Doug Shaver

There are many varieties of Christianity. Some of them insist that Jesus was God incarnate, and some do not. Of those Christians who do insist on his divinity, many also say that they are only real Christians, but the rest of us are not obliged to take their word for it.

gurugeorge

Maybe those are just varying degrees of coping with the cognitive dissonance?

I mean, for nigh on 2,000 years, people lived, died, painted beautiful paintings, wrote beautiful music, killed each other, politicked, made money, had spiritual and mystical experiences, on the basis that the Gospels tell the truth about a time when God came to Earth in human form.

What on Earth could Christianity possibly be, if Christ wasn't God incarnate? What was all the fuss and pother about then? All those people who died for it, or killed for it? Are non-God-incarnate believing Christians just basically saying "Oops, sorry, that's not what we meant after all?"

OTOH, if that kind of Christianity was so ridiculous, why associate yourself with it, why not become a good Buddhist or Confucian or whatever? What's gained by connecting oneself with a farce (which is what the God-man type of Christanity that dominated the West for so long is, if he didn't actually exist)?

Apologies, I realise this is drifting into more general religious discussion now. But I think it bears emphasising: as Toto pointed out way back on the first page of this thread, the only scholarly consensus is for some obscure guy who somehow founded a sect that spread like wildfire (even though nobody in the broader world had ever heard of him enough to mention him at the time). Whatever, but if that's the case, and if there's no scholarly consensus at all for the God-man, then Christianity is dead. All those people who went to see Mel Gibson's Passion are being had, just as much as believers in the Da Vinci Code.

Chris Weimer

Many of those sects which Doug mentions are ancient sects, before the paintings, music, etc...

mens_sana

The question involved the existence of Jesus — not of Christ. In the world of secular studies, there is a huge difference between the two and combining them, without maintaining the distinction, is analogous to a Diatessaron. :banghead:

mens_sana

If they have assumed the status quo to be correct (for which you've presented no evidence), and therefore have not looked at the problem, how do you know they would be sympathetic to a MJ position?

mens_sana

Hi, Roland - long time, no see! Can you support that statement without referencing Matthew? Just wondering.
:devil1:

mens_sana

On an academic level, you might find the writings of Jacob Neusner and Geza Vermes relevant.

Zeichman

Not to mention Burton Mack, James Crossley, William Arnal, Paula Fredriksen (I think), etc.

Robert M. Price, as far as I know, is the only degreed NT scholar who believes that the historicity of Jesus is in doubt. And I understand that he identifies himself as an atheistic Christian.

mens_sana

Hi, Zeichman,
RalphyS was asking about non-Xn scholars. Neusner and Vermes are definitely nonXn. I've read Burton Mack and a bit of Fredericksen. While a number of Xns wouldn't consider them (Crossan, also) to be Xn, I believe they consider themselves as such. On a popular level, Bishop John Shelby Spong would fit in that category too. [grin]

Chris Weimer

James Crossley is an agnostic, and I think I remember William Arnal saying he wasn't a Christian. I do not know about Paula Fredriksen or Burton Mack, but they're definitely not mainstream Christian. Bishop Spong, on the other hand, definitely is Christian, though not mainstream, but unmistakably so.