jesusisalie

I'm interested in the thoughts of all you infidels out there regarding the existence of "jesus of nazareth". There is a lot of bantering on this forum about what jesus may have said or done, but is this whole discussion pointless? Are you convinced that this "historical figure" even existed?

I never bought into the "only son of god" story, but did believe he was at least a human who lived in said times. DID believe, but no longer do. After reading several books on the subject, it appears that the entire story of the new testament is simply a retelling of ancient astrological myths (mithras, horus, etc). It also seems that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this "person" ever existed. No roman, greek, or jewish CONTEMPORARY historian mentions him. For someone who supposedly caused such a furor, I'd expect SOMETHING to be written, carved, recorded somehow. Do you know of any convincing evidence? Is this truly the greatest story ever sold?

I'm especially interested in atheist's point of view. If any theists reply, please do not use scripture as your source of evidence as it is simply NOT a historical document (a fact accepted by most biblical scholars) and therefore useless.

spin

I think you need to read more of the stuff people are saying here. The threads referring to Earl Doherty revolve around the notion that Jesus is myth. The subject of Jesus myth has been churned through for a while here as have many other related themes. Hang loose. Read more. Enjoy yourself.


spin

jesusisalie

thanks for the Doherty tip. lots of threads to churn through for newbies.

Doctor X

Indeed. This subject only comes up about every other week. . .

. . . that and this bone-box people stored on top of a toilet. . . .

--J.D.

jesusisalie

oops. time to shut up and read.

Mageth

Originally posted by jesusisalie
I'm interested in the thoughts of all you infidels out there regarding the existence of "jesus of nazareth". There is a lot of bantering on this forum about what jesus may have said or done, but is this whole discussion pointless? Are you convinced that this "historical figure" even existed?

I'm not convinced, but personally believe there was a historical Jesus (I'm an atheist, BTW). More on that later.

I never bought into the "only son of god" story, but did believe he was at least a human who lived in said times. DID believe, but no longer do. After reading several books on the subject, it appears that the entire story of the new testament is simply a retelling of ancient astrological myths (mithras, horus, etc).

I believe some elements from other myths may have crept into the "legend" that grew up surrounding Jesus, but I don't believe his story was totally based on any other mythological character. But I think one needs to look no farther than Hebrew mythology to find where the elements of the Jesus myth were drawn from - and certainly that should be the first place you look.

It also seems that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that this "person" ever existed. No roman, greek, or jewish CONTEMPORARY historian mentions him.

Well, I might not make many friends here by saying this, but you can't totally discount the fact that there are the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and also several extra-biblical "gospels" and other books (see the Nag Hammadi scrolls). So while not convincing (for one thing, none of those are "contemporary", either), I don't think it's proper to say there's "not a shred of evidence" that Jesus ever existed. If there was not a shred of evidence, we would not even have the Jewish/Christian writings, no?

For someone who supposedly caused such a furor, I'd expect SOMETHING to be written, carved, recorded somehow.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Gospel of Thomas, etc....they exist. You can't just toss them out; to argue against a historical Jesus you have to make an argument for why they are not convincing that such a person existed (and I'm assuming that the books you've read did just that).

Do you know of any convincing evidence? Is this truly the greatest story ever sold?

I'm especially interested in atheist's point of view. If any theists reply, please do not use scripture as your source of evidence as it is simply NOT a historical document (a fact accepted by most biblical scholars) and therefore useless.

Well, that's hardly fair. If you rule out the Bible, the discussion is over before it started. What would there be to discuss?

I agree that the books of the Bible aren't all historical documents, though some do have at least some history in them, if often embellished (the Gospels definitely aren't - they are faith documents, legends or, really, myths if you get right down to it - not to be read as literal, linear "histories" or biographies), but even some atheists here might want to use the Bible to discuss the existence or non-existence of Jesus.

I'm an atheist, and I believe that there probably was a historical Jesus - though we can't be sure as there's no way to confirm that there was (at present). I believe he was actually a teacher/"prophet" figure that really had a group of followers. I believe he was really crucified. Beyond that, everything else in the gospels is either questionable or outright "myth". Particularly the birth narrative and the crucifixion/resurrection "Easter" narrative (though I think he was probably crucified by the Romans).

The main reason I believe that there was a historical Jesus is because the Christian religion started from a small band of his followers shortly after his execution. Simon/Peter, at a minimum, was historical among the apostles (others were as well, though some (e.g. Judas Iscariot) are likely to be inventions.

I simply don't think there's any better explanation for the origin of this (originally Jewish) sect than that there was a historical Jesus, and his life and teachings inspired the birth of the sect and eventual development of the legend around his life. And I think Simon/Peter was a disciple of Jesus (as were many others, including Mary Magdalene) and that Peter, after the Resurrection, was the prime element in initiating the new movement.

Now, the story and teachings of Jesus were passed down orally for a few decades. The earliest writings in the NT are some of the Pauline epistles, the earliest perhaps written about 25 years after the Crucifixion. Paul quite apparently believed in a historical Jesus, though he seems to know very little of the legendary Jesus found in the Gospels. He doesn't even mention the virgin birth or bodily resurrection found in the Easter accounts - odd since these are both central tenets of the Christian faith, esp. the latter. The NT writings written prior to the Gospels don't include or mention many of the key themes in the Jesus legend found in the Gospels. And, for the most part, these earliest accounts don't include many, if any, of the motifs some attribute to other mythical figures such as Mithra.

When the gospels were written (Mark first, about 70 CE), the legend had grown, and the writer of Mark (not an eyewitness of Jesus' life) turned to Jewish tradition - using a Jewish practice called Midrash - to embellish the legend he recorded with "motifs" from the tradition and Jewish holy writings. Each successive writer added, deleted, or modified elements, with the last (John, written in the last decade of the First Century) varying quite a bit from the earlier three "synoptic" gospels (Matthew and Luke were based on Mark, and were written in that order).

For an excellent treatment of the development of the "Jesus legend", written from a theistic viewpoint, see John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality? Spong convinced me that there probably was a historical Jesus, but that the Gospels are plainly not to be read as literal, linear accounts of his life (not that I didn't already know that), whether one is an atheist or a theist.

Toto

Which books have you read on the subject?

Amaleq13

If there was any reliable evidence that this was held to be true while Paul was preaching, I would have to agree that an HJ was likely.

If Paul was deliberately avoiding mentioning any such thing in order to avoid having his authority questioned, then the alleged reference to James as his brother must be an interpolation. If TJC was known as former followers, Paul's dismissal of their "high reputation" makes no sense.

Mageth

Not enough (never enough), and I'm anxious to read some good ones that argue against a HJ (as well as those that argue for a HJ, of course). What would you (or anyone else) recommend as the best presentation of the arguments?

I'm really just getting started in my study of the subject (early church History). I've only been an atheist for about four years, and that's not a subject that the churces I attended addressed objectively, needless to say.

I've read the NT, of course (gotta start there). I've read all of Elaine Pagels' primary books, and am reading Spong right now (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, and a couple of others in the wings waiting to be read). Spong's not without some bias, of course, as he self-identifies as a Chrisitian, but his books definitely knock out the "historical Jesus" as described in the Gospels, leaving him much as I describe in my post above (as a teacher around which the legend of Jesus grew). Spong is interested in finding the "truth" behind and in Chrisitianity, not in disproving it (well, he pretty much disproves the literal basis for "traditional" Christianity). I find his arguments (against the Gospel accounts being read as literal, linear accounts) quite persuasive. I've also got Who Wrote the Bible? by Friedman on order, if that book is applicable.

Note that I don't take a hard stand on my statement that "I simply don't think there's any better explanation for the origin of this (originally Jewish) sect than that there was a historical Jesus." I wrote that late last night (early this morning, actually), and rereading it today I perceive that I was coming across too emphatically. I should say that "At this time, I have seen no better explanation...".

Anyway, my starting point was that there probably was a historical Jesus, with the caveat that it (probably) can't be proven one way or the other if a man named Jesus really existed. Further study may well persuade me away from that position. However, whatever argument is presented will have to provide at least as good of an explanation for the beginnings of the Christian sect without a HJ as the argument that there was a HJ from which the new sect grew.

Soul Invictus

I thought he was from Galilee...