Doctor X

I just hope it does not become a "my guy existed and your's all did not PBBBBLLLLpppppssssttt!!!!" discussion!

However, just as we all "know" Junior existed, and Mary Magdellan was a prostitute . . . and various other "things" that are not known but we sort of pick up . . . I had thought I "knew" that a Siddarthra Gutam . . . Gutamy . . . Buddha-Guy existed from reading my Boy's Own Golden Book of Infidels.

Thus, I think it is good to review what we actually "know" as to oppose to what we "know we know."

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

To sum up: those who believe that there was no HJ command a slim majority over those non-Christians who believe that there was a HJ. But those who do not take a stand pro or con (either because it's undecidable or from lack of information) outnumber them both. From the closeness of the results, it is fair to say that every option taken above by non-Christians is a "common" one.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

It looks like a draw to me Though I am a month and a half late.

To be fair, I am "looking for more argumentation," but "yes" is my working hypothesis.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

Ah, someone cheated and voted after me . So much for the draw.

Regards,
Rick

Dean Anderson

I think that given the sample size it is statistically likely to be a draw.

To qualify my 'No' vote, I think that there were probably various prophets/mystics/rebels/holy men/philosophers around with stories circulating about them. Some of these stories were original, others were inspired by (or part of) other religions and beliefs.

Later, the stories and sayings (some of which may have been genuine, some exaggerated and some invented) got assigned to a single person. Whether this person actually existed or not is a moot point. I do not think that he existed in the way the bible tells us (i.e. Born about 6BC, lived in Galilee, visited Jerusalem, crucified in about 33CE) - hence my 'No'.

Heathen Dawn

I voted yes, and I am not a Christian.

Though the New Testament (on which I am no expert) has some carry-overs from the risen pagan Saviour-Godman myths (such as the supper of symbolic bread and wine), I rather think they are a result of fusion with a historical Jesus story. For a historical figure to be made a Resurrected Messiah, there are parallels even today (see this article). It seems plausible that a historical Jesus was crucified for blasphemy (opposition to the rabbinical establishment), deified by his followers, and his story fused with the local Mithraic myths.

Asha'man

Actually, crucifixion is not very plausable, if the crime was blasphemy. You either need to pick a slightly different crime, or a different mode of death.

Bill

The key to my "yes" vote was the fact that I get to personally decide what the phrase "historical Jesus" means. Even though I'm about as strong of an anti-Chrisitian as you will find on these forums, I still believe that there is a core of historical facts there which doesn't make sense to me as being of totally legendary origins. Again, the key to me would be to know, for certain, just who or what James the Brother of Jesus was thinking about when he talked about Jesus with Saul/Paul. Since the certainty of that knowledge is impossible, I'm still persuaded by everything I've read about James to believe that James himself had a very real, formerly live, person in mind when he discussed Jesus with Saul/Paul. That person, to me, would be the "historical Jesus," and, on balance and while recognizing the weaknesses of the various theories, I still strongly believe that person existed.

== Bill

Bill

If the Romans did the deed, the crime would be Treason (or more accurately, fomenting rebellion against Rome).

Which means that, if the crucifixion were true, then Jesus must have said substantially more about rome than the infamous "render unto Caesar" bit. And, the fact that Saul/Paul was a citizen of Rome, and possibly a Roman agent provocatuer, then it becomes far easier to understand just why the preachings of Jesus might have been redacted as they went from James over to Saul/Paul.

== Bill

Rick Sumner

Pilate in specific, and Rome in general, was apparently quite vicious. Need he have said quite a bit more? I don't think we can rightly know. What did Theudas or the Egyptian say that caused their annhilation?

A chief concern with this outlook--that Jesus was some sort of insurrectionist--is pointed out by Paula Fredriksen: Jesus was executed, his followers weren't. They seem to have continued unmolested for quite some time. It's tough to reconcile this with revolutionary activity.

Regards,
Rick