greyline

A TV show called "From Jesus to Christ" is unlikely to be interested in interviewing scholars who have concluded that Jesus never existed.

You could always wait for the sequel: "Jesus: Fact or Fairytale?"

Clarice O'C

There were other resurrections such as the Egyptian Osiris, BCE, and Greek gods so that resurrection was probably not that uncommon for the ancients.

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/O....html#dionysos

Killer Mike

Actually PBS is interested in top rated scholarship. Thats why they went to Harvard and Yale and interviewed them. The few scholars who say jesus never existed are perceived as somewhat of a laughingstock and an embarassment within the mainstream. It is silly that so many here are gullible enough to even take a mythological Jesus seriously. Like creationists when it comes to evolution, they argue until their blue in the face, but nobody really takes them seriously. Except themselves of course.

Amaleq13

That simply is not true. At worst, they are just ignored. The few attempts to directly respond to the arguments made, of which I am aware, have been wholly inadequate and seem to miss key points entirely.

What is silly is the notion that the evidence is sufficient to reach a firm conclusion favoring historicity. Personally, I consider the evidence to be such a mess that I feel compelled to remain agnostic but the idea that Paul's beliefs were only later attributed to a specific, human figure certainly explains much that the traditional view cannot.

I don't recall you ever offering an astoundingly compelling argument in any of the numerous threads that have discussed the subject. Ad hominem generalizations make it appear you have nothing substantive to say in defense of your preferred conclusions.

greyline

I'm no top-rated scholar but I see no evidence that he existed. There may have been a preacher called Jesus raising a few eyebrows at the time, but I don't see any evidence that any specific stories about him (details of his birth, ministry, crucifixion etc) are anything more than mythology created down the line.

I doubt it will ever be possible to say for sure if he existed unless we find some long-lost contemporary "gospel" written by someone who personally knew him. I don't believe that Paul thought he was writing about the person the later gospel writers were writing about.

The evidence fits either conclusion.

Killer Mike

But Paul was not concerned about giving historical details. At that time the early Christians believed the world was coming to an end soon and the kingdom of God was at hand. Paul was more concerned with spiritual matters then in giving biographical information. The "Jesus Myth" proponents are reading way too much between the lines.
Also, the early Christians passed along the stories about Jesus thru Oral Tradition at first, so it is silly to even think some long lost contemporary Gospel is out there or to require it as evidence.

Crucifiction

There's really no evidence supporting the existance of HJ. I definately think there was a man/group of men that inspired the story, but that person was probably very disimillar to the Biblical Jesus; in much the same way that, say, Ed Gein is disimillar to Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I'm voting against an HJ; but I accept the possibility, probability even, that someone at some time influenced the myth. Just not a guy named Yeshua who went around saying he was the Son of God; or even anything remotely simillar to that. I'm leaning towards a Rabbi.

Crucifiction

:banghead:

Seriously, this isn't really worth responding to, but here goes:

Science can't "prove" that there isn't a galaxy out there made of cheese, or that a human can't turn into a frog for no apparent reason either; but there's no reason to believe that these things are true, and simple reason tells one that these things are untrue. Same goes for Spontaneous Human Resurrection.

Can you prove that the universe isn't simply the cup of Buddha's palm; as the Chinese legend Journey to the West states?

greyline

I just find it curious that despite this alleged great oral tradition, never once does Paul quote their great leader. Surely these poor people who believed the end of the world was nigh would have appreciated a few words of inspiration from their saviour?


Well, clearly. But I was offering a hypothetical scenario in which we would at least have more evidence one way than the other. As I said, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Paul's complete avoidance or ignorance of all things relating to Jesus the man is simply highly suspicious.

Crucifiction

I don't believe that Paul was writing about the same Jesus that the Gospel writers wrote about; as another poster has said. It seems clear to me that he was clearly influenced by Greek thought, even if he was a Pharisee. The Jesus Paul speaks of is clearly a Hellenized deity; as opposed to the very human, very Jewish Jesus of the Gospel accounts.