Did the historical Jesus exist?

[Thomas]

It is about....was there actually a man called Jesus, that started this whole story?

Oh, I would have thought by far and away the broad consensus of scholarship says yes?

 

[wil]

lol NJ

Oh, I would have thought by far and away the broad consensus of scholarship says yes?

I believe you are correct. The overall consensus of the vast majority of Christians believe he existed. Muslims as well I would assume as he is in their book. Jews a majority but not quite so many. Highest percentage of folks that would believe in a possiblity that he never existed would be atheists and agnostics...

Here it is 2 to 1... in favor... It is/was a discussion.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

The story of the Christ is not meant to be proven one way of the other.

Are you sure? I'm not being rude here, but do you think that because it doesn't matter to you, one way or the other?

To me it does, because there is every chance the story is just a fabric of naive fads, superstitions and delusions.

No rudeness far as I am concerned.
As to your further comments, this is a concept that you have spoken of before - one that I find curious. You have said, as I understand it, that if the NT stories of Christ did not really happen, you could no longer have any belief in Christ's teachings, or in Christianity. Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?

I find this curious for several reasons; one that I am interested in at the moment is that I have heard you speak of truth in other religions, words to live by as it were. Yet you do not believe in the God(s) of those religions, right?

This seems a contradiction to me. You can accept the teachings of other religions without belief in their Gods, but you cannot do the same for your own religion. Do I have this right? I would be interested in your thoughts on what I perceive as a discrepancy.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Since this thread was started I have read the book Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All and yet I have chosen to not participate in the tete-a-tete. Strangely enough the only thing I got from the book was a quote that I had forgotten. I think it is apropos:
"A truth is not hard to kill and a lie well told is immortal." Mark Twain

 

[wil]

Speaking of agendas....and cherrypicking...the humanists/atheist goal is to eliminate Christianity/religion... chopping the tree at whatever angle they can.. including there is no tree.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Atheists have a goal? A Mission? Do they meet in dark corners of the forest late at night to discuss their strategies?

 

[wil]

It appears there are a couple of kinds of atheists (similar to Christians, Muslims)...those that wish to live there lives...and those that wish to convert everyone to their beliefs..

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Don't be lazy wil, if you don't intend to speak about all Christians or all atheists it's very simple no narrow it down. Speaking in generals can be very destructive.

 

[wil]

I was speaking of the 'one' who wrote the book that was referenced...pardon my generalization, I'll go stand in the corner.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I'll tell you when you can join the rest of the class.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

was speaking of the 'one' who wrote the book that was referenced...pardon my generalization

I am unsure what this says about me but I assumed you were speaking of the book or of David Fitzgerald. I may have thought you were speaking about me but I didn't feel the bus hit me!

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I was speaking of the 'one' who wrote the book that was referenced...pardon my generalization, I'll go stand in the corner.

Ah. Now see, I misunderstood you as well. Those flying fingers of yours do get you in trouble sometimes, methinks. To misquote an old adage, you win the Flying Finger of Fate award. And that is not a good thing!

 

[Thomas]

You have said, as I understand it, that if the NT stories of Christ did not really happen, you could no longer have any belief in Christ's teachings, or in Christianity. Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?

Take the idea that God is Love. Very strong idea. Very Christian. But if that idea was shown to be just that, a sentimental and romantic ideal, then it's not really something worth building a life around, is it?

I find this curious for several reasons; one that I am interested in at the moment is that I have heard you speak of truth in other religions, words to live by as it were.

Yes, because the words are true. If Christ is a fiction however, then the words are all part of that fiction. They have no intrinsic reality, they're just a sentimental delusion.

Take Buddha. The Four Noble Truths are hardly unique. You don't have to be a Buddhist to get that, and even living a life in the light of that truth doesn't make you a Buddhist. Acknowledging the Four Noble Truths doesn't mean you're 'Enlightened'.

Now supposing Buddha never existed, then what happens to the idea of 'Enlightenment'? It's a trope. A figure of speech. What is it to be 'Enlightened'? Anything you want, within reason ... It just means you know something now you didn't know before. No big deal.

Now, if someone says 'but the truth of the words is self-evident' then I'd say how? How can a fiction prove anything? There's no intrinsic evidence. The value of the words rests entirely on external affirmation.

Take 'do unto others', words attributed to Christ. A fine rule to live by, I agree. But it's not uniquely Christian, and it doesn't define Christianity. It's the Golden Rule, it was there 2,000 years before Christ, it's there all over the world, it's a universal maxim. So you can believe in the rule without believing in Christ, and believing in the rule doesn't make you a Christian.

So then you have to say what is it that's unique to Christianity, that defines one as Christian? Now you're talking about the mystical or supernatural element. I can't see anything in the natural sphere, the social, moral and ethic dimension, that's unique or original to Christianity. There's a lot of good stuff, for sure, but it's hardly 'a revelation'. It's not ground-breaking or earth-shattering in its content.

So it's the 'mystical' dimension that defines what is uniquely Christian, The Christian Liturgy. The Eucharist is the apogee, it's radically different from everything before or since, radically different to the concepts of other religious traditions. The Eucharist is the summation of everything Christianity is about.

Again and again, if Christ as a fiction, but one likes the words, why would one need the dressing? Why cannot those words stand on their own merit, when really, Christ only exists by the merit of the words?

My baseline contention is that kind of Christianity is a 'Christianity of the critical minimum'. The belief in Christ is not an intrinsic belief, it's not a belief in Christ at all, it's an acceptance of a figurehead to badge ideas validated from elsewhere. And again my point, why bother doing that? Because it's comforting, or its fashionable, or both.

Someone here, I can't remember who, took great delight in thinking themselves a 'heretic', a term which they saw as a badge of honour? Why? Because everything that goes with the term today is cool, it's anti-establishment, it's anti-authoritarian, it's hip, yadda, yadda, yadda ... forgetting that 'creationists' are heretics, 'flat-earthers' are heretics ... but the claim is made not because of what one believes, but because of how one likes to be perceived ... the ego writ large.

The background to this is that Christianity is continually being watered-down, has been since the Reformation, to reduce it to nothing more than a moral message. The Jefferson Bible is startling evidence of that.

Yet you do not believe in the God(s) of those religions, right?

Right. I believe in the Noble Truths of Buddhism, but I am not a Buddhist.

You can accept the teachings of other religions without belief in their Gods, but you cannot do the same for your own religion. Do I have this right?

I accept them, but I do not claim to be a Brahmin or a Buddhist. But then I don't doubt the Buddha existed.

But if the New Testament was revealed to be a fiction, then I'd say 'nice ideas, guys', I'd give a nod to 'do unto others' and all the socio-ethical-moral stuff, all of which is a given anyway. But the message, 'God is Love' or that we may be 'one with God' ... nah, that's the fantasy, that the bit someone's trying to pass off as the real deal ... and I'd be off to look for something 'real'.

 

[wil]

the words and thought are powerful enough to me and surpass any need for reality...

I could care less who said words that were valuable in perceiving life...

 

[Ahanu]

I can't see anything in the natural sphere, the social, moral and ethic dimension, that's unique or original to Christianity. There's a lot of good stuff, for sure, but it's hardly 'a revelation'. It's not ground-breaking or earth-shattering in its content.

I disagree here. There are plenty of unique moral stances I can point to.

Here's one example: Gregory of Nyssa condemned slavery as an institution in 379! It was unheard of in the ancient world. It is not an accident that Gregory rebukes his listeners for even thinking they can own another human being. In Gregory's commentary on the Beatitudes, he says that if Christians truly practiced their Lord's teachings, all divisions would disappear, including the one between master and slave. One scholar wrote about this unprecedented message in this way:

"What interests me is the defining features of Gregory's vision of the just society: his unequivocal stance against 'the peculiar institution of slavery' and his call for the manumission of all slaves. I am interested in reading Gregory as a fourth century abolitionist intellectual....His outlook surpassed not only St. Paul's more moderate (but to be fair to Paul, in his moment, revolutionary) stance on the subject but also those of all ancient intellectuals -- Pagan, Jewish and Christian - from Aristotle to Cicero and from Augustine in the Christian West to his contemporary, the golden mouthed preacher himself, John Crysotom in the East. Indeed, the world would have to wait another fifteen centuries -- until the nineteenth century, late into the modern abolitionist movement -- before such an unequivocal stance against slavery would appear again."

The clear implication is that the order of the ancient world was overthrown through the appearance of Christ. Sorry, I can't brush this off as "not ground-breaking," especially at that time in history.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Here's one example: Gregory of Nyssa condemned slavery as an institution in 379! It was unheard of in the ancient world.

In the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity we can read of greeks Alcidamas and Philemon who opposed slavery.

The clear implication is that the order of the ancient world was overthrown through the appearance of Christ. Sorry, I can't brush this off as "not ground-breaking," especially at that time in history.

I don't think the point here is if Christ and Christendom changed anything, because I think it's undeniable that they did, but if Christ said things that people hadn't thought of before. I can't speak for that myself but I don't think the position is unreasonable.

There are plenty of unique moral stances I can point to.

I think we should discuss as many as you can think of! Don't be discouraged if I test your claims.

 

[wil]

I disagree here. There are plenty of unique moral stances I can point to.

Here's one example: Gregory of Nyssa condemned slavery as an institution in 379!

and 1400 years later they were still using the bible to maintain slavery in the US... http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The religious justification of slavery before 1830.pdf

 

[Ahanu]

In the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity we can read of greeks Alcidamas and Philemon who opposed slavery.

I don't think the point here is if Christ and Christendom changed anything, because I think it's undeniable that they did, but if Christ said things that people hadn't thought of before. I can't speak for that myself but I don't think the position is unreasonable.

I think we should discuss as many as you can think of! Don't be discouraged if I test your claims.

Oh, I didn't know about Alcidamas and Philemon. It's always exciting to discover other Gregorys. Thanks for the correction in the spirit of kindness. Regardless, Gregorys were rare diamonds back then.

I'm not saying the point here is if Christ and Christendom changed anything. Part of what I'm saying is the practice and acceptance of unique rituals and one-time miracles as the line of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian is the breeding ground for an us versus them mentality--like the blind man touching the elephant's tusks, exclaiming: "Boy, what I touched was something special!"

My main point is this: for all I know another sect on another planet could be claiming the same things as Christianity as I type this, so there are different levels of perspective. All statements of uniqueness, then, in reality, remain unknown. In the context of the Roman Empire, many Christian practices were unique. Lacking Thomas' historical perspective, some Christians from that period differed with Thomas on this issue. John Chrysostom once said:

"This is the rule of most perfect Christianity, it's most exact definition, its highest point, namely the seeking of the common good . . . for nothing can so make a person an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors." ​

That's what defines Christianity, but Thomas wrote it doesn't define Christianity. Of course, Thomas has a point when he wrote he doesn't call himself a Buddhist. In one sense I see his point, but in another sense (from the Chrysostom quote above) I'm a follower of Buddha and Christ when I practice the Golden Rule, so I see no contradiction in calling oneself both a Buddhist and a Christian.

I just see the latter as a higher perspective, mainly because it erases the us versus them mentality.

 

[Ahanu]

and 1400 years later they were still using the bible to maintain slavery in the US... http://www.kingscollege.net/gbrodie/The religious justification of slavery before 1830.pdf

Looks interesting, Wil. I'll check it out when I have the time.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu –

I disagree here. There are plenty of unique moral stances I can point to.

Oh, far be it from me that I should decry the many dimensions of the Christian Revelation!

And what a delight to see someone else champion Gregory of Nyssa! I am obliged to point out, however, that Gregory's doctrine was his own, and not the Church's (as is the case with any post-Apostilic source), so although the Cappadocian was against slavery, the practice continued and was not condemned by the Church ... and there are certain beliefs held by Gregory that the Church actually condemns!

I should have perhaps said there is nothing in what modern liberal-fundamentalist Christianity claims that can be said to be uniquely Christian. (And modern conservative-fundamentalism is so far off the mark it's not even worth discussing, other than to say the right likes to filter Jesus through their reading of the Old Testament.)

Let me offer an example.

In his 'Jesus for the Non-Religious', John Selby Spong offers his own interpretation of the Gospels, and who is the Jesus who emerges from the text? Someone familiar and comfortable, someone we can all say 'yes' to. Why? Because here is a Jesus who's mission was simply one of social inclusion, of benevolence and and compassion. In short, a Jesus we can think of in much the same way we like to think of ourselves. A Jesus who exemplifies the best Western liberal moral values of tolerance and inclusiveness. It's not so much that we learn a unique moral stance from the examples of Jesus, rather that we learn that Jesus was committed to the same values as we are ... what Spong does is take those cherished (and self-evident) Western ideals and retro-works the text to provide them with a theological justification, in short, Christianity becomes a modern Western ideology. He's no different from any 'good guy' you care to name ... Gandhi, Kahlil Gibran, Paulo Coelho ...

In short, Bishop Spong’s Jesus is in no way unique, He's a Jesus who sits neatly 'in the box' of our pre-conceptions.

Christ was first and foremost ordered towards 'the Spirit' (upper-case S – God), whereas today that element is retreating from consciousness, and people see Christianity as ordered towards 'the spirit' (lower case 's' – the self). People today conflate 'spirit' with their own intellectual and creative capacity ... it's an interesting psychological argument that the Orthodox make more of than the Latins, although of course Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI was outspoken against the 'Philosophy of Relativism' and its dangerous flaws long before those flaws began to be recognised by social commentators in the socio-political sphere.

The clear implication is that the order of the ancient world was overthrown through the appearance of Christ.

I agree in spirit, the 'rending of the veil of the temple', in the fullness of its implications, is unique among religions, but that is from the Mystical aspect, which the contemporary world largely ignores or refutes. The material fact is, it was the ancient world that threw down Christ – and crucified Him.

Jesus was not crucified for His miracles, nor really for declaring Himself to be the Son of God, although that gave His accusers the green light to press their cause. Jesus was executed because His words and His deeds were backed by a radical social programme that brought Him followers from all walks of life, and that all walks of life met as equals in the ecclesia and which challenged the self-serving interests of those in authority – the Jewish authorities, not the Roman, as many like to insist. It's there in Scripture and it is the most logical explanation (which rather knocks Spong's Jesus into touch – why would anyone want to harm someone so nice and inoffensive as Spong's Jesus?)

I disagree here. There are plenty of unique moral stances I can point to.

OK. Let's discuss. I'm not contending with you, I think it would be good to bring them to light. If I do, it's just Thomas blowing his trumpet, so it would make a change for someone else to!

Having said that, let me start ... I think the Western notion of 'the person', the integral human being, although like everything else is founded on Hebraic Scripture and belief, is today a Christian concept unique in its scope, range and dimension. This is too often and too easily overlooked, and nowhere moreso than when Westerners do not factor this properly in their interpretation of doctrines like Hinduism and Buddhism, and this leads to fundamental misconceptions of the latter traditions (I've discussed this elsewhere, but no-one picks up on it).

I would say more than 95% of western concepts of 'karma' and 'reincarnation' founder on this point, in that westerners assume something as a given, that Hinduism and Buddhism dismisses as illusory ...