TedM

For me, I think debate--the challenge, the stimulation--is part of the ongoing motivation, but the original and still-existing motivation is curiousity about who he really was and how people reacted to him along with an emotional attachment to the figure we see in perhaps the greatest story ever told in some ways (ignoring the flaws). A part of me will probably always want to go back to believing in him and the purpose ascribed to him even if I find that possibility to be slim and not even necessarily an admirable thing when all aspects of such a belief are considered..

ted

Chili

But the Gospels are not an invention. They are just a word story about reality and Jesus was just a name given to the dying slave that made room for the rising slave who was called Christ in this story.

Thomas II

I am much more interested in the non-supernatural Jesus. I am also very interested in finding out all the coverup around the figure of Jesus

Toto

Well that's the problem, isn't it?

A great man is one who has a big impact on history. Jesus is portrayed as a good man, but if you look at most other men who have had extraordinary impacts on history, you find men who generally started from high born families, men with tremendous egos, men who are able to organize other men by (possibly) manipulating their emotions, men who make tough decisions and are willing to stab someone in the back if it furthers the movement. Machiavellians, in short.

And if you look at kind, wise men who teach wisdom and healing, you are generally looking at someone with fairly limited influence - a small circle of very loyal friends, but not the guy you turn to when the barbarians invade and you need to rally the troops.

That's why the character of Jesus was so attractive to a large segment of liberal
humanists. It looked like at least one person in history had not compromised on all the messy actions it takes to run a movement, but who still changed history.

But what happened to people who actually tried to follow what they thought Jesus said to do? In the 60's, they formed communes, lived in poverty, tried to help the poor, the peasants, the oppressed. They worked for peace. It was a heady time, but where did it get us? Not any closer to the kingdom of god. The War Party won out over Peace, the Catholic Church squashed all of the Liberation Theologists, socialism turned out not to be a workable economic system, and building a movement was a lot more difficult than it looked. The popular image of Jesus has been captured by the televangelists and Mel Gibson and George W. Bush.

People who actually want Jesus to mean something are left wondering what all those Christians think they are doing driving big SUV's to church on Sunday and wearing Jesus fashion gear. Liberals keep quoting scripture to Republicans about caring for the poor and seeking peace, for all the good it does.

So, in a way, it solves a lot of problems to realize that Jesus never existed. (At least it explains why George W. Bush has not been afflicted with boils for taking the Lord's name in vain.) It isn't that we didn't succeed because we didn't try hard enough in the 60's or because we weren't good enough. The roadmap that fictional Jesus gave us in the gospels was wrong. You can't get to the kingdom of heaven by living in a socialist commune and not worrying about material things, you can't survive as a society by turning the other cheek. You don't help the poor by selling everything you have and giving away the proceeds.

I seem to have got carried away. I guess I better get some sleep.

seebs

Somewhat. I'm not sure it would matter much; on the other hand, the question of where all those sayings came from, and how they were collected, would remain interesting.

seebs

I know it's a digression at best, but I know someone in Jesus People USA, and they're still out there as a fairly successful commune of around 450 people, last I heard.

Killer Mike

I have never really been able to understand why some are so concerned about arguing that Jesus never existed. The overwhelming majority of scholars from such institutions as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Brown, and any major university around the world all agree he existed. While there is debate about how Christian Mythology evolved, there really is no serious debate on the question that there was some sort of historical man "Jesus".

But more importantly does it really matter?

In the end whether there was a historical "Jesus" who later had legends attached to his ministry, or whether there never was an historical Jesus is of little significance. Its like debating whether Paul Bunyon and his blue ox were "historical" to a degree or whether there never was a Paul Bunyon and he never had an ox.

Perhaps there was a horse that existed a long time ago. The locals began to tell stories about this horse for some reason and eventually the legend of Pegasus in Greek and Roman Mythology evolved. Or perhaps there never was a horse that started the Pegasus legend. Either way it does not matter, however, we can still enjoy the stories and study them as literature.

Anyway this is just my opinion.

Chili

the man called Joseph never existed but was just a name given to the Jew who was later called Jesus who became Christ after the Jewish identity that once was called Joseph was crucified.

Now that is the truth of the myth. So did Joseph exist? No. Did Jesus exist? No. Did Christ exist? Yes, but only as the essence of the man in the image of God who once was called Joseph, became John, became Jesus, and finally Christ after Jesus was crucified and Joseph returned for the image of Jesus that he took with him to Patmos and there wrote about the story of his life.

The isle of Patmos is also a metaphor (like Ile de la Cite in Paris) but exists.

This completes the cycle of birth and rebirth without the second death of the body.

gurugeorge

Yes, very much. If there was no Christ, then Christianity (as it existed for 2,000 years) is the biggest con job in history - and some people are still feeling the "sting".

Well, of course that's a tendentious and slightly rude way of putting it, and not quite fair to all the participants (though it's apt for some, including but not limited to a certain notorious Pope who almost gave the game away during the Renaissance ), but it drives the point home.

Also, if there was no historical Jesus, then the process by which the religion developed one, and came to grow with Him as its basis, is in itself fiendishly interesting.

Also, if there was no HJ, what was the "Good News" that spread in the early days of Christianity? That, again, is a curiosity in itself. (A personal salvation cult, a kind of popular mysticism, the est of its day, something like that?)

Chili

But Christianity as we know it today always was the wrong Gospel that kept rearing it's ugly head on the anathema side of the Church.Yes, it is a mystery.[/quote]

The good news was that Christ now dwells among us and Jesus showed us how to become another one.