chestercopperpot

Thanks, then I am entirely in the mythical Jesus persuasion. I was just a little confused by what the terms "mythical Jesus" and "histrorical Jesus" actually meant. At first I thought that referring to a "mythical Jesus" meant that that person believes that all the supernatural myths about Jesus were true.

Biff the unclean

You have to look out when you are talking to Theists. They will claim that most scholars think that there was an historic Jesus (despite the complete absence of evidence). By this they imply that their magic-Jew-man/god is believed to have existed. But all that is actually happening is that many scholars lean towards Gospel Jesus being a legend instead of a myth. Xians often can be big on half truths

Toto

The idea that there was a historical man behind the gospel stories of Jesus was a hypothesis of the Enlightenment, an attempt to take over part of Christianity and rationalize it. Christians are now trying to reappropriate this alleged historical figure to prove that they are not worshipping a myth. But for most of Christian history, Jesus has been a mystery and a myth as much as a flesh and blood character.

The Jesus Myth hypothesis holds that early Christians did not think that they were worshipping a part-human part-god savior, but that the Christian religion started with stories that everyone knew were myths. It was only later Christians who took the stories literally and insisted that there actually was someone named Jesus born around the year 1 and crucified under Pontius Pilate.

spamandham

Is it fair to say the Santa Claus myth is based off a real person since there really was a Saint Nicholas? Saint Nicholas lacked virtually all attributes attributed to Santa, so whether or not there was a historical Saint Nicholas is irrelevant to our understanding of Santa. Santa is pure myth.

The same is true of Jesus. If there was an historical figure that acted as the catalyst, the miracle performing savior god-man born of virgin is not him. Jesus is a myth, just as Santa is a myth, regardless of whether there may have been an actual historical figure somehow involved in sparking the myth.

There are clues that indicate there was not even a historical figure upon which the myth was based, but not hard evidence. If he really were god incarnate, we would expect to have plenty of evidence from eye-witnesses that attest to this, but we don't. There are also clues in Paul's writings and the gospels that the kingdom of god was a human organization, not something metaphysical, that the christ is the perfection of ourselves, and not an actual person. There are also no Roman records of a census that could be the one referred to in the gospels. None of this proves a fabrication of course.

There is also the name of Jesus, which translates to 'Yah saves' (god saves), which is a clue that the teachings of Jesus were at one time a collection of Stoic wisdom and not believed to be the writings of a single person.

Biff the unclean

Something like the names of the girls in the James Bond movies.

spamandham

Aw c'mon. Pussy Galore isn't a real name? What about Octopussy?

Vinnie

Scholars who do not consider there to have been a historical Jesus are in a minority, but a sizeable, important minority.

Name ten actual scholars who have published mainstream works on the issue in the last 20 years. Freke, Gandy and Doherty do not count. It probably doesn't matter anyways though.

Vinnie

spamandham

Why do you discount these, and why are only the past 20 years significant? Have you considered Burton Mack's work?

Biff the unclean

Name one actual scholar who has evidence of an historic Jesus

Magdlyn

Define "actual scholar." Define "mainstream." As in, Mel Gibson blockbuster mainstream?

Why do not F&G and Doherty count? Have you seen F&G's notes at the end of their books? The page length almost equals the text of the book.

How about Robt Price?

Why doesn't it matter? Do you want to withdraw the question?