Does it matter if Jesus Christ is a historic or a mythic person?

[BurtWorm]

I'm guessing the answer is different for Christians from what it would be for non-Christians.

On the one hand, you could argue that it doesn't matter for anyone, because regardless of what the truth is and considering that there will probably never be sufficient evidence to favor one side or the other, people would still argue over this question according to the lines already drawn in the sand.

On the other hand, suppose people like me who believe Jesus is purely myth are right. Is there any problem with non-Christians erroneously believing Jesus was a real person?

My view is that non-Christians should have a higher threshold for proof of Jesus's historicity than Christians, whose relationship to Christ is built on faith. Non-Christians, I believe, should not have faith as the basis of their understanding of Jesus.

What do you think?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. It's the old "I think, therefore I am" thing.

It really doesn't matter whether or not Jesus existed at all. People believe he existed and that he was the son of god - and therefore, he is.

The truth of the matter is that the truth does not matter, especially one which can never be proven.

Personally, I believe Jesus was closer to the original David Koresh than he was to being the messiah. He just got there first.

[Orrex]

58. If Christian claim that absolute authority guides their morality...

Then it is imperative not only that Jesus existed but that he was literally and in fact the Son of God. If this is not the case, then nothing that proceeds from the supposed teachings of Jesus has any greater moral authority than the teachings of your bus driver or the guy in the laundromat.

[wtmusic]

2. If Jesus wasn't around Christians would have latched onto

another convenient idol. The Church of Bigfoot?

[tatertop]

3. Too bad they have strayed from the benevolent salvation of the FSM

The one true God.

[Burning Water]

6. What's FSM? n/t

[MrMonk]

10. All shall be revealed . . .

http://www.venganza.org/

[Burning Water]

15. Very funny.

Thanks.

[Finder]

4. Tons of evidence re: Jesus as myth.

Unfortunately, most people do not want evidence, whether it be of Jesus, WMD, biology, global warming, evolution. They want to be told what to think.

I think Christianity as a philosophy has merit and does not depend on a historical figure. Same goes for other philosophies--Jewish, Eastern, Pagan, etc...

Those who believe Jesus was historical rarely research for themselves. They just go to apologists websites and copy and paste and do not know the difference between scholarship and propaganda.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. For every piece of "evidence" you can come up with

to disprove him, somebody else can counter with proof. And the arguments will continue.

And I don't mean just duffers like me who can "Google" but theologians who have given over their lives to the study.

But are you saying that in order to believe something we have to engage in rigorous, personal, scholarly research? Because that concept is going to leave a whole LOT of us out in the cold, and seems a tad elitist to me.

What do you think?

[Finder]

35. There is no "proof" to counter with, only faith...

And if trying to offer facts or educate others makes one an elitist, then so be it.

I can't fathom believing something without thoroughly researching.

Don't get me wrong, people can believe what they want, but if they plan on condemning others or if the group they belong to is killing in the name of their belief, then it is the duty of the "elitists" to call them on the carpet.IMO

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. Research is wonderful

but sometimes I just throw out the question and see who answers. Inside.

I spend so much of my life in intellectual pursuits as a teacher I get tired of worrying about what other people say and do and think and argue and I just am. And that's when I get answers.


So why am I on DU you ask?

I'm not sure. Looking for soulmates, I guess. I've found a few, too.

[Burning Water]

5. My own view is that

everyone must decide for himself who Jesus Christ is. Or if they are even interested in knowing. I don't see how a liberal progressive can be comfortable setting the standards for someone else about how the must/should lead their life or form their beliefs.

:)

[BurtWorm]

9. Are you comfortable setting the standard of comfort

for liberal progressives on that question? ;)

[Burning Water]

13. We've

all got a right to an opinion, and you raised the question. Otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

Yes, I'm quite comfortable stating my opinions on this or any other topic.

[BurtWorm]

16. Is there a difference between proposing a comfort level to express

an opinion and proposing a standard of proof? It seems to me that in each case, the proponent is not pretending to require adherence from others to their standards, though each does imply a personal judgment.

[Burning Water]

20. Certainly there is.

A comfort level is subjective. Everyone must decide one for himself. A standard of proof should be objective, although that some people have faith is an objective fact.

My objection is that tolerance requires that we be tolerant of others not only when they are wrong, but when we think they are wrong for the wrong reasons or wrong for the right reasons. Or even are complete idiots.

However, this does not imply that we have to accept what they say. I, for instance, do not believe in Allah. I do not think Islam is correct in its assertions about God, the afterlife, or its relationship to Judaism or Christianity. I think they are totally wrong about pork, the beast eating meat in the world. However, I believe that they Muslims certainly have the right to worship as they please, except insofar as their religion requires them to convert or kill me, and that they have the right to examine their religion under any standard whatsoever. As do I or anyone else.

God, if there is a God, will judge, or not, in the end, if there is one.

[BurtWorm]

23. Should we be tolerant of people who believe "other races" are inferior

to their own? Or do you agree with me that there is a limit to what we should be "required" to tolerate in other people, that "requiring tolerance" of some views is a sort of intolerance for certain of our own views--for example that racism is wrong and completely idiotic?

Sometimes tolerance for views that seem wrong for whatever reason can seem like a cop-out at best, or an abdication of responsibility at worst.

Nevertheless, tolerance seems to me to be beside my original point, which is that accepting the "fact" of a flesh-and-blood Jesus, while perfectly understandable as a Christian stance, is less so as a non-Christian stance, precisely because belief that a flesh-and-blood Christian walked the earth requires a leap of faith. At the same time, it's understandable that a non-Christian in the US would accept the idea of a historic Jesus without questioning it, because the culture sells us that idea all the time. But does anyone expect non-Christians to accept the idea that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, or a miracle worker, or the messiah, or a conqueror of death who rose from the dead and will return from Heaven to claim the world for his Father? Of course not. Yet for some reason, even we are expected to believe that Jesus was a real person.

See, I can tolerate Christians believing Jesus was real. That's part of their religion. I can even tolerate non-Christians blindly accepting the prevailing wisdom about the realness of Jesus. But then I expect to be tolerated in return when I challenge the prevailing wisdom.

[Burning Water]

27. Where do you draw the line

on tolerance? Good question. Part of the answer depends on what you mean by "tolerance". As long as they obey the law and refrain from violence, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to state their opinions, regardless of who it offends.

On the other hand, I do not have to associate with them, agree with them, etc. I am perfectly free to snub them and boycott their birthday party. Which I will certainly do. I am also free to state my opinion that they are idiots, and say why. The antidote to hateful speech is more speech. What I am not entitled to do is to violate their rights or use or threaten violence.

Now, as to your original point. Belief in a real, live, flesh-and-blood Jesus does not necessarily imply belief in Jesus as Son of God. I, myself, believe that Mohammad certainly lived. I do not believe he was a prophet. Why shouldn't there have been a real Jesus. Maybe not as His followers think of Him, but a real Jesus who lived and taught in Palestine in the early years of the Roman Empire? Why is it so essential to those who do not believe in Him as Lord that He never existed at all? What about Paul? Some consider him to be the real founder of Christianity. In fact, I recently read a book on that very subject. If you don't believe in Jesus as God, what the Hell difference does it make whether He existed or not?

accepting the "fact" of a flesh-and-blood Jesus, while perfectly understandable as a Christian stance, is less so as a non-Christian stance, precisely because belief that a flesh-and-blood Christian walked the earth requires a leap of faith. If Jesus isn't God, it really doesn't make any difference whether He existed as a philosopher and teacher, or not. Somebody had these ideas about how to live life, and sent them down to us. Assuming that it was Jesus, his philosophical ideas would then be no better than say Marx's.

At the same time, it's understandable that a non-Christian in the US would accept the idea of a historic Jesus without questioning it, because the culture sells us that idea all the time. But does anyone expect non-Christians to accept the idea that Jesus is God, or the Son of God, or a miracle worker, or the messiah, or a conqueror of death who rose from the dead and will return from Heaven to claim the world for his Father? Of course not.

No. They don't expect non-Christians to accept that Jesus was God. In fact, by definition, if you don't accept Him as God, you aren't a Christian.

Why do you think so? Who expects you to believe so? Why do you not? There are lots of people, billions and billions of people who existed. Yet we don't believe in any one specific one of them because we never even knew their names.

So, if you don't believe in Christ as God, why do you care whether or not He existed as a human being. I don't understand your intense concern about the matter, and crave enlightenment.

Frankly, I doubt many Christians care as much about you not believing in Jesus as a man that existed as they would about you not believing he was God. To them, if you don't believe He was God, the other doesn't matter at all, theologically.

But certainly, you are entitled to hold any opinion you want, about anything including Jesus, and to defend it in the face of argument as best you are able.

[BurtWorm]

30. Why am I so interested in the matter?

I think it's a fascinating philosophical question. And I disagree with you about the non-theological nature of Jesus's humanity. I don't know if you're a Christian, but I would be very surprised if other Christians agreed with you, too. The first 500 years of Christian history in the West is devoted to getting right what it meant that Jesus was God made man. Was this meant purely metaphorically or was it meant literally? The literalists won, in the West, but that doesn't mean they were right, does it?

[Burning Water]

31. Oh, I agree, that

there is theological interest in Jesus' humanity.

What I am saying is that if Jesus is not God, if Jesus doesn't save us from our sins, if he didn't die and was resurrected and ascend to heaven, then he was just another itinerant preacher/philosopher/nutjob wandering the desert. So if He isn't God, then whether or not He really existed in the Flesh, or was the creation of the Church Fathers is insignificant. I think you're trying to shift the terms of the debate on me.

Because if He did exist, well He put His trousers on one leg at a time, same as the rest of us.

[BurtWorm]

32. On the contrary, the much more interesting question is if he was a man.

It always amazes me when people want to defend the ideas of Jesus as real lunatic or real nobody, which have even less going for them, in terms of real evidence, than Jesus as real Messiah. That's not what I think you're saying, necessarily, but I've seen a lot of non-Christians argue that and it makes no sense to me.

It's a total fallacy that if Jesus wasn't God in the special way Christians say he was then he must have been just another man. That begs the question.


PS: By the way, whether Jesus was or wasn't a real person is much more interesting because it is meaningful in a way "was Jesus God" is not. This is another way of asking, What is the real nature of Jesus? Was he born (to put his pantlegs on one at a time, so to speak) and did he do all the animal things we humans do? Or was he purely an idea?

[Burning Water]

33. OK. He wasn't God.

He wasn't another man. What was He, exactly?

[BurtWorm]

34. In my opinion? He was an idea. A metaphor. A story.

If you read about the gnostics, you'll see that they had a concept of "the Christ within." Jesus stands for the divine spark in humans.

In my opinion.

[Burning Water]

38. Fair enough.

He was a lie. And yes, I've read Joseph Campbell.

[BurtWorm]

44. "He was a lie" is a spin I didn't put on it.

But if you think so, so be it.

[Burning Water]

48. No, you didn't.

You may not have even thought it. But given your arguments, logic takes us there.

:)

[BurtWorm]

49. I honestly don't believe the gnostics thought of him as a lie.

Anymore than the ancient Greeks thought of Zeus as a lie.

[Burning Water]

50. No, they probably didn't.

They thought of him as a myth, or metaphor. Used to guide the "common people". 'Cause the "common people" can't handle the truth unvarnished. It's not fiction, which everyone knows is false. Nope, presented to the "common man" as truth. Read your Gibbons.

But a lie, nonetheless (unless it is true, of course).

Mr. Bush probably doesn't think of WMD as a lie, either.

[BurtWorm]

51. Actually, I think it was the Roman church that insisted on the literal

truth of Jesus, just as they insisted on the literal truth of transubstatiation during communion. The gnostics were not interested in literal truth so much as spiritual truth.

[Burning Water]

52. There is no "spiritual truth",

in the sense that you mean it. IMO, of course. It's just different people's opinions. What? You don't think Republicans don't look to "higher" things, too? Of course they do. Their moral gravitational pole just seems to be 180 degrees opposite of the one for progressives. And there may be other moral gravitational poles, also.

[BurtWorm]

53. We seem to have gone rather far afield.

I don't believe in a "spiritual truth" either, but that makes just two of us. My point was simply that gnosticism was not concerned with earthly matters. It was the Roman Church that made the supposed fact of Jesus's life, death and resurrection on earth in history central to the faith.

[Burning Water]

54. Now, I didn't

say that I didn't believe in spiritual truth. Didn't say that I did, either.

What I said was it didn't exist as you meant it. However, that is wrong. What I really meant to say was that it didn't exist as the gnostics believe it. Please accept my apologies.

[GeorgeGist]

7. Does truth matter???

[WritingIsMyReligion]

29. More to the point: Is truth really objective?

:shrug:

[demosincebirth]

8. To me, its His message. Responsibility.

my responsibility to those less fortunate.

[madrchsod]

11. no it doesn`t

[Sinti]

12. For non-Christians I don't think it makes any difference at all

until they run into nutty-fundies with guns. However, I really think to remain an unwavering Christian you would do well not to study history at all, including mythology and so forth. A fair knowledge of the history of your religion, and others like it, will likely render you faithless.

I like Jesus though, real or imagined. He had a lot of good ideas. If he was a real dude, I really feel sorry for him, considering all that gets done in his name.

[stopbush]

14. All god myths - including Jesus - have been born in the minds of men.

And many god myths are derivative of what came before. Jesus is no exception. It's probably
more important to realize that he didn't exist and was merely another version of the Mithras
Apollo/etc model, because that shows a continuum of human self delusion that fits a pattern.

To think that he was some unique historic figure who rose from the dead shows an ignorance of
both religious and human history. On the religious front, you have the many earlier gods whose
life story was borrowed whole hog to flesh out the "life" of Jesus, from the virgin birth to the
12 followers to the resurrection. On the human history front, there is no contemporaneous
physical evidence that Jesus existed. Third-party proofs of Jesus existence (Josepheus et al)
have been demonstrated to be forgeries, and bad ones at that.

Worse, the various gospels are in major conflict over events in his life.
Worse still, many of the "historic events" cited in the Bible never happened,
or are dated to the wrong period (ex: Galilee wasn't a Roman territory when Jesus was
supposedly born, so why have Mary & Joseph travel for a census? And, there is no record
of such a census ever taking place to begin with - and, there was no need for Mary & Joseph to
travel to Galilee "to be taxed" because Roman taxes were based on land ownership, not
population).

I have no problem with Xtians taking the teachings of Jesus and even his corporeal existence
"on faith," humans have done that with their various god archetypes for millenia.
But I do have problems with people asserting that the historic record proves that he was a real flesh-and-blood person.

[BurtWorm]

18. I agree totally with your last paragraph, in particular.

:toast:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Can I ask you a question?

This is respectful, tho it might sound snarky. You write very persuasively about the mythical nature of Christ, the history, the inconsistencies, etc. Obviously you have studied this and also are an educated, open-minded person.

What I am wondering is whether you have studied both sides of the question? Have you read any of the apologists on the "pro" side? Or just the con?

Please don't think I'm accusing you, saying you haven't. I am simply curious. I know that personally, when I have a belief, I tend to only read things that bolster that belief. Which is why I hang out here at DU, basically.

tg

[Finder]

37. I know you were not addressing me but...

I was a sister/nun in training. Of course, that was eons ago.

[stopbush]

41. I come from the "pro" side, having been "saved" back in my senior year

in high school. I was quite militant about it through must of my college years. I
read many of the "pro" apologists back then - nothing like a self-reinforcing loop
of common think to keep the troops in line.

Then, I moved to NYC. Getting away from the soft racism of the mis-named heartland
opened my mind to different philosophies of life. The more I studied the history
and roots of Xtianity, the more questions I had.

While in NYC, I made my living as a singer and did a lot of church and temple gigs,
so I kept a connection to the rituals etc of organized religion. But there came a point
in my mid forties where I decided to leave childish things behind, and that included
religion. It was a very long process, but here I am at 51, unafraid to proclaim (if asked)
that I am now - for lack of a better term - atheistic.

Now, I view religion and god as one of the great constructs of the human experience. I
prefer to view life through the prism of our humanness, rather than through the prism
of some imagined deity. Life is a lot happier for me these days. My kids are being brought
up without the shackles of religion to bind their minds, though I imagine that at the ages of 9 and 12
they have more discussions on religion and ethics than most kids their age (that's the curse of
being an atheist - you think about "god issues" more often than non-atheists).

Thank you for the kind words. Having been "saved" at one point in my life, I am sure that I
tend to write from a more-militant perspective than is absolutely necessary. I thank you for
indulging my foibles in that respect.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

47. Thanks for your honest answer

I don't think have ever really been 'saved.' In many ways, my experience is the opposite of yours. While I was raised a good Episcopalian and it was part of my childhood culture, it wasn't until I went through some very bad times when I was about 40 that I started looking for answers and hearing them, and then reading some of the basics.

Both of my children are agnostics, I guess you could say. If they ever think about it, that is. They humor me and take me to church sometimes. And they had their baby baptized, but it is a cultural thing to them rather than really religious. As they tell me, they feel it would be hypocritical for them to celebrate Christmas and not go through the rest of the hoops. But that's their choice.

I am from the NYC area and left at 30 for less congestion and...a job. Times were tight in the Reagan years.

Nice to get to know you!

[salvorhardin]

17. I'd say yes.

Because it's good to know the factual historic record and how it was converted into myth.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Depends

Are you just taking a "life lesson" from the NT? Are you just inspired to do something good? Then who cares. It's just like all the people being pissed off because Million Little Pieces (or whatever) is not a "real" story. They were moved by it when they read it; why isn't that enough?

Are you using it as a tool to legislate "morality"? Then it does become important. Don't push your mythology onto me or society as a whole.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. Good question

I don't know that it does matter. I mean, I don't believe in a lot of things, including 72 virgins in paradise and it doesn't much matter in the grand scheme of things.

Perhaps a more interesting question might be would it matter if I personally, a Christian, found out for certain, that Christ did not exist. Oddly enough, for me, it probably wouldn't. I move on, call the Jesus story a nice myth and call my inner convictions and intuitions and spiritual guides by another name.

Maybe they are ALL just stories that we can hold on to with our finite minds, in order to put a face on the infinite. Because (in my opinion) so many of us feel so strongly there is something there, and it is human nature to want to make it real.

If the Jesus story is NOT real, then I think whoever came up with it came up with one heck of a poignant story line and theme. As I listen to the St. Matthew Passion, I feel even moreso.

[BurtWorm]

25. That's a very interesting question.

I know that there are some Christians (the guys who wrote the Jesus Mysteries, for example) who have come to believe that Jesus is purely mythic, and they claim their Christianity has been strengthened as a result.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Well

I guess the bottom line is God. I can deal with Jesus being a myth, but if God isn't out there (and "my" God doesn't wear a nightgown, but is pure light, energy, etc.) that couldn't strengthen my Christianity very much.

But I've always enjoyed the Paul Bunyon stories and they really have ramped up my patriotism for the great American Spirit and all!


heh

[Finder]

36. You sound like a Deist...

and would be in excellent company.

[stopbush]

42. I never understood the "72 virgins" schtick.

Give me a woman with some - quite literally - fucking experience!!

Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole bedding a virgin deal smacks of sex-as-dirty thinking. As in, "Yipee! I get to defile 72 virgins."

[stopbush]

43. You mention the St Matthew Passion.

I am a great fan of classical music and have sung the St Matt numerous times. I will say that
there are spiritual aspects of the piece that were more enjoyable to me back in my believer days. I used
to make it a point to listen to the Bach Passions during Lent, along with lots of religious music.
These pieces rang a bell that was seated deep in my Xtian upbringing.

As an atheist, I can certainly admire the music for the music's sake. I can even admire the mythos
that surrounds the piece. But it's like admiring the Satanic magic of the Wolf's Glen scene in Der Freischütz,
ie: as an observer of fantasy, not on the level of a faith-based experience.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

45. I'm sorry to hear that

because those are such great moments for me. But you are honest and it certainly makes sense.

This will make my atheist friends giggle, but I don't care much for fantasy. I never could get into The Trilogy of the Ring, Harry Potter, etc.

I suppose it is a measure of how deep my belief (or some will say naivite') is that I will read pretty much anything that has to do with Christ and sacred music moves me like nothing else.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

28. Gods are beautiful things.

After all, they show how advanced the human psyche is...or rather, how advanced but unoriginal it is. Savior? Please. That was Mithras. Birthday December 25th? Please. That was the Roman holiday of Saturnalia.

I don't have a problem with your myths, so long as you keep them to yourselves. I DO have a problem when you try to pretend that these ideas are new and unique, though. Religious plagiarism, anyone?

;)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

46. Hi, WIMR,

I tend to think there is nothing original in the world...not gods, not ideals, not ideas, not myths. Not even us. Certainly not holidays. We all evolve from something/somewhere else. We don't develop in a vacuum.

Now I'm laughing because as I wrote this, one of my fourth graders gave me an Easter basket she had made. It has beads on it and is filled with goodies. She giggled when she handed it to me and said: "I love holidays!"

Maybe I need to take a page from her book and just enjoy life and stop thinking so damned much. There is a chocolate bunny in there that is about to lose his ears!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

55. That's cool!

I love chocolate bunnies. :D :D

Interesting concept, that there is nothing truly original. ;)

:hi:

[Brentos]

57. Questions....

How exactly was Mithras and equivalent of Jesus as savior for individual sin? I don't see that in Mithras myth?

Yeah, a holiday on the 25th is a rip-off of several religions, but that was the catholic church, not scripture.

[trotsky]

59. Answers.

http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html

According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra's ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C., 64 years after his birth. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with this 64 year interval.

Mithras was also viewed as a mediator between humans and God, an idea from which grew the Christian concept of individual sin and the need for repentance/forgivess through Mithras... I mean Jesus.

Yeah, a holiday on the 25th is a rip-off of several religions, but that was the catholic church, not scripture.

The Catholic Church WAS Christianity for the largest part of its existence. It's very difficult to separate the two.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. It doesn't matter to me.

I think that the mythology, symbolism, and ethical teachings are valid whether or not there is a historical person at their core. I might feel differently about it if I were a Christian though.

I personally am of the opinion that there was a historical Jesus. I don't have a deep emotional committment to its being true though.

[Redbear]

56. For me, no.

It is all about faith and they actions you take because of that faith.

[Zhade]

60. Being mythical doesn't make the message "love thy neighbor" less worthy.

Frankly, I think the whole supernatural thing detracts from humanity's ability to see that they, too, can be as loving as Jesus supposedly was.