Did Jesus Exist? If So, Who Was He?

[currentchristian]

There was much discussion in this topic “Did Jesus Exist?” and in many others about the historicity (or not) of Jesus. I looked back for the past 13 months in General Theological Issues and found these topics. All are linked in case anyone wants to review them:

 

Did Jesus Exist?

The Jesus of History vs. The Jesus of Myth

What is the Nature of Jesus?

The Myth of Jesus

Krishna/Jesus

Rabbi Jesus

Is Jesus Relevant: Through the Eyes of an Ex Christian

Jesus is a Myth: Revisited and Recycled

Judas Was Crucified, Not Jesus

Jesus and the New Testament

The Jesus Data: A Scientific Approach to the Resurrection

Misquoting Jesus: Bert Ehrman Interview

Jesus vs. Paul

Jesus is God-Yes

Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Did Jesus Exist

Who Taught Jesus

A Sacrificial Death

Why Jesus? Why not Mythra or Horas?

 

I’m very curious to know the views of members of this forum on the historicity (or not) of Jesus. I’ve tried to think of every possible answer to the “Did Jesus Exist?” question, but I’m sure this list of choices is not all-inclusive. If one of these choices does not precisely fit your view, choose the closest option and post your "I chose number whatever but..." caveat for all to read!

[Vigile]

My answer would be it doesn't matter.

 

If he existed at all, miracles attributed to him surely did not occur. His sermons were not profound and were certainly not unique or new. Others had made the same statements centuries before Christ.

 

Why should we care if there was really a man from Nazareth named Jesus who the gospels were modeled after. That man, if he existed, would not be recognized by any who learned about him via the gospels.

[currentchristian]

I have not been able to figure out how to create a neat and tidy anonymous poll. I'm getting help on that. In the meantime, here are the options for review. Don't reply yet, please, as I'd like to get the poll up first. THANKS!

 

1. Jesus did not exist in any way, shape, or form. It’s all made up from whole-cloth.

 

2. Jesus did not exist. He is an amalgam of many messiahs/teachers of the 1st century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E., and an exaggerated history was contrived around this composite character.

 

3. Jesus did exist, but he was nothing more than a reformist teacher with some fresh ideas. Not a god, not a son of god--just a teacher whose story got way out of control after his devastating death.

 

4. Jesus did exist and was an extraordinary teacher and even a healer, but his "powers" were inflated and his followers took surrounding myths of the Greeks and Romans and other and applied them to the man Jesus, creating the divine Christ of the New Testament.

 

5. Jesus did exist and the Bible is a good portrayal of his life, miracles and resurrection, but Jesus was not a “son of god” or even supernatural. He was an alien life form planted here by the same alien life form (not supernatural beings, but advanced natural beings) that originally either seeded the earth or intervened in the evolutionary process in order to speed up the point at which Homo sapiens would appear.

 

6. Jesus is pretty much what the NT makes him out to be. While there are inconsistencies about some points, the critical outline of the story is true, including events such as the miracles, crucifixion and resurrection.

 

7. Jesus was exactly who the Bible says he was. He was the fulfillment of all the prophecies about him. Everything in the OT and NT about Jesus is true, true, true.

[Vigile]

oh, I don't see a poll ???

[currentchristian]

oh, I don't see a poll ???

 

I have a mess going here!

 

I'm trying to clean it up and get the poll up.

 

Sorry.

 

-CC in MA

[Reach]

I hope the edit is what you were asking for, CC.

 

-Reach

[webmdave]

Thanks, Reach.

[currentchristian]

Thanks, Reach.

 

Thank you, Reach, and thank you, Dave, for your help!! I appreciate it very much.

 

Now, let the VOTING begin!!!

 

-CC in MA

[KT45]

I picked option two but I'm currently studying to find the answer.

[Sparrow]

I could have picked either one or two as I think there are a mixture of things. I think the myth upon which the jesus character is based probably goes a long way back before the 1st century BCE.

 

Ultimately, it wouldn't matter if there was an individual upon whom this story was based.

 

He's dead now, thank god (pun intended), and his teachings are causing a whole load of problems today - and that is what is concerning me.

 

Thanks

 

Spatz

[white_raven23]

Combo #2 and #4, but I put #2 as your detail for #4 was contrived for a positive on the existence.

 

2. Jesus did not exist. He is an amalgam of many messiahs/teachers of the 1st century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E., and an exaggerated history was contrived around this composite character.

4. Jesus did exist and was an extraordinary teacher and even a healer, but his "powers" were inflated and his followers took surrounding myths of the Greeks and Romans and other and applied them to the man Jesus, creating the divine Christ of the New Testament.

 

My truthful answer (it's a combo):

Jesus did not exist. He is an amalgam of many messiahs/teachers of the 1st century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E., surrounding myths of the Greeks and Romans and others and applied them,creating the divine Christ of the New Testament and an exaggerated history was contrived around this composite character.

[R. S. Martin]

CC in MA, I am impressed with what you've come up with. You must have put a LOT of work into it. It would probably not be this good if I had accepted your offer of doing it together because I would have lost patience long before it was done. I figured you'd changed your mind. Excellent job!

 

I voted #2. I don't know enough about Jesus to make the detailed critique White Raven made. I would agree with her proposal, too. I don't know if Jesus lived. I assume a number of men lived by this name approximately that time just as we have lots of men by that name today, i.e. Joshua. Anybody know a Josh? I would guess so!

 

I basically accept Tom Harpur's thesis in The Pagan Christ that Jesus is a mythical figure derived from other ancient myths. I don't know enough mythology to comment on whether it would be from Egyptian mythology as he argues, or from some other mythology. Possibly a mix or amalgam, with Jewish ideas thrown in to make it fit their specific view of the world.

 

I agree with Marvin Meyer that Christianity may have come into existence via the Greco-Roman Mystery Religions. Since it is specifically adapted to the Jewish setting it must have come through the Jewish people. Then Paul spread it to the Gentiles. And from thence it was taken to the rest of the world via Constantine and missionaries.

 

I disagree very strongly with those people who assume that its very popularity proves its historical truthfulness. We have the cliche "there is strength in numbers." We also have Jesus' saying about "straight is the gate and narrow the way and few there be that find it."

 

If that is correct, then the very numbers that keep the religion going prove that it is not true. There must be something wrong with it. Our expanding numbers on this site would testify to that. Maybe I'll post this dilemma in the Lion's Den. I am really curious how Christians defend it.

[Antlerman]

I voted for #3 with a qualifier "might have been", not "was". Actually 2 and 3 with a "might have existed" best reflects my views. A popluar story made fantastical, heaping all sorts of imagery and schools of thought onto him to create something that anhilated whatever historical figure may have existed to begin with. How to create a god, and ignore the man.

[Taphophilia]

I read somewhere, and I don't remember where so I can't link the source, that crucified heroes were a common theme in ancient novels. Yes, the ancients had novels (who knew?), "The Golden Ass or The Metamorphosis" by Apuleius is an ancient novel. Since most people couldn't read back then it's possible that through the retelling of stories (ancient novels they had read to them), Jesus would emerge into popular thought. Literary characters were as real to them as they are to us, thus Paul influenced by a popular character, has a vision or so he says, spreads the idea around adding his Hellenistic and Jewish roots.

[Lycorth]

I'd combine #1 and #2; Jebus of Nazareth did not exist because, despite the claims of his followers, there isn't a single shred of evidence that anyone by that name ever lived. However, there were many guys with the name "Jesus" (and varying degrees of leadership amongst various Jewish groups) in the area around the time in question as well as many Pagan legends of the era whose gods bore the same characteristics that Jebus of Nazareth was said to have.

 

To me, it seems clear that there was no such person as Jebus of Nazareth, but that he was built out of bits and pieces from Pagan mytholgoy and other Jesuses who actually lived.

[Checkmate]

#1 and 2 for me. And here are MY "Jesus" links to add to the pile...

 

Jesus Never Existed

 

Solar Mythology and the Bible

 

Frankly, I'm getting REALLY tired of all this "Jesus" talk from Christians. It's sick and delusional. How can grown adults, with college educations, STILL be enamored of an obvious fairy tale. Grown men and women who speak favorably of "Zeus", "Hercules" and "Santa" are viewed as insane. Meanwhile, these same nitwits speak about some dead carpenter floating around in space as if they've said the most intelligent thing ever.

 

What? Are you fucking nuts?!? It's the 21st century. Time to grow up and face reality, folks. Ain't no "Jesus" coming back to "take anyone home to glory." Get a life, willya? The bible is a badly written comic book. Good for scaring the kids, horrible for living your life. PERIOD.

 

Sheesh.

[Lycorth]

Frankly, I'm getting REALLY tired of all this "Jesus" talk from Christians. It's sick and delusional. How can grown adults, with college educations, STILL be enamored of an obvious fairy tale. Grown men and women who speak favorably of "Zeus", "Hercules" and "Santa" are viewed as insane. Meanwhile, these same nitwits speak about some dead carpenter floating around in space as if they've said the most intelligent thing ever.

 

Fuckin' A, Checkmate. Well-said

[currentchristian]

I'd combine #1 and #2; Jebus of Nazareth did not exist because, despite the claims of his followers, there isn't a single shred of evidence that anyone by that name ever lived. However, there were many guys with the name "Jesus" (and varying degrees of leadership amongst various Jewish groups) in the area around the time in question as well as many Pagan legends of the era whose gods bore the same characteristics that Jebus of Nazareth was said to have.

 

To me, it seems clear that there was no such person as Jebus of Nazareth, but that he was built out of bits and pieces from Pagan mytholgoy and other Jesuses who actually lived.

 

Thank you, Varokhar, for casting a vote. In our democracy...blah, blah, blah...

 

Why is it that the various accounts of the life of a Jesus written by partisans do not count as at last "a single shred of evidence that anyone by that name ever lived"?

 

Don't the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the non-canonical gospels called Gospel of Thomas, Secret Book of James, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Secret Gospel of Mark, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of James and others as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and the 21 letters by Paul and others that were "canonized" at least provide one, teenie-weenie "shred" of evidence?

 

If not, why not?

 

Think about Josephus, for example. What if his writing had been "canonized" in scripture? Would we, therefore, dismiss it--lock, stock and barrel? Surely, not. I don't understand, therefore, why we don't evaluate the scriptural writings and the writings that are not scriptural but written by partisans of Jesus or of the religion that emerged after the Jesus event in the same way we judge other ancient texts?

 

Should we dismiss every history of Greece written by a Greek? Every history of Rome written by a Roman? Shouldn't much more historical analysis than this one factor go into our decisions about what is "possible," what is "probable," and what is "unlikely"?

 

In all sincerity, while I absolutely do understand how one can embrace the theory that the traditional view of Jesus is inaccurate and that his story was embellished, intentionally or not, and that he was not a "son of God" or any such thing, I do not find it even remotely historically accurate to state that there was not at the very least a Jesus of that timeframe who was at the very least a reformer and nomadic preacher.

 

I picked #6, by the way. I guess that's why I call myself CC.

 

For my purposes, however, I am (mentally) eliminating options 6 & 7 as responses by Christians and I am not interested in what they think about this, as we already know what they think; I am interested in the views of the ex-Xtians here and the number of those choosing options 1-5.

 

Thanks, everyone!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

#1 and 2 for me. And here are MY "Jesus" links to add to the pile...

 

Jesus Never Existed

 

Solar Mythology and the Bible

 

Frankly, I'm getting REALLY tired of all this "Jesus" talk from Christians. It's sick and delusional. How can grown adults, with college educations, STILL be enamored of an obvious fairy tale. Grown men and women who speak favorably of "Zeus", "Hercules" and "Santa" are viewed as insane. Meanwhile, these same nitwits speak about some dead carpenter floating around in space as if they've said the most intelligent thing ever.

 

What? Are you fucking nuts?!? It's the 21st century. Time to grow up and face reality, folks. Ain't no "Jesus" coming back to "take anyone home to glory." Get a life, willya? The bible is a badly written comic book. Good for scaring the kids, horrible for living your life. PERIOD.

 

Sheesh.

 

Thanks for adding some more links, Checkmate!

 

It's all a matter of personal perspective. I support the right to hold opinions of all kinds, diverse thoughts, and divergent views on this and every other issue under the sun.

 

I don't consider myself -- or others who find in the Jesus event a powerful reality -- to be "sick" or "delusional" or "enamored of an obvious fairy tale" or "nitwits" or "nuts" or without a life or unable to face reality.

 

Sorry, just see things quite differently. There's room in the world for diversity of thought. Surely.

 

-CC in MA

[Vigile]

I don't consider myself -- or others who find in the Jesus event a powerful reality -- to be "sick" or "delusional" or "enamored of an obvious fairy tale" or "nitwits" or "nuts" or without a life or unable to face reality.

 

Ahh... but perhaps one day you will grasshopper. Perhaps one day you will.

[currentchristian]

I don't consider myself -- or others who find in the Jesus event a powerful reality -- to be "sick" or "delusional" or "enamored of an obvious fairy tale" or "nitwits" or "nuts" or without a life or unable to face reality.

 

Ahh... but perhaps one day you will grasshopper. Perhaps one day you will.

 

It's a long, long, long shot, Vigile-del-fuoco1, but let's say the unimaginable did happen. I pray now to the God I won't believe in then that I never resort to labeling those who still believe as "sick" or "delusional" or "nitwits" or "nuts."

 

This is not reasoned language, nor reasonable, nor logical, nor testable, nor verifiable, nor scientific, and certainly not tolerant.

 

Seems to me. Peace out.

 

I remain,

 

CC in MA

[Vigile]

Yeah, I understand you are not a big fan of labeling people CC. That's a nice trait. Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing that you consider those who still believe in Zeus and Thor, or those who believe that the cartoons they watch on television are real to be completely healthy mentally. At the very least, I doubt that you consider thier beliefs to be healthy regardless of your opionion on their mental health. Would you not consider these people deluded? Checkmate has a sometimes crass way of stating the obvious that the rest of us sometimes overlook. That's why his posts are so well liked by so many of us here.

[Mythra]

Why is it that the various accounts of the life of a Jesus written by partisans do not count as at last "a single shred of evidence that anyone by that name ever lived"?

 

They are all derivative of one account. Mark. An account that appears to be an allegorical tale that had no virgin birth or resurrected Jesus.

 

Don't the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the non-canonical gospels called Gospel of Thomas, Secret Book of James, Dialogue of the Savior, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Secret Gospel of Mark, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Infancy Gospel of James and others as well as the Acts of the Apostles, and the 21 letters by Paul and others that were "canonized" at least provide one, teenie-weenie "shred" of evidence?

Yes. Just not evidence of what you think they do. How do you suppose that this hodgepodge of varied and contradictory writings point to a single historical founder?

 

I do not find it even remotely historically accurate to state that there was not at the very least a Jesus of that timeframe who was at the very least a reformer and nomadic preacher.

 

That's because you don't understand the myth position and how it deals with the evidence.

 

Jesus Myth - The Case Against the Historical Christ

[Checkmate]

Currentchristian, I have something for you to read. Here's the link...

 

The Lunacy of Religion

 

And after you read this (IF you read this), then click on the link in my signature and read that.

 

You deliberately short-circuit REASON and choose to believe in FANTASY that CANNOT be proven objectively. What else is that BUT "delusional"?

 

I understand that you don't appreciate my choice of words. Well, too bad. NOT calling something by it's TRUE name is not being "tolerant", but cowardly and disingenuous. You DELUDED people will NEVER get the help you need if we keep pretending that there's nothing wrong with you.

[NotBlinded]

That is my little vote for #4. I didn't really like the "healer" part of it, but I think that Jesus was a little more than #3 but not in a literal sense.

 

So I waver between the two.