So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[logician]

I agree with Midnightblue. It's the ideal of Jesus that's important.

It's not about what he thinks, it's about what the majority of Christians think, and most would NOT say the historicity of Jesus was of little importance.

 

[rojse]

Compared to Dubya, there's no documentation of my life. Does that mean I don't exist, either?

But you don't walk on water, revive the dead, or claim to be the son of God, either.

 

[Storm]

But you don't walk on water, revive the dead, or claim to be the son of God, either.

The historical Jesus probably didn't, either.

 

[Smoke]

It's not about what he thinks, it's about what the majority of Christians think, and most would NOT say the historicity of Jesus was of little importance.

Of course they wouldn't, but you're not responding to what I said. I said the historical Jesus just isn't that relevant to Christianity, and that's true. I didn't say that Christians would say the historicity of Jesus was of little importance.

The Jesus most Christians believe in and with whom many of them claim to have a personal relationship has only the most incidental connection with the actual, historical person of Jesus. I could claim that Harald Hardrada was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and is now my personal savior with whom I have a deep and personal relationship, but no matter how firmly I believed it, it wouldn't make the historical Harald Hardrada relevant to my beliefs.

But you don't walk on water, revive the dead, or claim to be the son of God, either.

The historical Jesus probably didn't, either.

What she said.

 

[logician]

The point is, if the historical Jesus didn't walk on water, didn't raise people from the dead, or was not ressurected, he's NOT the historical Jesus - he bears no resemblance to the fiction of the gospels.

 

[Storm]

No, if there was a man - or even several men - upon whose life and teachings the Gospels were based (however loosely), then there was a historical Jesus.

There was probably a King Arthur, too, even without the Lady in the Lake.

 

[challupa]

No, if there was a man - or even several men - upon whose life and teachings the Gospels were based (however loosely), then there was a historical Jesus.

There was probably a King Arthur, too, even without the Lady in the Lake.

Maybe, but Jesus we must remember is really a copycat in many ways of other mythical saviors. Why do we think that Jesus is the only one of a list of many with a similar MO to be historical? His story is just so similar to others that were mythical that it really makes one question the historical value of Jesus. He could have lived I suppose, but I question it for those reasons.

 

[Storm]

Well, I have my own beliefs about the whole Jesus thing, and I'm trying not to let them cloud my arguments. But I think the "Jesus never existed" thing qualifies as an extraordinary claim.

 

[challupa]

Well, I have my own beliefs about the whole Jesus thing, and I'm trying not to let them cloud my arguments. But I think the "Jesus never existed" thing qualifies as an extraordinary claim.

I lean towards his being historical but I also have many questions because of the amount of similar myths. The one thing that did intrigue me though was a book written about the missing Jesus years 12-30 approx. There is a monastary in Tibet that claim to have a scroll that speaks of Isa and some companions being there and learning from the monks for several years before starting their journey back to Israel. It's quite the interesting story and I think about 5 people have seen the scroll and written about it. The church denies it to be authentic, but it throws yet another twist into a interesting life story. If this scroll exists, it is likely the only other written history about Jesus other than the Bible and Nag Hammadi.

 

[Storm]

I lean towards his being historical but I also have many questions because of the amount of similar myths.

Well, let's assume there was a historical man who was mythologized. It makes sense that the people embroidering his life would use familiar stories.

The one thing that did intrigue me though was a book written about the missing Jesus years 12-30 approx. There is a monastary in Tibet that claim to have a scroll that speaks of Isa and some companions being there and learning from the monks for several years before starting their journey back to Israel. It's quite the interesting story and I think about 5 people have seen the scroll and written about it. The church denies it to be authentic, but it throws yet another twist into a interesting life story. If this scroll exists, it is likely the only other written history about Jesus other than the Bible and Nag Hammadi.

Cool. I'd heard rumors of such a thing, but they were even vaguer than that.

 

[fantome profane]

Yeah, I know all that. It still seems like nonsense. Of course, I'm open to the possibility that te problem lies with me.

Well it is you, but only because you are a human. You have a human brain, which although it is an amazingly wonderful thing capable of so much understanding, is still not really capable of conceptualizing timelessness. It has evolved to survive and deal with the world that it finds itself in, it understands cause and effect, now and then, past present and future. And that is really amazing when you think about it. It could very well be that if your brain could conceptualize the concept of timelessness then you would loss your ability to conceptualize things in the normal human way, and so lose the ability to function.



This is one of my favourite all time quotes, it is attributed to Chaung Tzu, but is sounds like something that could have been written by Lewis Carroll. I also think it adds something if you imagine this read aloud by that great Zen philosopher who went by the name Groucho Marx.

If there was a beginning there must have been a time before the beginning began, and if there was a time before the beginning began, there must have been a time before the time before the beginning began. If there is being, there must also be not-being. If there was a time before there began to be any not-being, there must also have been a time before the time before there began to be any not-being. But here I am, talking about being and not being and still do no know whether it is being that exists and not-being that does not exist, or being that does not exist and not-being that really exists! I have spoken, and do not know whether I have said something that means anything or said nothing that has any meaning at all.

It’s utterly ridiculous.:faint:

 

[challupa]

If there was a beginning there must have been a time before the beginning began, and if there was a time before the beginning began, there must have been a time before the time before the beginning began. If there is being, there must also be not-being. If there was a time before there began to be any not-being, there must also have been a time before the time before there began to be any not-being. But here I am, talking about being and not being and still do no know whether it is being that exists and not-being that does not exist, or being that does not exist and not-being that really exists! I have spoken, and do not know whether I have said something that means anything or said nothing that has any meaning at all.

:slap: Now that makes the head hurt!!!

 

[logician]

No, if there was a man - or even several men - upon whose life and teachings the Gospels were based (however loosely), then there was a historical Jesus.

There was probably a King Arthur, too, even without the Lady in the Lake.

And I'm saying there wasn't, because the tales of the gospels were not based upon a real person, however loosely, but taken from pre-existant mythos. Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus" go into great detail about religions existant prior to Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I have my own beliefs about the whole Jesus thing, and I'm trying not to let them cloud my arguments. But I think the "Jesus never existed" thing qualifies as an extraordinary claim.

Why's that?

Right now, I find myself bouncing between believing that the Gospel Jesus was a synthesis of prior myths that needed no historical figure at all, and believing that the Gospel Jesus was an accretion of myths around the story of a person who, while he may have been a historical figure, is largely irrelevant to the end result and bears little to no similarity with the picture we have now.

In my mind, the question is really one of how Paul figures in the development of Christian belief. I don't think that a literal, historical Jesus was really necessary for any of Paul's contribution to the Bible and Christian belief (because he apparently never had any contact with a literal, historical Jesus). So, did the Gospels flow from the Epistles or did the Epistles flow from the Gospels? It seems to me like either possibility is at least plausible, but one doesn't make any demands for Jesus to be a historical figure.

 

[Storm]

And I'm saying there wasn't, because the tales of the gospels were not based upon a real person, however loosely, but taken from pre-existant mythos. Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries" and "The Laughing Jesus" go into great detail about religions existant prior to Christianity.

As I said before, it makes perfect sense that in mythologizing the man, they'd use familiar stories and symbols of divinity. That's hardly proof that such a man never existed.

 

[Storm]

Why's that?

As far as I'm aware, there's no serious doubt that such a man never existed. By which I mean among historians. Also, the movement had to get started somehow, and if it was Paul, why wouldn't he take the credit?

 

[rojse]

The historical Jesus probably didn't, either.

Even if he did not do any of these feats, others claimed that he did. And this was not the only aspect of him that should have lead more people to document his life than one single book.

 

[Storm]

Even if he did not do any of these feats, others claimed that he did. And this was not the only aspect of him that should have lead more people to document his life than one single book.

.... So?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as I'm aware, there's no serious doubt that such a man never existed. By which I mean among historians.

I think there's some, but I also think that you're right in that it's not a mainstream view. I think there are a few factors going on here:

- most New Testament historians are Christian, and, IMO, predisposed to take as given that Jesus was a historical figure.
- when you get back to the first Century, there's very little evidence one way or the other, which makes it difficult to make a claim that runs counter to the status quo opinion.
- the historical Jesus is widely seen as separate to and (arguably) largely irrelevant to the mythic Christ figure.

Also, the movement had to get started somehow, and if it was Paul, why wouldn't he take the credit?

The impression I get from the Gospels is that Paul genuinely believed in what he was saying. I think he didn't take the credit simply because he really did attribute it to Christ.

However, I don't think that these beliefs were necessarily true... just that he wasn't consciously committing a fraud.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said before, it makes perfect sense that in mythologizing the man, they'd use familiar stories and symbols of divinity. That's hardly proof that such a man never existed.

At a certain point, though, you get into the Ship of Theseus problem: if you add on mythology and then strip away the historicity, can you really say that what remains has a historical basis?