Family Man

No, this is not intended as a Jesus Myth thread (I'm actually agnostic on the issue). For purposes of this thread, I ask that people assume the correctness of the HJ position and that, in particular, the following list from Bede is an accurate listing of what we can know about Jesus:

This list alone, I suggest, punches a couple of holes into the belief that Jesus was anything more than your average holy man. First, consider the paucity of what is "known". Make a mental list of what is known about other important historical figures comtemporaneous to Jesus. Nearly all of them would dwarf the rather pathetic list attributed to the historical Jesus, even if I concede that the list provided is incomplete. I suspect Pilate's list would be longer. And yet, it is not unusual to hear Christians talk about how the facts of Jesus's life is as well grounded as any other historical figure (and no, AFAIK, Bede is not one of those). That's just a silly claim.

But more importantly, the above list does not even hint at the historical significance of the man. Imagine a list of known facts of any other significant historical figure. Perusing it, you'd should be able to accurately state the importance of that person's life. Looking at the list for Jesus, you'd never guess this guy is supposed to be the savior of all mankind. He comes across as a two-bit holy man, and that's probably what he was. The best Bede can do is that he had "a reputation as a miracle worker", which puts him in approximately the same company as John Edwards and Madame Cleo. The obvious conclusion from the list provided is that Jesus as God -- or the Christ -- was a completely post-death phenomenom. Nothing from his known life supports it.

Also note what is also missing from this list. Nearly everything cited by Christians as evidence of Jesus's divinity. As Bede notes, the birth narratives are obvious fabrications. E.P. Sanders curtly dismissed the walking on water story as a later invention. The miracle of the feeding of the crowd or the raising of the dead gets nary a mention. All of this suggests that Jesus was just a guy, and no more.

And then we come to the resurrection. No one suggests it's a historical fact. Raymond Brown states, in fact, that it isn't and is a matter of faith. Sanders tiptoes around it, saying that the early Christians had a resurrection experience, though he wasn't going to say what it was (which suggests it wasn't real, but Sanders can't risk saying that). And Bede, incredibly, claims that it is a story that is overlaid over events (as if, if true, makes it any less of a story).

The fact is, to be consistent, the HJ proponent would have to say the resurrection is as much of a fabrication as the birth narratives. The resurrection is just as supernatural and unbelievable as the other stories outlined above, so why the inconsistency? The reason they don't is probably due to their own beliefs (the resurrection being the one belief a Christian must hold) and the pressure of religious political correctness (how dare you question the basis of my faith).

In short, the study of the HJ leads inevitably to the conclusion that Christianity is wrong. Jesus did not die for our sins; he died because he stupidly ticked off the authorities. And that is the long and the short of it.

[Edited for typos]

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Sasquatch75

What I found to be interesting in your argument Family Man was the complete lack of what Jesus says throughout the NT. You use the NT as a history source saying that this is what we know about the HJ, but you completely overlook the claims that the HJ made. He claimed to be the Messiah, and he claimed to be God. How do you deal with that? Will you concede the historical particulars about Jesus, but deny the content of his claims and teachings? If you allow both then you're stuck in a problamatic situation. Either what Jesus claimed was true or it wasn't.

Ron Garrett

Sas:

You're being a bit myopic and naive here aren't you? You're assuming the gospels are actually biographical and actually record entire Jesus speeches without addition, subtraction and outright creation and false attribution?

Inventing teachings and attributing them to great men, great women, gods, angels, etc. has a long and accepted tradition in region as I am sure you must be aware. Consider all the now rejected gospels and apochrypha written with supposed Jesus speeches, Mary speeches, Paul speeches, Peter speeches, etc. that most of the modern church rejects, but which were in wide circulation and widely accepted as authentic through the first several centuries of the church. The canonical gospels themselves were not signed by the authors and we have only tradition and supposition about the actual authors and their access to eyewitnesses, etc. Certainly nothing in the middle eastern religious tradition would give us cause to assume they were writing biography instead of theological and political tracts as common in the times.

I suspect the points you brought up are post mortem concoctions by the cult, not actual public claims for which he'd have likely died on the spot.

OOOPS! Sorry. I just looked at your profile and realized you just got here. If you're like most Christians you have no awareness of anything I just brought up. I certainly had little awareness of how the canon was formed before going off to seminary. You might want to peruse the library resources on this site. On the other hand, if you're [edited] and happy in your faith, leave now. Once you know the facts you can't unlearn them, and thereafter it's impossible to pretend your religion is anything other than pure invention which you were a complete dunderhead to accept in the first place.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]

[Edited for inappropriate content - Maverick]

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Maverick ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Isn't true that history is filled with examples of false claims and faulty revisions?

Family Man

Ron and Reasonable have already touched upon this, but since it's my thread I have a few points to make.

The HJ scholars (that I'm familiar with) reject the divinity claims as originating with Jesus. As Bede pointed out, the NT was not written as history; what history we can get out of it is a byproduct of the work. It doesn't follow that, because the NT claims that Jesus says he was God that he really made those claims.

I amazes me that so many Christians latch on to the idea that a historical Jesus validates their beliefs. The list that Bede serves up is such thin gruel that it actually works against the notion of Jesus as God.

One of the last sane

This thread puts me in mind of a particularly nauseating conversation I had once with a Xian:

Xian: There is more evidence that Jesus Christ existed than that Julius Caesar existed!
Me: Uh, no, there are sculptures of Caesar done while he was alive, and I've read a book he wrote [De Bello Gallico].
Xian: I've met Jesus.
Me: Uh...yeah, right.

Lame-ass response, I know. But when someone flips straight from a factual conversation to their own inbuilt fantasyland....

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: One of last of the sane ]</p>

Kosh

Me: Really? What does he like for breakfast?

Family Man

We used to get a lot of this type of nonsense on this board, which is what inspired me to research the HJ in the first place. I'm actually quite pleased the thesis of this thread has yet to be seriously challenged along the lines of your Christian friend. I think we're making progress.

not a theist

You mean the sayings that the authors of the gospels ascribe to Jesus?
That's because he's not using the NT in an uncritical manner when he uses it in attempt to recover the historical Jesus. HJ research isn't as simple as just reading the gospels and accepting them at face value as history. They are sources which have to be evaluated first and then sifted for actual historical information. This is not a simple or a straightforward task.
How do you know this? Would you care to demonstrate why we should take any of these supposed claims that he was God as having historical reliability? I would very much like to see this.
Probably by just attributing such claims to the early Christian community or by simply denying that he was correct. Which specific claims are you referring to?
I don't think that he has conceded the particulars which you mention. The closest that he comes is in quoting the list derived from Bede which includes "...the content of some of that teaching as discussed by Crossan and the Jesus Seminar". This is far from granting the things that you mention.
He hasn't granted both. He's given a very limited list.
But so what if he did grant that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. Big deal. That really doesn't imply much unless you're trying to turn this into the Trilemma. You're not doing that, are you?

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Sasquatch75

If the authors did doctor the writings of the gospels why did they leave the disciples looking like such idiots? If the disciples did embelish what they said about Christ to the eventual authors of the gospels why then didn't they also embelish about their own lives? How would you want to be remembered throughout the stories of history: as a near perfect disciple of the perfect teacher, or as a boneheaded jackass who was constantly spiritually backhanded by your teacher? And what would be the purpose of doctoring all of these details about Jesus when it only killed them in the end? Why wouldn't they deny it if they didn't believe it to be true?
On another note could you please direct me to where I might find Bede's writing on this subject?