southernhybrid

I think it is likely that there was a historical Jesus, although I am well aware that the gospels were not recorded in writing until decades after his death. It was not unusual for the Jews of those times to carefully memorize and communicate oral teachings. I think it's very possible that the teachings of Jesus were kept alive in this way. The fact that such a person existed does not equate with him having any supernatural powers.

I also think it's likely that the historical Jesus was a very religious Jew, a visionary and revolutionary individual that wanted to change social laws that oppressed the most powerless in his society. He was likely a hero to the underclass, nothing more and nothing less.

Although I tend to believe that this person did exist, it's not very important to me one way or the other, and I doubt this type of argument would ever convince Xians to give a more critical look at their beliefs. It seems a waste of energy to try and disprove the existence of the historical Jesus when there are so many other ways to deconstruct the Xian myths.

Jobar

Welcome to Infidels, jswayze.

There have been lots of discussions on the historicity of Jesus on the Biblical Criticism forum- here's a recent one, which I started. The poll results show that most of those who voted feel that there is insufficient information to determine if there was some historical seed character which grew to be the Christ worshipped by so many today. However, there are many who feel that the pattern of the tales about Christ indicates a completely mythological Jesus. I suggest the works of G.A. Wells, if you want to dig into this subject deeply.

Stephen T-B

I don't see that it matters much if Jesus was real or imagined: what cannot be denied is that something gave rise to Christianity and while I think Paul is a key figure, I'd be astonished if he simply made the whole thing up.
I find it reasonable to to think that there was an oral tradition relating to a radical preacher who belonged to a movement, or may even have led it, which was reconstructing the Jewish god.
This would not have been well received by the Establishment, and one would expect attempts were made to stamp it out.
The "resurrection" story could, therefore, have an allegorical basis, and the reason I think so is because the message taught by the "Jesus" character (whether real or composite) might easily have been supressed, but was then revived, or "resurrected" by a surviving cell.

badger3k

I posted this to another thread, but there is information from Franz Cumont, on a character who went by the Bab. Apparently the story grew from history to miracle tales within a short span of time. The original information and links can be found here. Such instances can show how things like that could have happened, although not necessarily that they did happen. Personally, I doubt we will ever know for certain whether there was some core figure that started the myths.

jswayze

I am very appreciative of all the responses posted. This is my first posting in such a venue so I didn't know what to expect. One thing that's amply clear is that I have not done well in expressing the point I wished to make, so I will take one last stab at it before acquiescing.

I'm reminded of Aristotle who, at a similar point in his religious history, that is, being well over a thousand years removed from the source, once commented, "I am beginning to question whether or not Orpheus ever truly lived." We seem to have reached the same stage with our Christianity religion.

When I speak of the historical Jesus, I mean to refer to the Biblical Jesus. There is no point in considering the possibility of existence of some minor reformist unable to make a blink on history's screen. The point is that the Jesus as presented in the Bible was purely mythological in character.

And the importance of this, and consequences thereof, seem straight forward. If a Christian believes Jesus really lived and breathed, performed the miracles and spoke the words, then he the Christian is justified in his elitism and his separatism. This, for instance, is how President Bush appears to feel.

However, if the same Christian can be made to feel doubts as to the realism of his Biblical Jesus, then he won't feel quite so elite, so separate, so powerful. Maybe a hint of henotheism will make a dent into this wretched monotheism. We should not expect miracles, of course, but I do think steady and increasing pressure will move the machine of Christianity, if ever so slowly.

I said there is not a scrap of evidence in support of a historical Jesus, and perhaps I should have said a scrap of authentic evidence. All the doctored documents of Josephus, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, etc. have been discredited and their discredit acknowledged by the RCC, the Jesus Seminar, Paul Tillich, and so on. The bane of Christendom has been the inability to produce one verifiable document of any nature from the, for instance, copious records of Herrod or Pontius Pilate (the Romans kept good records!) or the many letters sent home by the Roman soldiers. And there never will be because the Biblical Jesus, like Orpheus, was mythological. I think too many of you have doubts about that statement, and it's time to have more confidence in stating it flatly.

Of interest, the poll conducted by Jobar was enlightening, and seems to verify the results of the Gallup poll which brought me to the site in the first place.

Stephen T-B

I think you are optimistic in expecting the Christian machine to be moved on.

Other threads have looked at irrational beliefs, and the general conclusion is that a degree of irrationality is involved in all religious beliefs. In fact, it could be argued that the reverse is true: that all religious beliefs require something irrational to be believed.
If people can believe a virgin gave birth to a man/god hybrid, it's because they want to, not because it's sensible.
Strip Christianity of its irrationality and the vast bulk of Christians will have no option but to become Mormons, Molsems, Hindus, anamists, Zoroastrians or what have you. And you can be sure, there'd be little change in their behaviour.

Hopeful Monsters

Yes - fair point and I see what you are saying.

But Christians can live on the uncertainty that millennia provide them and to many of them, The Bible IS a historical document and they are amazed at people who don't see it that way.

(But if characters in The Hobbit are witnesses to the existence of Bilbo Baggins, that does not mean Bilbo Baggins is real, it just means that a fictional character and fictional events are witnessed by fictional people who are merely part of the same whole act of fantasy and imagination!!)

Welcome anyhoo

Cynthia of Syracuse

Off to BC&H.

Boro Nut

Not true, and you're missing the point. Both Santa and/or St. Nicholas could just as well be real. Believing in the existence of an hitherto alleged person hardly requires a stretch of the imagination. I'm quite prepared to believe in Santa. Santa is not the problem. Elves is where it gets a bit iffy.

Boro Nut

ekl

I think the basis for the original confusion might have been over the term "believe" and what that means. Eg. for some people, to 'believe in Jesus' means to believe that Jesus is the messiah, son of god, all that stuff - the Christian dogma Jesus. But the phrase can also mean believing that Jesus, an historical figure in whatever way, did in fact exist. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that so many people 'believe' in Jesus while not being Christian.