Originally Posted by No Robots

Ultimately, my argument for historicity is very simple: in order to explain the profound effect of Christianity, there must be an equally profound cause, and the only adequate explanation for Christianity is that it was initiated by a genius; and clearly the composers of the Gospels and its sources were not that genius, but all their work is directed toward describing him and transmitting his words.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The belief in Jesus was a disater until Constantine. Jesus believers were living in hell on earth until Constantine SAVED them.

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Over the past few years I've veered between low and slightly higher probability. I don't discount the historical Jesus idea altogether, but I have a sort of background general awareness of religious experience and the development of religions worldwide and throughout history that tells me he's not necessary for the religion to have started. (i.e. that the central cult figure of a religion isn't always an encrustation around a real historical figure who necessarily started off the movement). With that in mind, the alternative explanation that he's myth all the way down just makes more sense of the contemporary silence, and also makes sense of the other early Christian material (e.g. how he appears rather celestial early on).

I think the kind of myth he was at first, was, specifically, a Jewish adaptation of the Mysteries idea of a personal saviour, seen in visionary experience and in Scripture, by some Jewish (or possibly mixed Jewish/Samaritan) proto-Gnostics in Jerusalem ca 30-40 CE. I think Judaism was probably more diverse at that time than we have the image of, and that this new religion was one among many variants of Judaism, a strain of disappointed apocalypticism mixed with an infusion of Platonism (similar to Philo). Originally, for these people, Jesus was the "intermediary" between an all-too-impersonal One and this Earth ruled by the increasingly impotent-seeming Jewish God, who came to be viewed more as merely the Demiurge. This "intermediary" was cleverly based on the Jewish Messiah myth, only put in the past instead of expected in the future.

The thing is, this time-inversion of the Jewish Messiah naturally left a gap for historical "filling in". At first the idea was sketchy - the historical details were merely sufficient to prop up the theology - but as time went on, people naturally wondered about the details of the saviour's life and deeds. "But Daddy, what did the Messiah do?"

Eventually some stable stories arose, either invented at first as literary artefacts then taken up by believers, or gradually coalescing out of mutual speculations, priestly concoctions based on satisfying importunate curiosity, or making theological points, etc., etc.

i.e. - the "history" gets fleshed-in as time goes on. This seems to me to fit what we've got better than the somewhat more strained idea that a real historical figure was big enough to gather a following, yet not big enough to make a contemporary splash even as a minor Messiah claimant; important and dear to his followers, yet seemingly not dear enough for them to remember tidbits about his life; important to earliest followers, in fact, exclusively as a deified spiritual figure.

So I put it at 20-40%. On the basis of my reasoning I really don't expect the Jesus myth to turn out to have been based on a historical figure, but I don't discount the possibility altogether.

The only hope for believers in a historical Jesus is, I think, to identify one of the Messiah claimants actually mentioned by Philo or Josephus as the man behind the myth. I don't know to what extent anybody has seriously undertaken an investigation as to whether any of the other Jesuses mentioned may actually have been the Jesus behind what became the Jesus myth we all know and love.

Originally Posted by No Robots

I've done my best to make the case for the historicity of Christ. But I would like to say something about why I think it important. It is important because man needs heroes, and this is the greatest of heroes.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Superman and Spiderman satisfy that craving just as well. Heroes don't have to be historical to satiate.

Originally Posted by No Robots

Originally Posted by Matthew 18:3

"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Originally Posted by Luke 10:21

At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

You have over 3,000 posts but somehow quoting the bible on a messageboard full of non-Christians still seems like a good argument?

Really??

Originally Posted by No Robots

I've done my best to make the case for the historicity of Christ. But I would like to say something about why I think it important. It is important because man needs heroes, and this is the greatest of heroes.

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Over the past few years I've veered between low and slightly higher probability. I don't discount the historical Jesus idea altogether, but I have a sort of background general awareness of religious experience and the development of religions worldwide and throughout history that tells me he's not necessary for the religion to have started. (i.e. that the central cult figure of a religion isn't always an encrustation around a real historical figure who necessarily started off the movement).