dzim77

Not that I want to discuss this in depth, but I am confused as to why you accept a historical John the Baptist, yet do not accept a historical Jesus? Why is this?

The rest of your reasons sound like pure speculation.

Solo

I agree with that. In my teens I was very skeptical of Jesus and generally disbelieved the myth originated from a man. Much of it had to do with my mom who was manic-depressive. I used to joke that when she was melancholy she was into Jesus, and when she got hyper, she ran with Madame Blavatsky. I learned to gauge her swings by the turns of appearance on her night table of the Bible and 'Učeni Theosofie'.

I used to be bothered by her proselythizing. As she was a bright lady, my putdowns were mostly intellectual: 'Mom', I used to say to her, 'in so far I can tell, Jesus Christ is the original false promise of salvation the frantic like to make to the humourless'. It drove her nuts !

Strangely, it was the commies who first put a chink into my anti-religious armour. Actually, one communist, Pier Paolo Passolini whose movie Il Vangelo secondo Mateo made in 1966 I found very persuasive aesthetical argument against Jesus Mythicism. I brought the subject up during an oral exam in philosophy, at the Institue of Economics in Prague where I studied. The prof made some disparaging remarks. I told him he should see the movie, which ticked him off and he nearly failed me.

Strangely, when I reminisced about all of this after my sudden and quite unexpected religious epiphany (cum hypermanic fugue) in my thirties I was struck by the paradoxes surrounding my views on religion and the subject of Jesus. Perhaps, the greatest paradox of all is that my original comment about Christ I made to my mom still stood, all my conversion really was, was getting a completely unexpected angle on the matter.

Jiri

No Robots

Your mom, Blavatsky and Jesus. LOL!

Did you ever read The Master and Margarita (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bulgakov? It is a literary masterpiece by any standard, and it is essentially a critique of Soviet mythicism.

My own "conversion" process started at university where I took a philosophy of religion course from a liberal priest. I realized that religion was a huge historico-social phenomenon that any self-respecting social scientist had to investigate. I dug around in it for years, and then found the writings of Constantin Brunner, who makes sense of it all from precisely this perspective of the human sciences. The experience was like looking at 10,000 microscope slides without finding anything until that last one reveals worlds upon worlds.

Like you, I didn't really change. My atheism is intact. But I now have this wonderful sense of kindred spirit with people like Christ, Spinoza and Brunner.

Malachi151

Because JtB is actually written into the history of Judea, and is attested to by several authors outside the Christians.

aa5874

Another faith based claim of historicity. Your faith based claim of the historicity of Jesus Christ is useless and is prevalent in the HJ camp. Again, without any evidence whatsoever and with a litany of speculation and plausibilities, Jesus Christ is believed to be real.

You have come to a conclusion without evidence. Many religions have started with their Gods being mythological figures.

Another pathetic argument. Anyone could have been Jesus Christ, so Jesus Christ lived. It is beyond belief.

If a poor, illiterate person is charged with a crime, he is guilty because more poor, illiterate people commit crimes. No evidence just probability, case closed.

Gooch's dad

Fine. Whether it is "thousands of religions", which you first claimed, or "hundreds of mystery religions", which is what you're now claiming--back it up with evidence.

Assertion on your part doesn't equal "all of modern scholarship". Sorry, that doesn't back up what you earlier said, not in the slightest.

gstafleu

Doherty's work is positive evidence. It doesn't just claim the evidence for an HJ is sketchy, he presents evidence of a developmental model where there is no place for an HJ. Price's work is at least in part positive evidence. Sure, showing that something Jesus is supposed to have said or done is in fact derived from something else, is by itself another version of removing evidence for an HJ. But once you've taken away so much evidence that hardly anything is left it becomes hard to wave away. Plus showing the derivation does give you another, positive, developmental model of how the NT was constructed, again one where no HJ need apply.

Gerard

gstafleu

Allow me to jump into the breach here: Robert Price on some Other Jesuses. Not that I got much response .

gstafleu

Of Myth and Men, by Robert Price.

Gerard

gstafleu

I rather like that! "Her name was Magil, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy." Or maybe it was just Brian ?

Well yes, but if you put it that widely it is almost trivially true. I'll even give you some help, my Robert Price on some Other Jesuses thread. But that only becomes interesting once you can narrow it down beyond "there probably was somebody at some time somewhere..."

Gerard