bwcourtn

That's pure specualtion, and absurd speculation at that. I think it is retarded to even deny that Jesus, whether or not he was the messiah, existed and was crucified for exciting political upheaval. christianity would have placed the event outside of history if it didn't have at least some historical basis. I believe many of you are frightened that he may indeed have existed, or you wouldn't be making ill founded assertions that are not attested to in history. i'm no ancient christianity scholar, but didn't even the gnostics believe that jesus was a "phantasm" that existed within human history? Anyway, I'm not trying to change your bias's, because you've made up your minds and they can't be changed. On another note, read this:

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_16.html

Rick Sumner

Either/or. It could also be real--Jesus really suffered, and some people thought that made him the Messiah because they expected the Messiah to suffer.

If there was an historical Jesus, it is incredibly unlikely that he had nothing in common with any Messianic expectation--if nobody would have expected a Messiah to match his profile, then nobody would have thought he was the Messiah.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Chili

To attach the myth to history, and don't forget here that the myth is about metamorphosis only, is to have humans of all persuasions look in all directions for the evidence from here to eternity and that is exactly why the mythology would prosper like it did.

The idea that Jesus' metamorphosis is done on our behalf is just some 'heart warming' bullshit.

Vorkosigan

You are apparently unfamiliar with the arguments. And you are certainly unfamiliar with the personal intellectual journeys of the posters here. So why the accusations of retardation, fear, and bias?

bwcourtn

you have totally taken what i said out of context. the point isn't about attaching myth to history (that is another issue in itself). i'm not exactly a christian sympathizer, so please don't draw them conclusions. i'm merely saying that the "myth" has a historical basis, and one could argue that jesus did indeed see himself as the suffering messiah because isa. 53 was interpreted as having messianic overtones by ancient jews. i find it interesting that origen says that Josephus DID NOT believe jesus was the christ...........this is strong evidence about the historicity of Jesus because his "antiquity of the jews" passage about jesus was obviously not completely made up..........it was corrupted by later christians (most likely Eusebius). How you read into my post that "metamorphosis was done on our behalf" eludes me. My gnostic reference was simply to point to the fact that gnosticism taught that jesus lived within history and people did recognize him as a human, though he was actually a phantasm........this isn't my theology, it's their's. it does imply that he existed in history, and gnosticism was a problem for the very very early church.

bwcourtn

yes, i've seen the arguments against the historicity of christ, and i don't find them very strong. see my above post.

Sensei Meela

How do we know, and how can we be so sure? [Really. I'm curious]

Strange. Is that why you think the Gospels record the disciples as being in total shock and rejecting it when Jesus told them he'd be crucified?

As for the rest of your posts...There are some here who could disabuse you of certain of these notions. The last line in paticular is incredibly insulting, as is the accusation that some of us are "frightened" by the HJ idea.

If you hope to have productive discussions and a pleasant stay here, you're going to have to adopt a new tact. ANd, btw, welcome; please "mind the hounds."

Vorkosigan

It certainly outlines a very conventional view of Jesus, but it doesn't answer my question. Why the accusations of retardation, fear, and bias?

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

Because it says so explicitly.

Diogenes the Cynic

For the record, I tenuously favor the existence of HJ. I'm not as sure as I once was but I would still give it a "pink bead" I think.