I don't understand all the strong emotions that come out whenever the topic of the historical Jesus is raised.

Does it even matter?

Whether he is 100% myth or mostly myth or whatever, what difference does it make?

Nope, it doesn't.

It wouldn't change my life if he hadn't lived, but on an historical level I find it interesting. It matters to me because history matters. You will have to ask certain mythicists why they get so hot and bothered by the idea that Jesus, as a man and not a god, actually lived.

I don't think it would change anything if it's proved that Jesus never existed, as people would still believe in him because religion once served an evolutionary purpose to the point where it's hard wired into the brain.

I was very shocked and upset when I learned that there is no good evidence that Jesus ever existed. It felt like my foundations had crumbled and the earth was shifting beneath me. The freaking encyclopedias even say that Jesus existed!

It is this huge giant conspiracy against reason that has involved much of the world for the last 2000 years. Everyone just said that Jesus was a real historical figure, because they wanted to conform, because that is what all the books said, or because they didn't want to be punished for heresy. In order to be qualified to study Christian theology, a person had to believe in a historical Jesus. The books were pretty much all written by this type of people. You weren't going to write a successful book unless you joined the club and paid your dues by saying that the historical Jesus existed.

I was just devastated to learn that the encyclopedias are wrong.

When I was young, I learned that Santa Claus was a fraud.
Then later I learned that the Mormon Church was a fraud.
About that time I learned that God was a fraud.

I was devastated to discover that the encyclopedias were lying. I was running out of things to cling to by that point.

For true believing Christians, it is essential to be able to believe in the historical Jesus. If they can't do that, then they have to admit that their religion is full of a bunch of myths that people just made up.

There's a huge difference in believing in the historical existence of Muhammad or the Siddhartha Buddha and believing in the existence of Santa Claus.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's a huge difference in believing in the
> historical existence of Muhammad or the Siddhartha
> Buddha and believing in the existence of Santa
> Claus.

It is my understanding that there are contemporaneous historical records of both the man who came to be known as the Buddha (he was a prince; there were historical records kept of royal families in that area, at that time), as well as Muhammad (who lived many centuries later).

"It is my understanding that there are contemporaneous historical records of both the man who came to be known as the Buddha (he was a prince; there were historical records kept of royal families in that area, at that time), as well as Muhammad (who lived many centuries later)."

It would appear that less is known with precision about the Siddhartha Buddha than Jesus.

Historical Siddhārtha Gautama
Ancient kingdoms and cities of India during the time of Buddha.

Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era in India during the reign of Bimbisara, the ruler of Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatshatru, who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain teacher;[7] however, most scholars do not consistently accept all of the details contained in traditional biographies.[8][9]

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.[1][10] More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death.[1][11][note 4] These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.[12][13][note 7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

No, it really doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not.

However, if he was God incarnate that came to save us from some original sin if we would believe on his name ----- then it would!

Fortunately for most citizens of Earth ---- the Bible, Christ, Hell, etc. are fantasy. However, God and an afterlife are not!

Ditto with Heritic 2. The whole Christian hope is rooted in a ressurection of Jesus Christ. That's kind of hard to believe in if there was no historical Jesus Christ.

I think it would matter to a great many people who deeply and sincerely believe(d) that Jesus was an actual historical person...a human being who was in reality the [only actual] "son of God"... and who was---by their understanding, feeling, and belief---a PERSONAL "person" in their lives who was constantly guiding them, and helping them in very practical ways...and was always and instantaneously their advocate on THEIR side of any situation, or issue, or emergency...and was their unseen, but ALWAYS "with them" companion in life.

For people who really believe(d) this, the loss of THIS "person" in THEIR lives is, and would be in the future, potentially, internally, catastrophic.

I have great empathy for those who DID once believe in a historical Jesus, and who have come to an understanding that such a "person" (either as a human being, or as the only "son of God") never existed.

I cannot imagine the (probably individually felt as "threatening") empty void that this would create in someone's body...soul...and life.

On the other hand, it does no society any good at all if adults in general totally believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. (Those adults who DO sincerely believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny are usually, in real life, under some kind of medical/psychiatric intervention.)

To many people, "Jesus" IS morality and ethics, and without this "person," ethics and morality no longer "exist."

In other words: anomie.

Wikipedia says that anomie is "a 'condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals.' It is the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community e.g. if under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values."

Although (in my own opinion) this disbelief in the historical Jesus needs to occur, it must also be kept in mind that, for countless large numbers of people, this belief in the historical Jesus "is" at present their organizing philosophy of society, as well as the near totality of their understanding of ethics and social morality.

It needs to be an evolution which is allowed to take place at the pace which society as a whole (this is: ALL of us) can deal with.

There are, possibly for a very long while, going to be plenty of used-to-believe-in-Jesus depressed people who feel hopeless about themselves, and their society, and life...and these people are going to have to be dealt with compassionately by all of us, and at a pace which is viable to the individuals involved.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 04:34PM by tevai.

The repeated use of crude, reductionistic reasoning on this topic tends to get tiresome. The notion that the only possibilities are that Jesus was the Son of God who performed miracles and rose from the dead or alternatively did not exist at all is rather absurd. The general lack of familiarity with what scholars in religious studies departments at secular universities do in their research is also rather tiresome. The use of quotes from Internet personalities as proof texts is also tiresome.

WestBerkeleyFlats Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The repeated use of crude, reductionistic
> reasoning on this topic tends to get tiresome.
> The notion that the only possibilities are that
> Jesus was the Son of God who performed miracles
> and rose from the dead or alternatively did not
> exist at all is rather absurd. The general lack
> of familiarity with what scholars in religious
> studies departments at secular universities do in
> their research is also rather tiresome. The use
> of quotes from Internet personalities as proof
> texts is also tiresome.

Since Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew, there has "always" been some Jewish informed thought and study about whether a single person "Jesus" ever existed. The consensus is that the character of "Jesus" was probably an after-the-period conflation of a number of Jewish males who were wandering around that area at that time, influencing people by what they were teaching and saying. Some of this was religious, and some of this was political (by our present day understanding of this term). It was a highly political period, both nationally (the land was being governed by an enormously strong foreign power) and internally (there was a gigantic organic change underway WITHIN Judaism which---today---would be termed "political" rather than "religious," and though the details under contention WERE religious, it was STILL about Jewish politics---NOT religion).

The question posed originally in this thread is much more complex than a single person "Jesus"---since what eventually CAME TO BE KNOWN as a single-person "Jesus" COULD (and, in my own personal opinion probably WAS) "be" a number of Jewish males whose experiences, insights, and words/teachings were later mushed-up together as the supposedly "single person" we now, in the twenty-first century, commonly refer to as one single man whose name was (more or less, and translated into English) "Jesus."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 04:49PM by tevai.

"Since Jesus was supposed to have been a Jew, there has "always" been some Jewish informed thought and study about whether a single person "Jesus" ever existed. The consensus is that the character of "Jesus" was probably an after-the-period conflation of a number of Jewish males who were wandering around that area at that time, influencing people by what they were teaching and saying."

This is an illustration of the problem. Anecedotal reasoning is used to produce sweeping generalizations about "always" and "consensus" that are not the scholarly consensus for obvious reasons. Early leaders of the Christian community such as James claimed to be relatives of Jesus. Writers in classical antiquity noted problems with Christian beliefs but did not claim that Jesus had not existed. It's quite possible that teachings and actions of other figures were attributed to Jesus, but that's very different than claiming that there wasn't an original historical figure.

Agree WBF. In fact some of the Jesus scholars are Jewish. I.do not know what the average Jew on the street thinks, but that is sort of irrelevant if they are not educated on the subject. As theysay,"Opinions are like aholes, everyone has one."Jewish scholars such as Amy Jill Levine and Paula Frederckson would not agree with Tevai

Agreed. The scholars are not claiming Jesus was divine,just that there was a real person behind the myth. WHAT PART OF THAT IS CONFUSING? Heretic,perhaps there is a reason why the encyclopedias and history books say Jesus was a real man.

Bonadea, you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject. Could you point me to the historical evidence that Jesus lived? The best I have been able to find so far is a couple of mentions in Josephus which are under dispute. Which ancient sources are the most persuasive to you?

It's definitely interesting to historians.

But as far as the Christian faith goes, it doesn't matter because people are either going to believe it, or they're not. The only way to somewhat prove that he didn't exist would be to find the journal of someone who made up the story, where they admit to making it up, which is not likely.

People will continue to believe it, without or without evidence. So that's why I don't think it matters.

You're always going to run into someone who demands that you prove a negative. "Prove that he didn't exist. Prove that God doesn't exist. You can't!"

I think that because we have no record of the man it does not necessarily mean that he never existed. History is subjective being written by those who have the power. Jesus was executed by

the state of Rome as an enemy. People of this stature
did not rate being recorded in the records of the Roman state. This does not mean that he was not remembered by those who

loved him and followed his teachings. The only record of the person we know as Jesus is what we have in the canonized scripture. This is the record of his life and teachings written

from the oral history that lived on after he was taken from his disciples. For those who believe in God the record of Jesus we have in the Bible is all the proof of his existence that they

need to sustain their faith in Him as God incarnate. I happen to be one who believes this way. Those of you who do not believe in Him as a real person have the right to hold that opinion.

Exactly. There is a scarcity of evidence from ancient times even for well known aristocrats. All contemporary references to Alexander the Great are lost for instance. It would be surprising if there were numerous contemporary references to a Jewish peasant who was at best semi literate and whose followers were the same.

No more than it matters if Shakespeare existed. I like the writings, the principles, and the good ideas. Anything good, like Jesus and Shakespeare, brings forth good results, and I want good things and good people in my life. A leader and a philosopher has integrity and heart--but he/she doesn't need fake authority from God.

Well, I suppose for all the evil spoken of the Christian teachings today, we cannot deny that it has also been a source of hope even in very bleak times.

I don't care.

Ron Burr

The only thing that concerns me regarding the issue is how peddlers of new age nonsense are trying to get a market share in the nonexistence of Jesus. The new testament and the case for a historical Jesus are on sufficiently shaky ground that one doesn't need to fabricate evidence in support of the non-existence conclusion. I actually do believe there was an historical Jesus, but given how little evidence there is of it the nonexistence of such a guy seems perfectly reasonable aswell.

But if you base that conclusion on nonsense such as that the pronounciation of "sun" and "son" happens to be exactly the same, as if anyone in the Roman empire spoke modern english 2000 years ago. Then that bothers me.

It doesn't matter until people try to make Jesus the basis of laws and behavior in modern society.

This is mostly harmless, but it does impact us all.

It wouldn't bother me if Jesus were treated like a literary character. Maybe there was a seed character. Maybe there wasn't.

It's clear that many people actually make decisions according to their perception that Jesus is a divine character. I consider this on par with me making decisions based on Mickey Mouse (who is sort of real). If I were out there trying to make laws that kids should pray to Mickey Mouse in schools, you can bet the Christians would be the first ones not to see the parallel. That's why it matters if something is real, adequately verified and worth thrusting on others.

In our culture, a lot of people justify and validate their views by deciding Jesus agrees with them. This does not deserve respect or encouragement if Jesus is the justification for anything that impacts decisions of people in power.

Most people try to keep their religion away from places it doesn't belong. That's fine. However there is a vocal minority who are not happy until they make everyone follow their beliefs. They are the ones who ruin it for the moderate believers. This is why it matters whether or not that the evidence supports the claims- just like with Mormonism.

Edit addition: Not that people shouldn't act on wisdom from literary characters. It's just that they shouldn't need to pretend the characters are real or a god to justify it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 05:31PM by dagny.

A huge issue is that there is no good "measure" of historicity.

Two people could believe exactly the same facts about Jesus, and one could say he existed, and the other that he never existed.

For example, if the story of the trial and beating of Jesus was based on the known historical figure Jesus Ben Ananias (or the trial and beating of JbA during the siege of Jerusalem was grafted on to the Jesus narrative), one person may see that as evidence of a historical person underlying the Jesus story, while another may maintain that the Jesus narrative is a quilt made up of an assortment of stories from a variety of sources and consider the whole thing a myth. It is possible to trace some gospel stories back to other sources, for example, the tale where Jesus counts 153 fish is a reworking of a story about Pythagoras. Is Pythagoras the "real" Jesus?

Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) was a common name. Speaking statistically at least a few wandering sages/zealots/apocalyptic prophets had to have been named Jesus. There is a good chance that some of their deeds and sayings have been grafted on to the Christian Jesus narrative. Does that make any of them the "real" Jesus?

There is no definition of what qualifies as the "real Jesus". Until scholars can agree on a definition, the whole argument just didn't make sense.

That is why I consider Jesus to be a myth. I personally do not see enough there to identify any one historical figure as Jesus. Another person may see exactly the same material as me and identify enough stuff to designate Jesus as a historical person.

No, it doesn't matter if Jesus actually existed or not. Because if he had existed, everyone would act the same as they do. If he didn't exist, everyone would act the same as they do.

What might matter to an individual is if the person thinks Jesus existed or not.

What I'm reading in a lot of these posts is that historical veritability doesn't really matter because perception is our reality.
It reminds me of something Richard Dawkins said about the brain being a complex computer running intricate simulation software. Using stimulus and sense, the brain creates a simulated reality in your head. That's your conscious awareness of the world around you.
The big question about a historical Jesus is: How much do you love truth? How do we safeguard ourselves from believing something that isn't true? Because, once you believe something, perception becomes reality. What should we expect delusion to feel like? Do you really think it would feel fake? The only hints you would get are when you experience a little cognitive dissonance when your common experience suggests something contradictory to your beliefs. The brain is a fickle thing. The only way to be sure you're only getting truth is to treat your intuition with incredible skepticism.
I always envied Evangelical Christians on my mission, because I talked with a few who took an incredible stance of skepticism and rationality. They would quote Jeremiah about the heart being a deceiver. I asked them, how do you believe anything then? The answer was they rooted their faith in something historical, something tangible. There must be more to suggest there is more truth in the story of the gospels then we suspect. If someone has done their research and is convinced there was something that happened to base their hope on, I can respect that. And I'd want to be your friend. That isn't irrational at all.

Among classical scholars the debate raged for years whether there was really a man named Homer who wrote the Illiad and the Odyssey.

After examining all the evidence, they concluded that the Homer who wrote those classic works did not exist, and that they were written by somebody else...

whose name was also Homer.

There is no consensus on whether Homer actually lived and if he did whether he wrote the Iliad and Odyssey. As for the comment about two Homers, that was a joke.

"We have always been at war with east Asia"

You can edit your own posts.