Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tammuz · 01-07-2007, 12:56 AM

If Jesus was mythical, then I wonder how there could be so many sects and documents around him. I mean, there were Gnostic sects, there were Ebionites (and early sect) and so on. And we have the canonical Gospels, as well as the various apocryphal ones, and all of them are written (historically speaking) quite shortly are the events they supposedly describe. So isn't it more reasonable to postulate that there actually was some real person (probably very charismatic) behind the whole thing, who triggered it all, and that various sects grew up around this man?

Toto · 01-07-2007, 01:01 AM

Turn it around. If Jesus were historical, how could so many different sects arise with such different ideas about him so soon after he lived?

The Evil One · 01-07-2007, 01:06 AM

Human beings can never agree about anything. Uniformity of opinion can only be enforced by a powerful authority; in the absence of a powerful authority you will get a wide range of differences. So fragmentation in the early church would be expected regardless of whether Jesus lived or not, simply on the basis that people just don't agree with one another.

S.C.Carlson · 01-07-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

So fragmentation in the early church would be expected regardless of whether Jesus lived or not, simply on the basis that people just don't agree with one another.

I can agree with that.

Malachi151 · 01-07-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

If Jesus was mythical, then I wonder how there could be so many sects and documents around him. I mean, there were Gnostic sects, there were Ebionites (and early sect) and so on. And we have the canonical Gospels, as well as the various apocryphal ones, and all of them are written (historically speaking) quite shortly are the events they supposedly describe. So isn't it more reasonable to postulate that there actually was some real person (probably very charismatic) behind the whole thing, who triggered it all, and that various sects grew up around this man?

See:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#13

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#14

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#15

The real question is, if Jesus really existed then why did certain sects of Christians spend so much effort defending his existence?

Quote:

If any one says that the body of Christ is uncreated, and refuses to acknowledge that He, being the uncreated Word of God, took the flesh of created humanity and appeared incarnate, even as it is written, let him be anathema.

Explication:

How could the body be said to be uncreated? For the uncreated is the passionless, invulnerable, intangible. But Christ, on rising from the dead, showed His disciples the print of the nails and the wound made by the spear, and a body that could be handled, although He also had entered among them when the doors were shut, with the view of showing them at once the energy of the divinity and the reality of the body.

Yet, while being God, He was recognized as man in a natural manner; and while subsisting truly as man, He was also manifested as God by His works.

...

If any one affirms that Christ, just like one of the prophets, assumed the perfect man, and refuses to acknowledge that, being begotten in the flesh of the Virgin, He became man and was born in Bethlehem, and was brought up in Nazareth, and advanced in age, and on completing the set number of years (appeared in public and) was baptized in the Jordan, and received this testimony from the Father, "This is my beloved Son," even as it is written, let him be anathema.

Explication:

How could it be said that Christ (the Lord) assumed the perfect man just like one of the prophets, when He, being the Lord Himself, became man by the incarnation effected through the Virgin? Wherefore it is written, that "the first man was of the earth, earthy." But whereas he that was formed of the earth returned to the earth, He that became the second man returned to heaven. And so we read of the "first Adam and the last Adam." And as it is admitted that the second came by the first according to the flesh, for which reason also Christ is called man and the Son of man; so is the witness given that the second is the Savior of the first, for whose sake He came down from heaven. And as the Word came down from heaven, and was made man, and ascended again to heaven, He is on that account said to be the second Adam from heaven.

...

If any one affirms that Christ assumed the man only in part, and refuses to acknowledge that He was made in all things like us, apart from sin, let him be anathema.

Explication:

How could one say that Christ assumed the man only in part, when the Lord Himself says, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again, for the sheep; " and, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; " and, "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life? "
- Twelve Topics on the Faith; Gregory Thaumaturgus, 3rd century

ughaibu · 01-07-2007, 09:02 AM

If Jesus was historical and the gospels in the new testament are to be believed, he was the charismatic head of a doomsday cult. Think about how trivial the doomsday concept is, think about the press Jesus would get if he promulgated such stuff these days. . . . who cares whether or not he was historical.

neilgodfrey · 01-07-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

If Jesus was mythical, then I wonder how there could be so many sects and documents around him. I mean, there were Gnostic sects, there were Ebionites (and early sect) and so on. And we have the canonical Gospels, as well as the various apocryphal ones, and all of them are written (historically speaking) quite shortly are the events they supposedly describe. So isn't it more reasonable to postulate that there actually was some real person (probably very charismatic) behind the whole thing, who triggered it all, and that various sects grew up around this man?

One sees a range of philosophical schools branching off from Plato and Aristotle. But what we see with the earliest Christian lit is something quite different. The earliest debates centre around the origin and nature of Jesus -- How many heavens did he have to descend through in various disguises before he hit earth (still in disguise)? Was he a spirit in the form of a man or was he half man or somehow all spirit and all man? How do we account for his lack of recognition at the time despite his walking on water and being raised from the dead? Did he have a human father or not? Was the Jesus body just a temporary possession by a divine agency and did he die on the cross or was it a substitute who died? And modern dissections of the evidence cannot agree on whether he even was a teacher (without any agreement on what he was supposed to have taught) -- or a miracle worker -- or a political revolutionary. Add to this mix the fact that the earliest orthodox gospel can find nothing to say about him that arguably goes beyond direct borrowing from other sources such as OT writings. And the fact that the canonical gospels are clearly NOT attempts to persuade a reader of the historicity of Jesus (they are theological treatises calling on faith alone) -- they do not identify authors or sources or explain why they vary in their accounts (i.e. the sorts of information we find in other ancient historians who are seeking credibility for their histories). Some accounts insisted that the disciples only recognized his significance and learned and understood his teachings after his resurrection -- others that they learned it all before his death.

That it is these sorts of debates that constitute the earliest evidence for Jesus suggests to me that we are dealing with anything but a real historical founding teacher of the likes of an Aristotle or Plato.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Tammuz · 01-07-2007, 01:42 PM

Thank you. The Rational Revolution links were really helpful.

But the idea that Jesus was a physical person much have appeared very early, considering the dates when the Gospels were authored. And they all (at least the canonical ones) place Jesus in the same historical setting. Of course, there is nothing that says that Christianity (or what would become Christianity) did not start earlier than the traditionally supposed lifetime of Jesus, but there was obviously a common tradition saying in which period (i.e Herod and Pilate) the physical Jesus lived.

I understand that this can be viewed as that a godman who originally existed only in a spiritual world was later inserted as an actual physical person (though still divine), but what says that the reverse didn't happen? I.e that a physical person lived, but was then seen by some groups as only existing in a spiritual world. According to Rational Revolution, there were only the Marconians who believed that Jesus wasn't physical at all. The other sects listed had different beliefs about his nature, but they agreed on that he was (or appeared to be) physical in some way. Though I have to leave out the Nestorians here, as we aren't told whether they believed that Jesus appeared physically in some way, only that they believed that Jesus and Christ were different entities.

GakuseiDon · 01-07-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

See:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#13

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#14

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#15

The real question is, if Jesus really existed then why did certain sects of Christians spend so much effort defending his existence?

Were they defending his existence, or his nature? I'm not aware of anyone, Christian or pagan, who claimed that Jesus never existed until the last few centuries.

Malachi151 · 01-07-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Were they defending his existence, or his nature? I'm not aware of anyone, Christian or pagan, who claimed that Jesus never existed until the last few centuries.

This is tricky and not clear.

First of all, all of the arguments about his nature were engaged in by people who were believers in Jesus, so none of these people would have argued that he didn't exist.

Those on the outside of the Jesus movement didn't really take notice of it and start to engage in criticism of it until the 2nd century, and by that time they just addressed the issue in the manner it which it was framed. Christians claimed he existed, in some fashion, and the other people had no reason to contradict it, they had never heard of him before until their engagement with people who claimed that he existed. This was also at a time when Adonis, Hercules, etc., were all treated as real as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2007, 12:56 AM	#1
Tammuz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,525	Do sects and documents indicate that Jesus was historical? If Jesus was mythical, then I wonder how there could be so many sects and documents around him. I mean, there were Gnostic sects, there were Ebionites (and early sect) and so on. And we have the canonical Gospels, as well as the various apocryphal ones, and all of them are written (historically speaking) quite shortly are the events they supposedly describe. So isn't it more reasonable to postulate that there actually was some real person (probably very charismatic) behind the whole thing, who triggered it all, and that various sects grew up around this man?

01-07-2007, 01:01 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Turn it around. If Jesus were historical, how could so many different sects arise with such different ideas about him so soon after he lived?

01-07-2007, 01:06 AM	#3
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Human beings can never agree about anything. Uniformity of opinion can only be enforced by a powerful authority; in the absence of a powerful authority you will get a wide range of differences. So fragmentation in the early church would be expected regardless of whether Jesus lived or not, simply on the basis that people just don't agree with one another.

01-07-2007, 09:02 AM	#6
ughaibu Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Japan Posts: 8,492	If Jesus was historical and the gospels in the new testament are to be believed, he was the charismatic head of a doomsday cult. Think about how trivial the doomsday concept is, think about the press Jesus would get if he promulgated such stuff these days. . . . who cares whether or not he was historical.

01-07-2007, 01:42 PM	#8
Tammuz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 5,525	Thank you. The Rational Revolution links were really helpful. But the idea that Jesus was a physical person much have appeared very early, considering the dates when the Gospels were authored. And they all (at least the canonical ones) place Jesus in the same historical setting. Of course, there is nothing that says that Christianity (or what would become Christianity) did not start earlier than the traditionally supposed lifetime of Jesus, but there was obviously a common tradition saying in which period (i.e Herod and Pilate) the physical Jesus lived. I understand that this can be viewed as that a godman who originally existed only in a spiritual world was later inserted as an actual physical person (though still divine), but what says that the reverse didn't happen? I.e that a physical person lived, but was then seen by some groups as only existing in a spiritual world. According to Rational Revolution, there were only the Marconians who believed that Jesus wasn't physical at all. The other sects listed had different beliefs about his nature, but they agreed on that he was (or appeared to be) physical in some way. Though I have to leave out the Nestorians here, as we aren't told whether they believed that Jesus appeared physically in some way, only that they believed that Jesus and Christ were different entities.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.