Historicity Of Christ?

[Vyruufin]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

 

[sandandfoam]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

I don't think it matters.

Does there have to have been a boy who cried wolf?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

This has been addressed ad nauseam. Have you tried the forum's search function?

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

Research is good. Have you tried the forum's search function?

 

[Vyruufin]

This has been addressed ad nauseam. Have you tried the forum's search function?

Research is good. Have you tried the forum's search function?

I'm new, sorry..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

My personal feeling is that there may have been a real person at the core of the Jesus story that has had mythic elements accreted onto him... kind of like the grain of sand at the centre of a pearl.

... and like a pearl, the grain of sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone values. I think the parts of Jesus that make him matter to Christians are mythic, not historical.

 

[Vyruufin]

My personal feeling is that there may have been a real person at the core of the Jesus story that has had mythic elements accreted onto him... kind of like the grain of sand at the centre of a pearl.

... and like a pearl, the grain of sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone values. I think the parts of Jesus that make him matter to Christians are mythic, not historical.

But don't a lot of Christians believe that historical Jesus is the same as Biblical Jesus?

Since they claim he did claim to be the Son of God, but I totally understand. It's sort of like something which people could never understand, they couldn't comprehend how a simple man can preach such goodness so they made him bigger than what he really was.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But don't a lot of Christians believe that historical Jesus is the same as Biblical Jesus?

They believe that, sure.

Since they claim he did claim to be the Son of God, but I totally understand. It's sort of like something which people could never understand, they couldn't comprehend how a simple man can preach such goodness so they made him bigger than what he really was.

I think it's entirely likely that his legend grew after his death in all sorts of ways. It's not like I think that the Gospel is all true if you just take the miracles away; I think his story was embellished across the board.

Basically, I have no confidence that any particular event described in the Gospels actually happened.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

... and like a pearl, the grain of sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone values. I think the parts of Jesus that make him matter to Christians are mythic, not historical.

An interesting claim, as though Jesus is ultimately an unnoteworthy granular excess around which people formed and solidifed a series of their own projections. Though, why not consider that the mythic elements themselves are related to the historical core. That is to say, that the mythic elements are an expression of the value of the "historical Jesus" rather than being the value itself. In my opinion, this is much more likely even as a strictly agnostic and historical analysis. To posit a kind of "amorphous, liquid Jesus" at the foundation of the structures so passionately constructed on his personality begs the question: what in Jesus was so interesting, controversial and persuasive to begin with?. Especially considering his immediate disciples met martyrdom in Jerusalem and beyond, there is a force that your hypothesis doesn't propose to reckon with in its pacifying of and total ambivalence towards the content of the historical core.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

We have more evidence for the historical person of Jesus than for most ancient figures. That said, sorting out the legend from the facts is a difficult (perhaps insurmountable) problem. There are very few facts about the historical person of Jesus which are virtually uncontested by the academic community.

 

[9Westy9]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

From what I know as someone with no background in history I'd say yes he existed.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

This sounds more like a command than a request (I'd rephrase it personally)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An interesting claim, as though Jesus is ultimately an unnoteworthy granular excess around which people formed and solidifed a series of their own projections. Though, why not consider that the mythic elements themselves are related to the historical core. That is to say, that the mythic elements are an expression of the value of the "historical Jesus" rather than being the value itself. In my opinion, this is much more likely even as a strictly agnostic and historical analysis.

When did I say I didn't consider that? There have been many examples through history where the followers of some leader deify him as an expression of his perceived greatness. I'm not saying that he wasn't noteworthy or important to his followers, but that the reasons he was originally considered noteworthy and important aren't the ones that are considered important to Christians now.

Maybe he was an inspiring figure and a great leader of men, but that doesn't mean that his death paid for the "sin debt" of the world or that he was a living god.

To posit a kind of "amorphous, liquid Jesus" at the foundation of the structures so passionately constructed on his personality begs the question: what in Jesus was so interesting, controversial and persuasive to begin with?. Especially considering his immediate disciples met martyrdom in Jerusalem and beyond, there is a force that your hypothesis doesn't propose to reckon with in its pacifying of and total ambivalence towards the content of the historical core.

I don't know, but there are lots of plausible possibilities.

While I'm not sure how reliable we should consider the stories of those martyrs, even if they're true, it wouldn't be the first or last case where people laid down their lives for a leader or a cause. It's remarkable, sure, but remarkable in a very non-supernatural way and in one that's happened countless times throughout history.

As an example, a few decades after Jesus, a huge number of the followers of Simon Bar Kokhba ended up just as dead as the martyred disciples of Jesus. Should we ascribe godlike status to Bar Kokhba, too?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

Yes ...

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more precise. I don't intend to say that historical criticism has established the claims we most associate with the Christian faith are true. I only mean to point out there is an entire field of historical criticism dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus which, though diverse and inconclusive, yields at least a circle of consensus that the "Jesus was a myth" or the "Osiris" crowds stand well outside of. Your claim that the historical Jesus

is like a pearl, the grain of sand isn't the part of the pearl that anyone values

is, in my opinion, also beyond the pale. At least, it seems to suggest the actions and teaching of Jesus have receded so far into the past that we can say nothing about him historically besides the fact that a host of magical- religious beliefs were errected around him. A great amount has been proffered about the historical period in which he appears and in which it is possible to contextualize him and yield a partial picture.

There are interesting questions like "what was the relationship of Jesus to the contemporary Judaism of his day", "in which way did his message diverge and converge with his contemporaries", "what can we discern from his sense of eschatlogical urgency", "how was he using Hebrew Scripture", "how and where can we distinguish between what he said and what was attritubted to him by his disciples", ect.

I'm not sure if you've looked into this scholarship, but a number of scholars do make a series of highly speicific claims about the historical Jesus and his ministry. These do not, by any means, always sit comfortably with Christian beliefs and often challenge them directly. (Take for example, the widely shared assertion that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that hey may have been disciple of John the Baptist).

I'm just wondering, when you say you "have no confidence in any particular event reported in the Gospels", what sources are you relying on? How wide is your reading on the question of the historicity of the Gospels? That they are just legends with a faint, indiscernable historical echo is, in my opinion, a controversial claim.

 

[idav]

An interesting claim, as though Jesus is ultimately an unnoteworthy granular excess around which people formed and solidifed a series of their own projections. Though, why not consider that the mythic elements themselves are related to the historical core. That is to say, that the mythic elements are an expression of the value of the "historical Jesus" rather than being the value itself. In my opinion, this is much more likely even as a strictly agnostic and historical analysis. To posit a kind of "amorphous, liquid Jesus" at the foundation of the structures so passionately constructed on his personality begs the question: what in Jesus was so interesting, controversial and persuasive to begin with?. Especially considering his immediate disciples met martyrdom in Jerusalem and beyond, there is a force that your hypothesis doesn't propose to reckon with in its pacifying of and total ambivalence towards the content of the historical core.

I don't doubt that the gospels were written by well versed highly spiritual individuals who really understood the core. Most of it was not lost.

 

[Drolefille]

The class I took in college on this very issue: "Jesus of History. Christ of Faith." is frankly part of what led to my loss of belief in the Christ of Faith part.

There are reasonable arguments to make about what things are most likely to be historically accurate and what aren't. But it's pretty clear to me that Jesus of Nazereth was an apocalytpic preacher who was literally looking at the "coming of the Kingdom" or what have you within the next generation. Similarly Paul seems to feel the same way. The fact that now Christianity has kind of... ignored that, is evidence of the sand/pearl dichotomy that Penguin is talking about.

The details vary based on the sect/denomination of Christianity, but each interpret the pearl in a different way, right? And yet the grain of sand within was concrete. He was a person who did specific things. It's just not clear that those things were actually raising the dead, for example.

And sure he was persuasive and convincing, but that doesn't mean he was the son of God and the promised Messiah to the Jewish people. (It also doesn't make it OK to abuse the phrase "begs the question" like that. )

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That they are just legends with a faint, indiscernable historical echo is, in my opinion, a controversial claim.

Certainly (at least within academics whose field and research has concerned the origins of christianity and the historical figure of Jesus). However, it is essential to distinguish two claims, both of which can lead to the same conclusion but only one of which is the one above, namely:
1) The gospels are mainly "legends" with a "indiscernable" historical core or perhaps historical elements

and
2) The gospels are works of ancient historiography, but the nature of ancient historiography in general and the gospels specifically (as well as the Pauline corpus, non-canonical sources, etc.) makes seperating likely fact from likely legend nearly impossible in most cases.

The second claim is probably closer to the consensus position within historical Jesus studies than the first, yet it can easily yield the same conclusion. Having only a tinge of historicity woven into a complex fabric of legend yields about as much as equal parts historicity and legend woven into a sufficiently complex fabric. Unless you possess the criteria to seperate the threads, there is little difference between claims 1) and 2) above (and, while I'm aware of the numerous criteria sets proposed from those of the so-called form critics to those which incorporate our ever more nuanced understanding of the 1st century Roman empire, Judaism, orality, composition, etc., having criteria is not the same as having sound criteria).

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

That's an interesting point, Legion, and well stated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. Very.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more precise. I don't intend to say that historical criticism has established the claims we most associate with the Christian faith are true. I only mean to point out there is an entire field of historical criticism dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus which, though diverse and inconclusive, yields at least a circle of consensus that the "Jesus was a myth" or the "Osiris" crowds stand well outside of.

And the "Jesus was a literal god-man" crowd is similarly outside that circle of consensus.

Your claim that the historical Jesus

is, in my opinion, also beyond the pale. At least, it seems to suggest the actions and teaching of Jesus have receded so far into the past that we can say nothing about him historically besides the fact that a host of magical- religious beliefs were errected around him. A great amount has been proffered about the historical period in which he appears and in which it is possible to contextualize him and yield a partial picture.

What I meant by that is that no mortal human man would be "the lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world." I've heard many Christians say that, to them, it would not be enough for Jesus to be merely a great human teacher. Consider C. S. Lewis' "lunatic, liar or lord" trilemma.

What was it that Paul says in the Epistles? I can't remember the exact phrase, but IIRC, it's something like "if Christ wasn't resurrected, there's no hope for us."

Without the idea of Jesus as a god-man, you don't have the Christian religion. That's what I'm getting at.

I'm just wondering, when you say you "have no confidence in any particular event reported in the Gospels", what sources are you relying on? How wide is your reading on the question of the historicity of the Gospels? That they are just legends with a faint, indiscernable historical echo is, in my opinion, a controversial claim.

I think you're reading way more into what I was saying than I intended.

Here's what I'm getting at:

- the Gospel story was (presumably) put down by Jesus' followers to perpetuate his legacy. Did they "polish up" that legacy? How much of what is attributed to him what he actually said? How much is what the early Christians inferred that he meant from what he actually said? How much is what the early Christians figured that Jesus ought to have said but didn't? We just don't know.

- there are a few points in the Gospel story where details are mentioned that can be cross-checked against other sources, but when we check them, the Gospel version turns out to be hit-and-miss. For instance, it gets that Herod was king, but attributes him with historically notable acts that never happened (the slaughter of the first-born).

- since we've already agreed that the clearly mythic and supernatural aspects of the story were added on later (right?), we're taking it as a given that the authors of the Gospel story have added elements and changed things around from what literally happened. Do you have any justification to say that the only monkeying they did was the stuff that was clearly ahistorical? I don't.

So that's why I say that I don't trust anything in the Gospels. In broad strokes, sure, I think it sounds reasonable that an itinerant preacher roamed first-century Judea and gathered a following... but do I think that we can reliably say that the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, actually happened? I don't think we can. Maybe it did happen, maybe it was completely made up after the fact, maybe it's something else that has a seed of truth in it but was substantially altered, but the Gospel by itself isn't reliable enough for us to say for sure.

 

[Penumbra]

Now, as Atheists/Agnostics/any religion other than Christianity, do you believe that Christ was real historically? Not as in the Son of God, but as in a true historic figure.

P.S Please do some research about the subject if you are not very knowledgable about it.

There are rather few accounts of the character of Jesus.

Most of those accounts, like the canon and non-canon Gospels, were not written until decades after his death, and by authors that cannot be verified. The canon Gospels share many similarities, and there's strong evidence nearly to the point of proof that some of them were written by using previous ones as reference material.

Paul's letters are actually some of the earliest known records of Jesus, and Paul never had much contact with the man.

So all in all, there's little to work with. I find it less likely that people created his character from scratch than the more likely idea that he was an apocalyptic preacher or mystic that had layers of mythology put onto him after his untimely death. His concepts have strong ties to the Essenes, and further back to the Zoroastrians, so I don't find it unlikely at all that a man was preaching those kinds of things in the area at that time.