Vincent Guilbaud

Here is something that struggles me for some time.
It seems people tend to separate the theories of E.Doherty & G.A.Wells, and themselves sometimes help it.

But I think their differences are really nothing and both have the same point of view.

----------------------------------
Who cares if the Galilean movement of the first century had for origin:
- Wells: an unknown leader called Jesus who didn't really perform any miracle nor died crucified in Jerusalem
(and from whom we only have several sayings although we don't even know for sure which ones).
- Doherty: several unknown leaders who didn't really perform any miracle nor died crucified in Jerusalem
(and from whom we only have several sayings although we don't even know for sure which ones).

Who cares if the Jesus of the early Christians was:
- Wells: a man of the indefinite past
- Doherty: an heavenly being

Some myths may have been seen on earth, others in the air...
They are still not historical truth.

Knowing the almost complete unreliability of the source,
I feel there is very little today to argue for one or the other,
and for what purpose?
----------------------------------

Both theories say finally exactly the same thing:
there has never been a man who would have been exalted to the rank of Messiah and Son of God,
as recognition and reward of a life of righteousness and a ministry of costly faithfulness culminating in martyrdom.

Let me know if I missed something.

stephan huller

Do my eyes deceive me or did the guy who wrote the Charlie Brown theme song just start a thread?

TedM

It's your eyes. The composer was Vince Guaraldi, not Vincent Guilbaud. (google search).

TedM

Hi Vince. If you have characterized their theories correctly, I tend to agree with you. But I'm unclear regarding Wells--what is it about that Galilean preacher that was charismatic enough to have him be fused eventually into Paul's heavenly figure? That's a difference that those who find influential people to be interesting might see as important. If there was something charismatic about a human Jesus, those characteristics would appeal to many people, whereas fewer would care about characteristics of a made-up or multi-preachers collective.

I personally find the Doherty's idea that there never was any historical figure who inspired others enough to begin Christianity to be interesting yet disturbing at the same time, perhaps some on an individual psychological level since I once was a believer and loved Jesus, and I still would admire someone who willingly died for a cause he believed in--especially if it was to help save others. I think many non-believers like to think that are things about Jesus in the gospels that are true and very likable--wise, compassionate, passionate, devout, committed--even if many of the sayings and doings may not be true.

I would also find it disturbing because--as fascinating as it would be to consider that mankind could be deceived to such a degree as has been the case, I would prefer not to think that it is possible. After all, it would make a laughingstock out of billions of people who worship or admire the man Jesus as being perhaps the most influential human being of all time due to his willing sacrifice. To find out that he never even lived--or that there was nothing worthy of inspiring the religion even would be very insulting to much of mankind. Something that I can't help believe that man non-believers would find pleasure in...which to me is a dishonorable character trait.

People want things to make sense. It is very hard for the avg person to make sense out of the idea that there was no man even resembling Jesus who inspired Christianity. At least in Wells' case from what little I know the perception is that he allows for such a man to have existed. Please correct me if wrong.

These views may help provide some insight as to why some might find a significant difference between the two theories.

stephan huller

I was joking.

ph2ter

I was once a believer too and a real possibility that Jesus was only a construct mostly made out of the 'prophecies' from the OT and Greek philosophy made me angry at those who invented this character. Jesus is probably the biggest lie in this world made ever.

I am no longer angry.
Now I want to know how the story about Jesus really started because it is truly fascinating story. My motivation is not to make a laughingstock out of the billions of people who worship or admire Jesus, but to find out what really happened. If we all close our eyes to the evidence pointing to the contrary of the established beliefs just because of the sympathy with those who are still believers in Jesus, then the truth will never come out. Deception would last forever.

MCalavera

If Jesus was never real, then it remains a mystery to this day and age how the character of Jesus came about, but it definitely isn't how Acharya S and the likes would want us to believe.

ph2ter

Who is talking about Acharya? I thought that this thread is about Wells and Doherty and the likes.

MCalavera

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to have the same wacky ideas about the character of Jesus.

archibald

Yes. You missed the fact that it doesn't really matter if there are differences between those two guys because both their theories are less likely than what the majority of experts agree on.