Plebe

From the Infidels Library
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html</a>
.."The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world. Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is -- what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world."

Marduk

If the Preacher at the root of the Jesus legend was a small time cult figure, I wouldn't be surprised at all that no one outside the cult ever heard of him till the movement took off in the late 1st or Early 2nd cent.

Radorth

LOL!!! My day is made already.

Yeah I bet there are a few things missing. How about H.G. Wells on "The Teaching of Jesus." Has he been censored?

Rad

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

lpetrich

That HJ obscurity is actually very reasonable; the Gospel writers would then have exaggerated his fame.

But even the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels clearly contain a lot of fiction, such as the account of JC's trial and execution.

Pontius Pilate is portrayed as weak-willed and whimpering, contrary to the way that Philo and Josephus picture him -- as being ruthless and crooked.

It's like someone picturing Ariel Sharon as someone who wanted to cooperate with Yasir Arafat, but who was pushed into besieging Arafat by President Bush.

Pontius Pilate and Ariel Sharon -- what an interesting comparison.

PP is pictured as bowing to the will of a lynch mob -- one who says that "his blood is upon us and on our children." Meaning that they consider JC's execution a black mark on their record -- which is very atypical behavior of lynch mobs. One would expect something like an unrepentant "Death to Jesus!!!"

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Radorth

I guess if you define people who never read the NT themselves as "authentic Christian disciples," you might have a point.

Criminy. Using your loosy-goosy dictionary, Stalin, Mao and all their henchmen leading "authentic atheists" oppressed and murdered more people in 6 months than Hitler did in his lifetime.

But lets not go there. It's Saturday, and we have lawns to mow.

Rad

Vorkosigan

&gt;yawn&lt; Stalin et al murdered because they were Communists, a authoritarian belief system much like Christianity in social structure and outlook, and of course, in murderous results. Atheism had nothing to do with it; Mao and Stalin also murdered non-Communist atheists.

Perhaps you should tone it down, eh? Your increasingly shrill tone is beginning to slide into comedy.

joedad

I personally see the gospels as fiction, period. And not unlike Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, or thousands of other works. The addition of wizards like a Gandalf or a Jesus only amplify a work's fictional character.

Two thousand years later, to me anyway, the gospels represent a curious historical artifact as well, a kind of social document, but to accord them literal historical status is a bit much imho. Really! What am I missing?

But getting back to Steinbeck, are we to suppose that two-thousand years hence, as we again read The Grapes of Wrath, that at the end of a tortuous family migration, a young grieving mother actually suckled a starving man in the remnants of a flooding migrant camp somewhere in another promised land? Can we ever discover this "historical" Rose of Sharon?

The scene is hyperbole, and as for an historical Rose of Sharon, there are probably tens of thousands at least.

And the Jesus character is no different. It's simply a very popular religious story.

How's that for understatement?

joe

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

bleubird

Phantasmagorical.Have not seen that word used in a long time.(GR phantasma)ghost,spector.
a magic lantern.
A good image.
Born as a roman catholic,and , as it was , educated well by the same.Came to the only logical end. Natural history is the best way .
To the point. Paul does not talk about the physical jesus.Why is this?

Kosh

Mow away, sod farmer! This boy is 100% xeriscaped. Just doing my altruistic athiest part for the general good of society.

Plebe

Me too, Kosh, here's some Jewish perspective on historicity of Jesus
<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm" target="_blank">http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm</a> Jesus and the Jewish Resistance

<a href="http://www.christianism.com/additions/3.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianism.com/additions/3.html</a> From a German Jew