show_no_mercy

The existence or non-existence of Moses or David has no affect on Judaism. That's probably because Judaism is more about doing the correct thing and not simply about believing the correct thing. If Christianity were made up of all Gnostic Christians, then the existence or non-existence of Jesus would probably be open to more debate. Most likely because Gnosticism is all about the teachings, not about the physical resurrection of Jesus. The teachings stand alone and don't necessarily depend on the teacher.

And dog-on is right. There's no way a scholar of Christianity could propose the non-existence of Jesus and keep his job. That's why the mythicism debate will never be acknowledged by any whose job depends on the existence of the historical Jesus.

mountainman

The scope must not stop with Constantine since it is obvious that this emperor was the first to herald in the revolution which was to become modern canonical Christianity. The period needs to be stretched until the 5th century in order to afford perspective on the nature of this revolution, and its relationship with the Arian controversy and other schisms. The Canon published in the Constantine Bibles was not ultimately accepted. Evidence for the Closure of the Canon cannot be found before the death of Emperor Julian, and in the form of the Mr. Orthodox Athanasius. There is the matter of Julian and the question of why he legislated that the christians were to be legally henceforth called Galilaeans. There are the matters of Cyril of Alexandria to be researched, notably how easy it was for a Doctor of the tax exempt Christian Church, murderer, thug, terrorist boss and literary censor, to get rid of evidence via anathema. (eg: Nestorius and Julian)


Most likely, the authors of the books of the gnostic gospels and acts had before them the books of the NT Canon. These gnostic and heretics took bits of pieces from here and there, and adding their own embellishments fleshed out a great deal of detail about the "Travels of the Apostles".

Therefore the gnostics and heretics must have written AFTER whatever date you people come up with concerning the authorship of the NT Canon. My suggestion is not to worry about authorship yet, but to ask the simple question .... when was the NT widely published to the populace.

I think that the evidence and the logic of the matter is that the Gnostic heretics were those authors who wrote their material at the time when the NT Canon was raised to the sight of all eyes and minds in the Graeco-Roman world, and that time was not before Nicaea.



And we should never overlook the obvious.

DCHindley

Perhaps one could turn it around;

If you think Jesus ruined your life and the life of those with whom you associated, through his believers who exerted unwanted influence upon you, preventing you all from doing/thinking what you thought right or natural (not that there is anything wrong with that), it would be better for everyone had Jesus not existed.

Unfortunately for those who think that way, that sentiment does not make Jesus magically disappear.

DCH (taking his union mandated 15 minute break, boss)

bacht

Thanks Pete. I'll give you credit for consistency, and you certainly know more about the period than I do. But the simpler explanation still works for me, namely that the Pauline material and the four canonical gospels were in circulation by the end of the 2nd C. The Jewish revolts of 115 and 132 seem logical triggers for the development of pseudo-Judaic Christianity.

By Constantine's time who cared about the Jews? There had already been the 'heretical' emperor Elagabalus and the hapless Valerian, and the empire was in trouble.

Zaphod

I think that if it came out that Jesus did not actually exist it would be devastating to most believers, who have trouble enough keeping the faith as it is. They really do believe in an interventionist god who "died for their sins" (whatever that means?!).

gupwalla

Just to steer back to the OP....

The Jesus we have documentation for is mythical. He may or may not have a historical core, but that core has been shrouded in myth for too many centuries to undo.

So no, it would not be the end of my world if it were conclusively proved he did not exist. It would also not be the end of my world if it were conclusively proved that a Jewish lay-rabbi named Jesus did exist and did resemble the Jesus of the gospels on a number of important points. That is because such a Jesus would be, at most, some kind of sage figure with enough charisma to build a small but incredibly loyal following.

It would definitely be the end of my world if Jesus did descend from the clouds, point at me, and say that I had been measured, measured again, judged, and found lacking. I think that would pretty much spell doom for me. But, I'm not holding my breath.

TedM

I would be sad for all of the Christians who will lose their comfort and hope.

I would be happy for all of the Christians who find new liberty and happiness.

I would be sad for myself because there is still a part of me that wants to believe it is all true, even though I don't. That part will have to die.

I would be happy for myself because my rational thought will be validated regarding the truth of Christianity (assuming the mythical Jesus version is rejected).

I would be sad for the entire world because because fewer people would have motivation to practice loving people that are hard for them to love.

I would be happy for the entire world because fewer people would have motivation to harshly judge others who don't adhere to their beliefs.

Net affect? a world more selfish, yet more tolerant

Joan of Bark

As Clive points out, there is plenty to study even without an HJ, so scholars and even theologians would still have a job.

Pastors, ministers, priests, et al would be in trouble, unless they adopted a gnostic stance.

spamandham

They would have to believe the evidence. For those on the fence, it would probably push them over....but those people are already waffling and so it would not be devastating. For the rest, I think most would embrace denial - and the same apologists who bring you creationism would be working overtime to provide rationale for denial.

If you think about it, the existence of Jesus as believers view him has already been disproved - and yet Christianity rocks on in full force denying reality and embracing the miraculous in spite of a large body of evidence that miracles don't happen and are in fact impossible not on nomologically, but even philosophically.

Doug Shaver

I presume you're aware that religious belief systems are not the only ones that incorporate some version of "Love thy neighbor" in their ethical components.

I don't believe that any Christian who actually does care about his neighbor does so merely because it just happens to be one of the commandments he has been told to comply with. I don't know of any relevant surveys of formerly religious people, but all the ones I've known lost their religion because some other belief system replaced it. A genuinely loving Christian, it seems to me, is not likely to replace his Christianity with a belief system that condones indifference to his fellow humans.