Myrion

I voted for this option. I believe he existed, was killed and his "people" probably stole his body and claimed he was resurected.

blues runner

I voted he was killed and people imagined seeing him.

There probably was a Jesus. He was a man that some people took a strong liking to at a time when they felt it necessary, and when he died their grief and denial gave their imaginations the extra fuel they required to put their minds at ease. Stories become ridiculously embellished over time, and eventually become largely fictitious.

People always want to feel better. I think that's basically what belief is about. Just as if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him...If Jesus had simply died it would have been necessary to deify him and throw in the resurrection bit as well. This tale allowed those who believed so strongly in him to validate their views and lives. Otherwise, it just would have meant they'd been idolizing some carpenter dude like adoescents idolizing a rock star. It becomes much more respectable and meaningful if the rock star is a perfect immortal.

SLD

I chose the third option. I don't think the resurrection myth about him arises until decades later - maybe Paul started this and others grew on it. But I'm inclined to believe that there was a historical person Jesus. But he was merely one of many other messianic figures from Judea at this time. Many such figures had followings and they were ruthlessly hunted down and crucified by the Romans. Jesus was no different. Paul saw a movement and decided to create a religion out of it by claiming he rose from the dead. I actually think this may be the source of the controversy between Paul and the Jerusalem "church." I suspect (although certainly can't prove) that the Jerusalem Church was what remained of Jesus's followers after his death. They weren't claiming Jesus founded any new religion, nor his divinity, nor his resurrection. Paul just makes that shit up out of whole cloth (and even then he may not be the one who made it up). His movement continued for some time and then is utterly destroyed by the Romans after they sack Jersualem.

That's my thesis anyways. I'm certainly open to better ideas.

But I don't understand why people seem to feel the need for making excuses for the resurrection. People say that maybe Jesus only passed out, or that the disciples stole his body. Horseshit. Claims of resurrections are common claims - both before and after Christianity. How many ghost stories do we still hear are allegedly true? Shheeeesh. Get over the resurrection people!! It's just another in a long line of silly religious claims like the virgin birth. I can imagine this conversation going on somewhere in the 1st Century Roman empire:

You know, old Joe was a really great guy!
I hear he could even heal the sick!
Really, what about that time he raised a dead guy?
Remember that time he walked on water?
Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that!
Yeah, I bet old Joe was a god!
Yup, sure was!
You know his mother was pretty cool too.
Certainly not a slut like mine!
I bet she was a virgin; only a virgin could have had a guy as good old joe!
Hey! Isn't that Joe up there in the clouds some where!
You know I think you're right! He's risen from the dead. Glory Hallulujah!

The next you thing you know they're burning you at the stake for not believing that shit. But that's what they did back then. They deified the people they liked and made up stories about their miracles. They turned their heroes into gods and claimed they were born of a virgin.

:Cheeky:

SLD

John Kesler

But fanciful claims aren't all that exist for GWB; neither are they all that exist for Jesus of Nazareth. The job of historians is to sift the evidence and separate fact from fiction, not to discount the former because of the presence of the latter.

Avatar

I suspect that there was someone--a charismatic fellow who made a lot of claims and got a following. Not a hard thing to do, especially in a superstitious culture. I think his followers tacked on a lot of stuff after the fact.

JEST2ASK

I coose this option but need to expand on it ...
1 - There was an historical Jesus.
More to to the point (IMO)there is a historical basis to Jesus .. it is possible it is the combination of more than one actual human figure .. and more than one set of stories / sayings collected by more than one community ... provided this basis ...

He was killed. (IMO) it is likely that one or more of these figures met a violent death ... not necessarily by crucifixtion .. at the hands of some combination of powerful authorities who felt threatened by these movements ...

People believed he was resurrected ... at least one of the followers of one or more of thes figures came to believe in one or more of the methods (physical / spiritual / philosophical /re-incarniated in another leader ) of his continued existemnce ...

In short I have no idea :huh: as what I have been presented with regarding
this figure brings forth more questions than it provides any (IMO) reasonable answers ... Are Paul's writtings about the same figure as the Gospels ... :huh: did the theology / christology develop after the fact most likely but what did the early Jerusalem church believe and on what basis :huh: what other competing lines of teachings existed from this same fooundation :huh: (not later "Herasys"" What about the early traditions of Peter's teachings (a variant or a separate comunity from Paul's

Amaleq13

What source of information about Jesus doesn't include fanciful claims?

Another significant difference is that our knowledge of GW is not restricted to texts that are expressions of theological belief rather than attempts to record history.

The overwhelming presence of the latter makes the former difficult if not impossible.

Porky Houton

If there was a Jesus (and at this time I'm not sure if there was) then I believe that the following might have happened:

After an average scourging, he was put on the cross but passed out. His friends took his body, bound up his wounds, and put him in a tomb. After a few hours he woke up and got out of the tomb on his own.

I believe the whole resurrection story was back dated to take all of this into account. No guards at the door, no spear in the side, no bragging about how he would come back after death. Just a wild theory.

John Kesler

The point is that sources about anyone have to be examined and a determination made about what is likely true and what is not. To examine the gospels, our primary sources about Jesus of Nazareth, scholars have devised various criterion. This page from Missouri State's Web site gives a good, if brief, overview.

I find the "expressions of theological belief" versus "attempts to record history" to be an unwarranted dichtomy. All historians have some biases, be they theological or other, and the purpose of applying certain criteria to historical claims is to determine the truth contained in these sources.

This is obviously not the opinion of those who devise criteria like that mentioned in the link. Scholars like Bart Ehrman don't throw their hands in the air and their Bibles in the trash because the Bible says Jesus was born of a virgin and walked on water. Instead, they try to determine what is likely to be true and what is probably embellishment.

This will be my last post which discusses the Christ myth versus historical Jesus hypothesis. The last word is yours if you like.

Amaleq13

I'm familiar with the various criteria that have been applied in the attempt to identify reliable history in the Gospel stories and I'm also familiar with the numerous discussions of their flaws. For example, the criterion of embarrassment is a complete joke that has more to do with "our" notion of what was considered embarrassing than what can be established as embarrassing by ancient authors. The examples offered for "multiple attestation" includes an obviously flawed application of that criterion. How can Paul be identified as a multiple attestation that Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper when he clearly describes it as revealed knowledge from the risen Christ?

I mentioned only the extremes but you are correct that a middle ground is possible. OTOH, I think it is extremely naive to ignore the clear fact that the story that presumably inspired the others (ie Mark) has far more to do with the faith of the author than his desire to record the bare facts of history. If there is any history in that story, I suspect it has been so well-concealed by theological fiction that it can never be reliably identified. At least, I have yet to see any credible effort at identifying anything of substance in the Gospel stories that can be reliably considered historically true.

I'm sure they don't consider it "impossible" but I think you are wrong that they don't acknowledge it is "difficult".

"In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition. The task is difficult indeed, for these documents are all products of Christian churches in the second half of the 1st century A.D." John Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol 2, p5

That is their job and I certainly would not discourage them from the attempt but it seems, again, naive to think that their willingness to continue doing their job establishes or even requires that their goals are actually attainable or that their conclusions are necessarily reliable. It is possible they might, some day, discover new evidence that will allow them to produce reliable conclusions but I really don't think that is possible given the evidence currently available.