Peter Kirby

There was some issue with the statement that disbelief in a HJ is "common" in another thread. I would like to estimate roughly how common the various opinions are among those on this board. The question is:

Was there a "historical Jesus," as you define the phrase?

The options are:

1. Yes, and I am a Christian.

This option is for most Christians. If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in a HJ, pick one of the options 3-5 below.

2. Yes, and I am not a Christian.

This is for those who think that there was a man Jesus under the myth.

3. No.

This is for those who are of the opinion that there was no "historical Jesus," as they understand what that implies.

4. I think the question is probably undecidable.

This is for those who have given the subject some degree of study and think that there is no resolution in sight, barring a fantastic (and certainly authentic) new find.

5. I am looking for more information and argumentation.

This is for those who would like to withhold judgment until they read more.

This poll is just to get a general feel for the opinions of the people on this board. Feel free to state your opinion in a post in addition to making a choice in the poll.

best,
Peter Kirby

Soul Invictus

I guess I'm going to be the first to reply. I'd have thought that there would be commentary based on peoples voting. I picked option 5 because I am knowledgable in theology to a small extent. I have not done any exhaustive research to my liking.[ I]So far[/I] I'm finding it reasonably plausible that:

Jesus is mythical in nature, given similarites in pre-existing cultures' for saviors that served the same function as he would have served

as well as

Jesus being historical in nature, however much about him being fictional in nature...again to align with the influences caused by pre-existing cultures' and their preeminent God or gods.

I do feel that the lack of substantive extra-biblical evidence does make for a challenging case for someone who does believe he existed though..

Long story short - the jury is still out with me. In conclusion, for Christians, his existence or lack thereof should not be of materiality in determining the relationship one would have with their God though, which is something I've been arguing in another thread concerning his divinity.

Family Man

Frankly, the whole argument is confusing to me because it isn't clear to me what the HJ is. When someone like Bede tells me what he thinks he can say about the HJ, my response is so what? What is interesting about Jesus isn't that he was a faith healer who managed to get himself crucified, but that he was allegedly the Son of God who "sacrificed" himself so that we could live together, and "proven" by his appearances after his death. And that stuff is clearly mythical.

So who cares about the HJ? I see no reason to consider him at all.

Shinobi

I voted no.

The problem I have with the assertion that there was a radical reformer/preacher begind the myth is that it's so vague as to be meaningless. When we have no record at all of who this person might be, it seems to be no better an assertion than saying it's pure myth. Now there may be a flaw in this analogy, point it ouit if there is, but imagine 2000 years in the future theres a christ like mythical being some people believe in and is based on texts printed in the year 2000. Some in the future might say this future christ is based on a radical reformer, which one? There's tens of thousands of them. It's so waterd down a statment that I think it makes no real sense. If you have some real record of the person, that's different.

What do people think?

Amos

I voted yes and I am not a Christian.

I would say "yes" but not as an infant born in the flesh. Jesus was the name given to the reborn Joseph unto whom Christ was born and to this new creation (now with a dual identity) the name Jesus was given in the gospels for the purpose of creating a new religion only. This Joseph character could have been any Jew but since we are incarnate children of God it does not happen to 'just any Jew.' He was a carpenter only to show that Joseph was a big sinner which is based on the fact that carpenters make many things and since all is made in sin carpenters are big sinners. We can now also say that Joseph was industrious, courageous and upright.

I'd rather be called Catholic and not Christian because just as Jesus once was a Jew, he no longer was a Jew when he became Christian. Religion as a means to the end would indicate that Catholics are not Christian and Christians are not Catholic.

Doctor X

Well . . . I must admit I am not sure what Amos means.

However, based on arguments I made elsewhere, I voted "yes" but I am left with a "so what?" in the sense of what it all means--we cannot say anything about him.

I do find the research interesting--the development of a religion. However, the foundation for conclusions will always be very shaky.

--J.D.

beastmaster

#5.

I'm fairly convinced (based on an admittedly unscholarly and limited investigation) that Jesus is a composite figure of various historical, fictional, and mythical persons. I am unable at this point to rule out the possibility that there is some irreducible HJ (whatever that means) forming part of that composite, but I am extremely interested in learning more.

The HJ question has no impact on my atheism, whichever way the evidence leads me. However, it does inspire critical insights into the textual underpinnings of Xnty and my understanding of its theology and authority.

Volker.Doormann

I have voted: 3. No.

I think that that colored person, from whom the Gospels are telling, never has existed in history in this color. But that what really has a meaning is not a colored person in history, it is that, what is said, and what is preserved in several Gospels doubtless written by a person in history. As it is unimportant, whether Socrates has said something, or Plato has attached his own thinking on the figure Socrates, nothing would be changed, if the author of the primary Sayings of that figure relates not to a historic person.

It is very clear to me, that the background stories in the canonical Gospels only coloring the essential Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, and can be proved as well known myths from the Jewish culture (Golgotha is a remake of the classic Jewish Passover myth) and from the well known myth ‘Osiris’ of the Egyptian culture, from which the arising of a soul out of a very death body is taken (Lazarus = Alazar = El_Azar = God_Osiris). Because it can be shown for certain, that the several Lazarus stories (s. also Secret Gospel of Marc) and the death and resurrection attached additional to the figure Jesus himself in the Golgatha drama as well known myth from the Egyptian religion, it proves that at least this colored Lazarus/Resurrection material can be identified as fiction.

There may have lived another historic Jesus - as Celsus has reported, but this Jesus, son of Pandera, or Panthera, has lived about 100 years prior to this figure in question, and it seems, that also from this character something is implemented in the color of the canonical Gospels.

Volker

Clarice O'C

Howdy,

There is no evidence for or against an historical Jesus and so I'll wait until there is which may never happen, #5.

G'day,
Clarice

CJD

Since carpenters are very big sinners ('tween college and grad school I installed wood
floors ), I chose with no hesitation number one. Honest. And all it took was about 27 letters and journal entries from the first century to convince me.

Regards,

CJD