomCoolzip

I voted yes, even though we don't have much in the way of corroboration, because I do not find it plausible that the Jesus legend could have grown up around a fictitious person. His earliest followers would not have gone to the trouble of founding what became a new religion around nobody.

Enter Xenu.

I voted "no."

View Poll Results: Was Jesus ever an actual human being?
Yes	45	20.93%
No	78	36.28%
Maybe	84	39.07%
Other	8	3.72%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2008, 03:08 PM	#41
Emil Banned Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 11,369	I voted yes. I'm not a scholar or history major or anything. I just find it more probable that a person called Jesus(or the like) started the christian sect in the first century, than he did not. I'm pretty sure he was not magical though also the stories contain many typical mythology stuff, suggesting that they are either pure fiction or partly fiction. I'm leaning towards partly fiction.

01-25-2008, 03:15 PM	#42
Spanky Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: US Posts: 1,216	I voted no. To me, the gospel accounts and the writings of Paul fit more under the "myth" category than it does the "history" category.

01-25-2008, 03:39 PM	#43
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	I voted "no". Over time on this board arguing with historicists my opinion of the kind of myth he was has changed - at first I felt he was initially more of a wholly spiritual entity who gradually got concretized. But now I think there were some (albeit scanty) "historical" elements from the beginning. But evidence that would disambiguate him from "myth with some pseudo-historical details" to "man mythologised" seems to me to be lacking, so to me there's simply no reason to believe he was ever a man. He's just a Jewish religious "superhero" figure with strong spiritual aspects partly taken from surrounding cultures and ideas.

01-25-2008, 06:03 PM	#44
RandomCoolzip Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 630	I voted yes, even though we don't have much in the way of corroboration, because I do not find it plausible that the Jesus legend could have grown up around a fictitious person. His earliest followers would not have gone to the trouble of founding what became a new religion around nobody.

01-25-2008, 06:28 PM	#45
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	No. No more real than any other 'god' or 'goddess.'

01-25-2008, 06:46 PM	#46
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	I voted "Yes". Paul is evidence of a belief in a "Jesus Christ" who was crucified, arguably died in the recent past, and in Jerusalem. Explanations to account for Paul like Doherty's "fleshly sublunar realm" don't appear supported from beliefs known at the time of Paul. "Marcion-as-Paul" seems speculative. So "Yes", driven by Occam's Razor.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.