Freethought & Rationalism Archive

christ-on-a-stick · 10-22-2002, 10:06 AM

Let me see if I can try and compose something somehwat cohesive here to articulate my thoughts.

I enjoy browsing the upper forums (BC&A, EoG) and follow with interest threads/comments pertaining to the question of whether Jesus was a historical person or not or one of the various other possibilities (he did exist, but the events recorded in the NT are fully or partially fabricated, or his character as recorded in the NT is a "mish-mash" of different myths/characters, etc. - a multitude of possibilities). I have also read most of the material in the library related to this topic.

My personal opinion is that it is very likely that there was someone who lived during that time period around whom a legend was built in an evolving way in the years after his death; details added and changed, stories made up, quotes attributed etc., with some addition of popular "Mythic Hero" attributes (virgin birth, persecution/execution/rising from the dead etc.). I dobelieve, to paraphrase one historian (not sure who...) that "if there was a historical Jesus, he is lost to us now". Essentially saying that much will never be *known* and can only be speculated upon, guessed at based on extremely scanty evidence.

Further to this point, I have had many Xians ask me how I would feel if there were ever to arise some incontrivertable proof that Jesus actually existed as a historical person and said all the stuff attributed to him, then pop the (remarkably silly) Lord/Liar/Lunatic "trilemma" on me.

In response to this, with the more intelligent ones I have (attempted to!) point out the fallacy of the "trilemma" (so many other options....sigh... amazing how many people don't "get" that). However, with the ones that I knew I would be wasting my breath even going there with, I have responded - honestly - that if those were indeed the only three choices, it does seem to me that *LUNATIC* is the far more likely choice!!! This, unfortunately, has never led to a productive discussion... apparently that "heresy" gets their dander all up.

Anyway, in examining my own reasons for "deconversion" I have found that the whole question of Jesus' historicity has not been a major influence because I am of the persuasion that even if he was 100% "real" in the historical sense, it would only lead me to the conclusion that he was a wacko nutjob intinerant preacher who was charismatic enough to get a small band of followers around him that after he got hisself done executed/murdered by the powers that be, they made up all kindsa crazy stories about him and it kind of spun off from there. The history of the LDS church seems to me a similar example of a person (Joseph Smith) and a small group of followers whose stories and claims are so utterly ridiculous on their face that it seems ludicrous that it could ever "take off" as a religion, but amazingly, only a relatively short number of years later there are hundreds of thousands of people who buy it as the Truth.

I am just wondering how many of you are of similar mind, or on the other hand how many of the "deconverted" were influenced strongly by having once believed in Jesus' historicity and then finding "holes" in that evidence that led them to start questioning other stuff.

Sorry if this is disjointed/badly worded - I'm trying to type it all fast before switching computers!!!

braces_for_impact · 10-22-2002, 10:17 AM

I think it's important to note that even if Jesus's existence was proven without a shadow of a doubt, his divinity would still be in question, so you'd be back at square one. That having been noted. The historical debate and lack of evidence for Jesus as depicted in the bible and most chrisian doctrine was not a large reason for my atheism. I have plenty of other reasons (mostly lack of evidence and logical contradiction) for that. It was however an eye opener as to the supposed superior morals of the religious. I had always accepted a historical Jesus as a given. We are taught of Jesus, regardless of context, as if it's historical fact. It was a reality check for me at how easily some can be dishonest with themselves and others.

sakrilege · 10-22-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick:
<strong>Anyway, in examining my own reasons for "deconversion" I have found that the whole question of Jesus' historicity has not been a major influence...</strong>

Ditto for me.

Gooch's dad · 10-22-2002, 10:55 AM

The Jesus-myth question certainly wasn't any part of my reasons for ceasing to believe in the Christian myth. And I don't really consider it very important now either. I think it is quite likely that Jesus existed, and I actually think that some parts of the gospels probably reflect an early oral tradition of sayings and signs.

I favor the idea of a developing mythology, in the early stages in Paul's writings, and developing through the gospels and early church history. At the core, there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerant preacher, and he was strung up by the Romans for insurrection.

Ab_Normal · 10-22-2002, 11:13 AM

My deconversion began after I took a class on mythology in high school, when I came to the realization that Xianity was no different than all those myth systems and Jesus was just a dead guy with really good PR.

Shake · 10-22-2002, 11:17 AM

First, I have to say ditto sakrilege and CoaS. Even the Muslims grant there having been a historical Jesus (not the Messiah, though). I came here (to MRD specifically) today because I heard something on the news last night about an artifact being found that alleges Jesus' existence as well as that of his brother?!

OK, I didn't actually see the report, but heard it second hand, but there was something in the paper about it as well (which unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read yet).

christ-on-a-stick · 10-22-2002, 12:33 PM

Shake,

That was actually what brought the topic up in my mind as well today - I read a couple of news items about it and got to thinking about how the fundies are going to have a field day with it (regardless of whether it is proven to be legit or not) - which led to my ruminating on the fact that even if it is, it doesn't really have an bearing on the whole divinity issue.

I think there is a thread going in BC&A right now about it...

RJS · 10-22-2002, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Even the Muslims grant there having been a historical Jesus (not the Messiah, though).

but a prophet and miracle worker.

Quote:

I came here (to MRD specifically) today because I heard something on the news last night about an artifact being found that alleges Jesus' existence as well as that of his brother?!

you are in luck <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000703" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000703</a>

MortalWombat · 10-22-2002, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by christ-on-a-stick:
<strong>I do believe, to paraphrase one historian (not sure who...) that "if there was a historical Jesus, he is lost to us now". </strong>

That would be <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html" target="_blank">Robert Price</a>.

Egoinos · 10-22-2002, 02:25 PM

No influence on my disbelief.
I tend toward the idea of a large or total Jesus myth, to be honest, though at the time I deconverted that was not in my mind, that came rather later. As the historicity of Jesus was not my reason for deconverting, then should this ossuary prove the existence of an historical Jesus, it would make no difference to my disbelief.

10-22-2002, 10:06 AM	#1
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Historicity of Jesus - Large/Small Influence on Your (Dis)Belief? Let me see if I can try and compose something somehwat cohesive here to articulate my thoughts. I enjoy browsing the upper forums (BC&A, EoG) and follow with interest threads/comments pertaining to the question of whether Jesus was a historical person or not or one of the various other possibilities (he did exist, but the events recorded in the NT are fully or partially fabricated, or his character as recorded in the NT is a "mish-mash" of different myths/characters, etc. - a multitude of possibilities). I have also read most of the material in the library related to this topic. My personal opinion is that it is very likely that there was someone who lived during that time period around whom a legend was built in an evolving way in the years after his death; details added and changed, stories made up, quotes attributed etc., with some addition of popular "Mythic Hero" attributes (virgin birth, persecution/execution/rising from the dead etc.). I dobelieve, to paraphrase one historian (not sure who...) that "if there was a historical Jesus, he is lost to us now". Essentially saying that much will never be known and can only be speculated upon, guessed at based on extremely scanty evidence. Further to this point, I have had many Xians ask me how I would feel if there were ever to arise some incontrivertable proof that Jesus actually existed as a historical person and said all the stuff attributed to him, then pop the (remarkably silly) Lord/Liar/Lunatic "trilemma" on me. In response to this, with the more intelligent ones I have (attempted to!) point out the fallacy of the "trilemma" (so many other options....sigh... amazing how many people don't "get" that). However, with the ones that I knew I would be wasting my breath even going there with, I have responded - honestly - that if those were indeed the only three choices, it does seem to me that LUNATIC is the far more likely choice!!! This, unfortunately, has never led to a productive discussion... apparently that "heresy" gets their dander all up. Anyway, in examining my own reasons for "deconversion" I have found that the whole question of Jesus' historicity has not been a major influence because I am of the persuasion that even if he was 100% "real" in the historical sense, it would only lead me to the conclusion that he was a wacko nutjob intinerant preacher who was charismatic enough to get a small band of followers around him that after he got hisself done executed/murdered by the powers that be, they made up all kindsa crazy stories about him and it kind of spun off from there. The history of the LDS church seems to me a similar example of a person (Joseph Smith) and a small group of followers whose stories and claims are so utterly ridiculous on their face that it seems ludicrous that it could ever "take off" as a religion, but amazingly, only a relatively short number of years later there are hundreds of thousands of people who buy it as the Truth. I am just wondering how many of you are of similar mind, or on the other hand how many of the "deconverted" were influenced strongly by having once believed in Jesus' historicity and then finding "holes" in that evidence that led them to start questioning other stuff. Sorry if this is disjointed/badly worded - I'm trying to type it all fast before switching computers!!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2002, 10:17 AM	#2
braces_for_impact Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In a nondescript, black helicopter. Posts: 6,637	I think it's important to note that even if Jesus's existence was proven without a shadow of a doubt, his divinity would still be in question, so you'd be back at square one. That having been noted. The historical debate and lack of evidence for Jesus as depicted in the bible and most chrisian doctrine was not a large reason for my atheism. I have plenty of other reasons (mostly lack of evidence and logical contradiction) for that. It was however an eye opener as to the supposed superior morals of the religious. I had always accepted a historical Jesus as a given. We are taught of Jesus, regardless of context, as if it's historical fact. It was a reality check for me at how easily some can be dishonest with themselves and others.

10-22-2002, 10:55 AM	#4
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	The Jesus-myth question certainly wasn't any part of my reasons for ceasing to believe in the Christian myth. And I don't really consider it very important now either. I think it is quite likely that Jesus existed, and I actually think that some parts of the gospels probably reflect an early oral tradition of sayings and signs. I favor the idea of a developing mythology, in the early stages in Paul's writings, and developing through the gospels and early church history. At the core, there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerant preacher, and he was strung up by the Romans for insurrection.

10-22-2002, 11:13 AM	#5
Ab_Normal Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,842	My deconversion began after I took a class on mythology in high school, when I came to the realization that Xianity was no different than all those myth systems and Jesus was just a dead guy with really good PR.

10-22-2002, 11:17 AM	#6
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	First, I have to say ditto sakrilege and CoaS. Even the Muslims grant there having been a historical Jesus (not the Messiah, though). I came here (to MRD specifically) today because I heard something on the news last night about an artifact being found that alleges Jesus' existence as well as that of his brother?! OK, I didn't actually see the report, but heard it second hand, but there was something in the paper about it as well (which unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read yet).

10-22-2002, 12:33 PM	#7
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Shake, That was actually what brought the topic up in my mind as well today - I read a couple of news items about it and got to thinking about how the fundies are going to have a field day with it (regardless of whether it is proven to be legit or not) - which led to my ruminating on the fact that even if it is, it doesn't really have an bearing on the whole divinity issue. I think there is a thread going in BC&A right now about it...

10-22-2002, 02:25 PM	#10
Egoinos Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 423	No influence on my disbelief. I tend toward the idea of a large or total Jesus myth, to be honest, though at the time I deconverted that was not in my mind, that came rather later. As the historicity of Jesus was not my reason for deconverting, then should this ossuary prove the existence of an historical Jesus, it would make no difference to my disbelief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.