apatura_iris

Me too, I forgot to mention I am not atheist, I'm agnostic/ vaguely theist. But even when I was religious and believing, I was not Christian, though I studied Christian history a lot.

trendkill

Well, there are a few religions whose founding is recent enough that we have a very clear and well-evidenced idea of how they were formed. Mormonism and Scientology come to mind. They both had a single founder, one person who came up with them. So yes, there is evidence that religions tend to form in certain general ways. As for "exactly", I smell straw.


Then what's the point? There's no need to discuss anything, just say "nobody knows" and that's it.

King Arthur isn't supposed to be the founder of anything so far as I know. But regardless, if there wasn't one king that King Arthur was based upon, I would at least expect him to have been built up from various human inspirations into a larger-than-life figure, as opposed to having been conceived of initially as a larger-than-life figure and then humanized later on.

And where exactly was he supposed to say he'd received it from if there had been a historical Jesus? I'm really not sure what you think we're supposed to get from Galatians 1 that's so supportive of mythicism. So he claimed he got his Gospel straight from the horse's mouth (he didn't learn any Christian tradition in the course of persecuting the Christians, I suppose). What is that supposed to prove?

Solo

In Gal 5:11 Paul asks rhetorically, "if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished." IIUC, you are saying that Christ crucified - offence to the Jews -
happened way back in the past (say like G.A.Wells). So how come that those who worship the man in Paul's time (presumably) as a prophet, are still being persecuted among the Jews ?

How would the Jews know about some figure from a distant past who did not get written about ? Why would they continue to get so worked up about some obsure preacher (like Paul did) to persecute a bizzare sect that swore by him ? Why does this "jesus thing" get played in Paul's time ? Any ideas ?

Jiri

funinspace

Assuming in your poll that you meant there was some core kernel of a human being named Jeshua some 2000 years ago existed, around which the God-tales were weaved around and upon, I voted yes. I think leaving out “I don’t know” doesn’t help your poll too much…

spin

The point is evidence or guessing.

Deep.

So you can't tell if he had a unique source or not. How come you can assume you know regarding Jesus?

From anyone who knew about said historical Jesus. Instead Paul says he got it from a revelation.

Did I mention mythicism? Widen your horizons. I'm an agnostic. There is not enough evidence -- and believe me I have looked into it all -- to be able to say one way or another if a Jesus who became the central figure of the christian religion existed.

Galatians 1:11 tells you that Paul got his Jesus not from people but from revelation. What that might mean to a non-religionist could be that he dreamt about it, or had a psychotic break, or convinced himself over a period of time that this is what had to be.

It proves that you have no reason whatsoever to prefer a character in a later work as a founder to Paul.


spin

Sheshbazzar

I believe that the "Jesus" legends developed out of the combination of strong Jewish Messianic expectations becoming alloyed with the "logos" concepts of philosophy, and with a variety of contemporary dying-resurrecting god saviour legends.

My theory is that Saul of Tarsus did actually exist and did travel from synagogue to synagogue in the Diaspora preaching a "messianic message" and the same "Watchword" that was employed during the Maccabeean conflict.
Those Jews among the Diaspora who were highly Hellenized, and the Gentiles associated with them were quick to make the leap that the "Watchword" being taught was the actual name of the long awaited Jewish messiah. This provided a figurehead to which the "rumor mill" was finally able to attach hundreds of popular "midrash" stories, sayings and miracle legends.

It is my opinion that the real Saul (or Paul) of Tarsus actually wrote very little of the NT writings that Christianity latter attributed to the Apostle Paul.
Rather that on account of him being a well known Messianic teacher, his respected name became the "christian" pen-name of choice, with dozens of pious writers and sectarian factions fabricating, modifying, and correcting those theological "epistles" being written in his name.
The thought process is still present today, "Well, this is what Paul WOULD HAVE written......", or "This is WHAT Paul "MEANT" when he wrote....."

The Constantinian reformers finally selectively edited the entire collection into a somewhat stable "orthodox" cannon, banning any texts considered to be unorthodox.

The "Watchword" represented the Hope of Israel, Hope over Despair, Victory snatched from the jaws of certain Defeat, Life over death, The Desire of Ages, little wonder that it so easily became personified as a cult figure.

Was there a real Jesus? This is like asking if there is a real Uncle Sam, or a real Lady Liberty.
But of course the Nation of Israel has never officially embraced that amalgamated icon, although now days it has become very cognizant of the great financial opportunities that are present in the "finding" of archaeological "evidence" for Jesus.
A "Santa" delivering gifts of shekels every day is one that is hard to resist.

FinnHawk

There's no "I don't know" option. To me it honestly doesn't matter if he was a real person or not... What I care about is whether he was divine or not.

So, to me, Jesus existed but was not divine is almost equivalent to Jesus did not exist. Whereas, Jesus existed AND was divine is the real kicker. Christianity is dependent on Jesus being divine. Even if Jesus existed, if he was not divine, then Christianity is false.

FinnHawk

ditto.

trendkill

[QUOTE=spin;5267043]Movements tend to be founded by actual people, often having a single (real) person as a founder or focus. King Arthurism isn't a movement, so that criterion doesn't apply to him. The only criterion I mentioned that applies to King Arthur is the maxim that the tale grows in the telling, i.e. the less-fantastic elements come first, they are generally not added later.


Sorry, not seeing it. He persecuted Christians, learned about Christianity, had some sort of revelatory experience (ahem, mental breakdown) and converted. Where does a human teacher who he'd actually attribute his own teachings to come into that story, even assuming he had a historical Jesus in mind?


You used to mention mythicism plenty. Agnosticism is annoying. Clearly, we can't know much of anything about many historical figures. If you want to go around being agnostic about them, that's your call. I prefer to go with the preponderance of the evidence.


That's not how it works for me. Regardless of the amount of evidence, I weigh it. If there's more on one side than the other, that's the way I go. If the total amount of evidence is small, then I adjust my confidence level accordingly. It may be very low, but regardless, I don't go around proclaiming I'm agnostic about things, as if agnosticism were a position in itself, and that other people should be agnostic about them too. If I have no opinion, I have nothing to say.

Yes, that he convinced himself that he didn't get it from people is pretty clear. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why, based on this passage alone, it's any more likely that he convinced himself that his revelation was of a spiritual Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously, than a historical Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously.

Zimpo

Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. But it's not really His last name, it's what He is. So it should be "Jesus, the Christ"

Just a little nitpick; I see that a few people in this thread assumed that 'Christ' was Jesus' last name.

Carry on.