Jobar

Was there a single man at the center of the stories of Jesus, like a real grain of sand at the center of a pearl of myth? Or was Christ never more than a fictitious character a la Paul Bunyan, built upon by many preachers and writers in the period from 100 BC to 100 AD?

Of course we don't have adequate evidence for certainty either way; hence the third option, which I'm sure will receive the majority of votes. But I'm asking for *opinions* here; and if you wish to comment on reasons for your opinion, please do.

IMO, Jesus is entirely myth, and though it's possible that many of the sayings and parables came from only a small handful of individuals, no single person was the historical template for the Jesus of the Gospels, or of Paul. My opinion rests on the fact that Jesus follows precisely the pattern of myth formation seen throughout history- early tales are nebulous and imprecise (Paul implied that Christ was unknown to the world) and details about the man Jesus emerged only as the legend grew. The differing genealogies are particularly damning, as they indicate that different groups of Christians developed their own Christologies with no common source (i.e. a real human Jesus.)

As a 14-year-old boy, reading the Bible for the first time, I was struck by the disagreements among the Gospels, and even more by the Christ described in the letters of Paul, which seemed vastly different from the Christ of the Gospels. When I read the works of Wells, many years later, it was like a great light dawning; the internal errors of the NT were explained so neatly that for a while I went around trying to explain it to various Christians. Need I say that none wanted to listen?

added- I realized I left out an option for the resident literalists (if any.) Salieri & co., if you want to note your belief in the whole nine yards, go ahead- but I don't want this to become yet another pulpit for your beliefs, so let's avoid such arguments in this thread. Start your own if you wish. J.

Heurismus

I have witheld my opinion as I still think that there is insufficient data.

Intelligitimate

The Jesus of the Gospels is certainly a myth. Whether or not there was a historical founder of Christianity is another matter, and that is impossible to say, in my opinion.

norma98026

According to Josephus and other nonbiblical historians, Jesus lived at the time the Bible states, during the reign of King Herod. According to their own claims, the writers of the Gospels in the New Testament, men who walked and talked with Jesus, wrote within 20-80 years of his life, less than the time it takes for myth to form. Simon Greenleaf, a professor at Harvard Law School who examined their testimony as legal witnesses, found no reason to doubt them.

Do you think it's possible to recount things in our lives that we saw happen 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 years ago? Why doubt the primary sources of info about Jesus? Could it be that his claims are so radical, require so much of us, and are so divisive? He wasn't politically correct, that's for sure.

IMHO, we have more than adequate evidence for certainty that Jesus lived. Else, why would people still be debating the issue after nearly 2000 years?

Norma

Sheshbazzar

I hope.

NoStrings

Norma offers: "IMHO, we have more than adequate evidence for certainty that Jesus lived. Else, why would people still be debating the issue after nearly 2000 years?"

I believe that Jesus did, in fact, exist, but he was nothing more than a well recorded activist in a time of massive oppression and occupation my the Romans. I believe his basic message was one of benevolence and based on basic humanistic rights and values but over the centuries, this message has become corrupt with outside opinions, translation errors and downright errors. While you stop short of calling his story "myth" I do believe he was a legend in his own time and this legend spread quickly, collecting all sorts of embellishments as the stories were written in numerous languages. We have no way whatsoever to verify anything that is written in scripture so to me, it is an epic waste of time to live your life worrying about what a book says.
I live my own spiritual life filled with goodness, kindness, humanistic and ethical values and as much tolerance as I can muster. I try to do all of this without ever consulting some book or some clergyman and I manage just fine.

HeavyMetalBard

What about the scholars who contend that the Josephus's account of Jesus was planted by later Christians? Plenty of credible people hold to that view. The "if indeed one ought to call him a man" part is pretty circumspect.

Because they say that people rose from the dead, for starters? Miraculous claims require miraculous evidence. Just because some ancient, unknown author said things about Jesus doesn't make them true.

Toto

The mention of Jesus in Josephus is clearly forged. Philo does not mention him. Other historians from that time do not mention him. No source written before 70 CE mentions him.

Like many other believers, you have not read your Bible. The writers of the gospels do not even claim to have walked and talked with Jesus, and we don't even know their names.

Because they are not primary sources. And most of the people who do believe that he existed show no inclination to take his "radical" claims seriously in their own lives, e.g., GW Bush.

This is a complete non-sequitur. If there were adequate evidence, there would be no debate.

Diogenes the Cynic

That would be a good trick since Herod died in 4 BCE. The Josephus passage is largely believed to be a forgery and it doesn't say anything about Herod.
None of the Gospels were written by anyone who ever knew Jesus. None of them were written before 70 CE. There are no extant eyewitness accounts of Jesus whatsoever.
A law professor? What are his credentials as a historian? A linguist? A Bible scholar? What does he even mean by "reason to doubt?" Is he aware that these books were not written by witnesses?
There are no primary sources.
Yeah, that must be it. .
What relevance does that statement have to the topic? What does it even mean?
This sentence makes no sense. If there were any decent evidence there'd be no debate.

DBT

I've always assumed,perhaps wrongly,that there was a Carismatic historical figure,Yeshua ben yoseph, on which the gospels are based, and that the oral tradition was gradually embalished to the point at which they were written-around 70CE.