aa5874

Just do a little research. Jesus Christ is a fictitious figure, at least the one in the Christian Bible.

J-D

I have done a little research, but I have found no proof that Jesus was the not the original leader of the first Christians and no suggestion of a more plausible alternative. I agree that the accounts in the Christian Bible are largely or wholly fictitious. As I mentioned above, the accounts in various texts of Roland are mostly fictitious , but that doesn't mean he is.

jeffevnz

Don't snub the 'Roland fictionalists'. It's entirely possible that the whole idea of Roland was made up centuries later, and that all documents mentioning him which purport to be from an earlier time are forgeries.

yalla

Many years ago the thread title was the title of a cartoon by Ron Cobb

[Anybody remember him ? if not check this out: http://www.shimmerytimbers.com/starticles01.htm

The cartoon showed a panel type TV show with 3 contestants
hippy type flower person JC
wide eyed religious fanatic type JC
and one other I forget, might have been a warrior type.
Interesting.

lpetrich

Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. Paul.

Atheos

What Ipetrich said. That's been my hypothesis for awhile now. The earlier writings of Paul belie a "revealed" Jesus replete with spiritual truths and a sacrifice that happened in some metaphysical realm. Later developments of the myth produced the earthly ministry (GMark) and subsequently the birth narratives (GMatt, GLuke).

Alf

Good question. I would say that Roland "as the mythical character" did not exist and is a myth. The historical roland which you believe might have existed may have existed but it is not the same as the one appearaing in the myths.

So you tell me. Are you a roland historicist or Roland mythicist? It depends on which roland you are talking about. As there aren't many people running around and trying to convince people that Roland of the myths was real this question is realatively open and probably should be qualified each time. So you are a roland historicist wrt the historical Roland but you are a roland mythicist wrt the mythical roland.

In contrary, there are many people who run around and talk about the gospel Jesus as depicted in the gospels. And when lay people talk about Jesus it is this gospel Jesus they talk about - especially christian lay people. It is therefore reasonable to assume that it is the gospel Jesus people refer to when they say "Jesus" and this gospel Jesus is a myth - it is my opinion that he never existed. Thus, I am an MJer wrt to the gospel Jesus. The historical Jesus might have existed and one can be an HJer wrt to him but nobody ever talks about him so why would that be interesting?

Alf

Alf

Yes. Some people refer to Paul/Saul. Much of what christianity as we know it today stems from Paul. No, you cannot refer to Jesus, he is the ultimate rubber toy that you can bend and stretch in all directions. For some people he is a revolutionary, for some people he is the ulatimate in kindness, for some people he was pro war, for other people was pro peace and make love and not war and for some people he was against wealth. How wealthy white americans can be a follower of someone who made statements that is completely in line with marxism beats me but there you have it. The early christian societies was generally more or less like small communist cults where no individual was permitted to own property etc - all properties belonged to the church - that is how the church got rich so fast.

Sure, there might have been some Jesus guy at some point who started a small movement but then got crucified before it grew to any size to speak of. However, nobody today remembers him. They only remember the gospel Jesus, the mythical Jesus who never was and never has been. The one who does not speak up against our own personal wealth and only speak up against other people's personal wealth or maybe just spoke figuratively and did not mean it literally. Ask the next fundie you meet if he is willing to give away EVERYTHING he owns to the poor? I am sure he will back off and say that this paragraph is not to be taken literally, Jesus just meant that you should not make money the most important thing in your life etc etc - excuses excuses. Most likely the early church took that very literally, people who joined the church gave the church everything they had and if they came from wealthy families that meant a wealhty church.

With the money came power and as the church became powerful, the rulers found it was better to co=operate with the church than to fight against it and next you see is Constantine who give the church benefits. Shortly after the church became the only permitted religion in the roman empire and they started to hunt down anyone who disagreed with them and burn all books that they disagreed with.

So yeah, some people started it but the person who has had most influence upon how the church tunred out was Paul and NOT Jesus.

Alf

gurugeorge

I don't see the historicist position as ridiculous or anything like that - as I said above, it's a possible explanation, and people can reasonably come to it. Taking into account the broadest perspective on the ancient world as I understand it, I think the MJ position as an explanation for the phenomenon of Christianity is far preferable, but it's something reasonable people can disagree about about.

Unfortunately for Christianity, the "historical Jesus" found by honest historical, philological and archeological research certainly cannot be the full-blown man-God that the "New Testament" was imagined, by centuries of pious Christians, to bear witness to. The only "historical Jesus" that can (with only the slightest degree of plausibility) be found is some obscure preacher/revolutionary who became deified.

But if that's the "historical Jesus" that apologists (i.e. Christians who fight for the HJ idea) are defending - then whatever they may think they are doing, they are not defending Christianity by defending him. For the "historical Jesus" whose existence would require proof for Christianity to be Christianity, and for the whole sorry episode to have had some point, would have to have been the full-blown man-God.

So what do they think they are doing? Bede? Others?

lpetrich

Alf, I find your discussion a bit confusing. I'll use my typology of a maximal HJ and a minimal HJ. As you say, it is the maximal HJ that is what's commonly presented, and also that it is possible to believe that a minimal HJ existed but not a maximal one.

I'm half-thinking of a historical-Jesus poll in which I'll include various conceptions of Jesus Christ -- any ideas for categories? I'm thinking of:

* Jesus Christ was exactly as described in the Gospels, miracles and all.

* Jesus Christ was the Gospels' account minus the miracles.

* Jesus Christ was some obscure prophet or revolutionary, and much of what the Gospels say about him was unhistorical.

* Jesus Christ was purely heavenly, as described in Paul's letters.

* Jesus Christ was a myth.

And would GRD be a good place for such a poll?