[lpkmckenna]

Even though I'm an atheist, I feel pretty confident that Jesus of Galilee was a real person - a moral teacher and social reformer - who was executed by the Romans as a troublesome upstart.

There seem to be a few "Jesus-never-existed" people around here, and I'm curious to know why these people are convinced of that belief.

[subego]

Not that I'm in the non-believer camp, but I don't think there's any evidence he was real beyond writings made long after his death.

He was supposedly mentioned by Josephus, but I seem to recall even that is questionable.

[BRussell]

I have serious doubts that subego exists. I'm not exactly an atheist, I'm more agnostic on the matter. But the myth of subego certainly does have a hold on people, and that's all that really matters.

[Randman]

There are reports from Roman, Jewish and Muslim historians (re: non-Christian) that there was indeed a Jesus who was a popular preacher who was crucified. So, it's pretty much assumed that Jesus did indeed exist. It would be a matter of faith though to attribute any diefication (I think that's a word) upon him.

Also, Jesus was likely born in April or May and not December or Dec. 25 which was instead a major pagan holiday. If there was a Roman census, it would have been before or after the harvest, before being more likely.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But the myth of subego certainly does have a hold on people

So that's what I'm holding. All I knew was that it felt warm and squishy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Randman 

There are reports from Roman, Jewish and Muslim historians (re: non-Christian) that there was indeed a Jesus who was a popular preacher who was crucified.

Well, if they were reports made in his lifetime, they'd have to be non-Christian.

Likewise, since it would be at least 600 years after the fact, what good would a Muslim account be?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Randman 

There are reports from Roman, Jewish and Muslim historians (re: non-Christian) that there was indeed a Jesus who was a popular preacher who was crucified. So, it's pretty much assumed that Jesus did indeed exist. It would be a matter of faith though to attribute any diefication (I think that's a word) upon him.

I disagree with you (and perhaps lpkmckenna) about that. From what I understand, there aren't any solid contemporaneous historical accounts of Jesus - and why would there be? He was a nobody to any historians of the time. The evidence, what there is of it, comes from the Bible itself.

Also, Jesus was likely born in April or May and not December or Dec. 25 which was instead a major pagan holiday. If there was a Roman census, it would have been before or after the harvest, before being more likely.

I really don't buy that. The whole census story is a bunch of baloney made up to get Jesus out of his real hometown of Nazareth and into Bethlehem, because Bethlehem (the city of David) was a more prestigious place than Nazareth. I don't believe the people who wrote the Bible knew anything about Jesus except just the short period of time before he was executed.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by subego 

So that's what I'm holding. All I knew was that it felt warm and squishy.

Reported!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not that I'm in the non-believer camp, but I don't think there's any evidence he was real beyond writings made long after his death.

He was supposedly mentioned by Josephus, but I seem to recall even that is questionable.

BINGO!!!

He was never mentioned by anyone.

Also download and watch a film called ZEITGEIST.

Zeitgeist - The Movie

[lpkmckenna]

Zeitgeist is pure nonsense. The claimed "facts" are illiterate rubbish. Horus, Buddha, and Mithras were not born on Dec 25th, they weren't crucified, and they didn't have virgin births, among the other "similarities."

The zodiac angle is ridiculous. If the 12 Apostles are symbolic of anything, it's the 12 tribes of Israel. The "sun of God" stuff is worse, since "son" and "sun" aren't homonyms in Greek.

There's no mythological aspect of Jesus that can't be explained by Jewish religion or Greek misunderstanding of Jewish religion.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Zeitgeist is pure nonsense. The claimed "facts" are illiterate rubbish. Horus, Buddha, and Mithras were not born on Dec 25th, they weren't crucified, and they didn't have virgin births, among the other "similarities."

The zodiac angle is ridiculous. If the 12 Apostles are symbolic of anything, it's the 12 tribes of Israel. The "sun of God" stuff is worse, since "son" and "sun" aren't homonyms in Greek.

There's no mythological aspect of Jesus that can't be explained by Jewish religion or Greek misunderstanding of Jewish religion.

The bible is ridiculous and over a billion people believe it.

Anyways, I posted that link as an afterthought. What I really was trying to highlite was BINGO!!! which I have just done.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Also, Jesus was likely born in April or May and not December or Dec. 25 which was instead a major pagan holiday. If there was a Roman census, it would have been before or after the harvest, before being more likely.

No one believes the Dec 25th date for Jesus' birth. It isn't an article of faith in any Christian denomination. Christians picked Saturnalia to celebrate Jesus' birth because it was already a holiday, and the Mithras religion did the same.

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise, since it would be at least 600 years after the fact, what good would a Muslim account be?

Muslim accounts are difficult to give weight to, but the fact that they recall Jesus' name as "Isa" is interesting. The name in the NT is "Iesous," but the last "s" is only there because male names couldn't end with a vowel in Greek. Iesou and Isa is pretty close for a transliteration.

Originally Posted by subego 

Not that I'm in the non-believer camp, but I don't think there's any evidence he was real beyond writings made long after his death.

He was supposedly mentioned by Josephus, but I seem to recall even that is questionable.

There are at least two mentions of Jesus by Josephus, but both are indirect. First, a comment about "the tribe of Christians" which was corrupted by later Christian writers, and another comment about the execution of Jesus' brother James.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The whole census story is a bunch of baloney made up to get Jesus out of his real hometown of Nazareth and into Bethlehem, because Bethlehem (the city of David) was a more prestigious place than Nazareth. I don't believe the people who wrote the Bible knew anything about Jesus except just the short period of time before he was executed.

I doubt Jesus was from Nazareth. Nazareth is never mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, and no events take place there. Instead, Mark specifically says that Jesus lives in Capernaum. Jesus is identified as "Iesous Nazoraios," which is usually translated as "Jesus the Nazorean." Nazorean is probably a Greek transliteration of "nazur," which means "holy man."

[ironknee]

I'm far from a believer in the Christian God but I do believe Jesus the man did exist.

But the real guy and the religion built around him are very very different.

He was one of many prophets at the time who taught that the end of the world is coming and soon. and some were also named Jesus.

An apocalyptic messiah

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Matthew 16:28

But that's as far as I go.

I mean Jesus' own prediction of the imminent coming of God is about two thousand years off.

anyways, chalk one for yes he did exist

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Muslim accounts are difficult to give weight to, but the fact that they recall Jesus' name as "Isa" is interesting. The name in the NT is "Iesous," but the last "s" is only there because male names couldn't end with a vowel in Greek. Iesou and Isa is pretty close for a transliteration.

I should have been way more clear on this.

I meant what good would a Muslim account be as a contemporaneous source.

Props to BRussell for the word "contemporaneous", I couldn't remember it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

I'm far from a believer in the Christian God but I do believe Jesus the man did exist.

But the real guy and the religion built around him are very very different.

He was one of many prophets at the time who taught that the end of the world is coming and soon. and some were also named Jesus.

An apocalyptic messiah

But that's as far as I go.

I mean Jesus' own prediction of the imminent coming of God is about two thousand years off.

anyways, chalk one for yes he did exist

There's now considerable doubt among historians whether Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Like most Jews, he did expect "the Day of the Lord," a prophecy from Amos, sometime in the future. But the historical Jesus' Kingdom of God wasn't about the Day of the Lord. Instead, it was about how to prepare for that day: a new moral policy of radical inclusiveness and love. A person who lived in this "spiritual kingdom" would be ready when the real, physical kingdom did arrive. As such, he was primarily about morals, and much less about the future.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I meant what good would a Muslim account be as a contemporaneous source.

It wouldn't be any good, but it might be valuable for other reasons. For instance, Mohammed apparently spoke about "the Gospel" as if it were an actual book, but he knows nothing of the NT. It's possible that the book he's speaking of is the Diatessaron, which missionaries from Syria would have brought to Arabia. It also proves that the early Christians did not regard the NT as "the final word" in matters of faith. I think that's a very important lesson from history.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Randman 

There are reports from Roman, Jewish and Muslim historians (re: non-Christian) that there was indeed a Jesus who was a popular preacher who was crucified. So, it's pretty much assumed that Jesus did indeed exist. It would be a matter of faith though to attribute any diefication (I think that's a word) upon him.

Most of the accounts people usually trot out to support Jesus' historicity are either a) long after the fact, and taking Christians at their word, or b) forgeries.

Personally, I do think he was real, simply because it would just be too weird to have Christianity invented completely out of whole cloth. There has to have been some kernel of truth that it grew up around.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There's now considerable doubt among historians whether Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Like most Jews, he did expect "the Day of the Lord," a prophecy from Amos, sometime in the future. But the historical Jesus' Kingdom of God wasn't about the Day of the Lord. Instead, it was about how to prepare for that day: a new moral policy of radical inclusiveness and love. A person who lived in this "spiritual kingdom" would be ready when the real, physical kingdom did arrive. As such, he was primarily about morals, and much less about the future.

hmmm I think i read you right.

respectfully, my point is Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, preacher, teacher, leader, etc...

the whole point of the "moral" teachings is because God is coming, and soon. In other words, be pure of heart so when God's kingdom comes, we will all enter it without any "problems" like lust.

lpk, I am open to read more about your point of view. I find all this interesting and am open to other ideas...

but i don't "believe" he is what religion paints him

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

...but it might be valuable for other reasons.

Oh, I agree.

Likewise, I'm in general agreement with the argument that the Gospels have some value as a historical document.

They certainly shouldn't be rejected for being filled with bizarre ****. That's par for the course at the time.



Speaking of which, Jesus and Moses are playing golf.

Jesus lines up a long shot over a water trap. Moses says "no way you're going to make that".

Jesus replies "sure I can, I saw Jack Nicklaus do it once".

Jesus swings, and the ball lands in the water trap. Moses parts the water, walks over and gets the ball. Jesus lines it up again, swings, and the ball lands in the water trap. Moses parts the water and gets the ball. Jesus swings a third time, and the ball ends up in the water. Moses shakes his head. "I'm not getting it for you."

Jesus walks over the water and starts to look for the ball. The next foursome ride up and one of them asks "who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?"

Moses says, "no, Jack Nicklaus".

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Randman 

There are reports from Roman, Jewish and Muslim historians (re: non-Christian) that there was indeed a Jesus who was a popular preacher who was crucified. So, it's pretty much assumed that Jesus did indeed exist. It would be a matter of faith though to attribute any diefication (I think that's a word) upon him.

Also, Jesus was likely born in April or May and not December or Dec. 25 which was instead a major pagan holiday. If there was a Roman census, it would have been before or after the harvest, before being more likely.

A Muslim source? That would be centuries after Jesus's time. The only Jewish source is aforementioned Josephus who mentions Jesus in one or two lines which were altered by later Christian transcribers. We know this because of versions passed down through the East and preserved by Muslim scholars.

Sorry, there are absolutely no contemporary sources documenting the life of Jesus. Not a one.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Zeitgeist is pure nonsense. The claimed "facts" are illiterate rubbish. Horus, Buddha, and Mithras were not born on Dec 25th, they weren't crucified, and they didn't have virgin births, among the other "similarities."

The zodiac angle is ridiculous. If the 12 Apostles are symbolic of anything, it's the 12 tribes of Israel. The "sun of God" stuff is worse, since "son" and "sun" aren't homonyms in Greek.

There's no mythological aspect of Jesus that can't be explained by Jewish religion or Greek misunderstanding of Jewish religion.

Horus turned water into wine and in some versions of the story he was born of a virgin, crucified, and rose in 3 days. Remember that Egyptian mythology is not a monolithic faith, but a long, long series of varying traditions, some of which lived on in mystery cults that passed on elements of their son worship into all parts of the Near East. As late as 600 AD, I believe, the Pope had to forbid Christians from worshipping the sun in Rome.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Even though I'm an atheist, I feel pretty confident that Jesus of Galilee was a real person - a moral teacher and social reformer - who was executed by the Romans as a troublesome upstart.

There seem to be a few "Jesus-never-existed" people around here, and I'm curious to know why these people are convinced of that belief.

There's really not much of a compelling reason to believe in his existence as an individual person. There's clear historical evidence that most of the information about him in the New Testament is fictional. With as many literature Jewish and Roman scribes running around the old world, we would expect any of the miracles attributed to Jesus to be recorded if they had really happened. We have adequate documentation of Herod's rule to know that he never slaughtered 400,000 children in cold blood and never issued a widely illogical census that would've displaced half the ancient world by having them move around to their place of birth. Finally, the crucifixion itself is thought by many (based on textual comparison) to have been grafted onto Mark. It makes no historical sense for the Romans to somehow be involved anyway. Many of the other elements of the story, including the virgin birth, can be connected to far older myth traditions in the region.

Given all of this, it's tempting to discount the existence of Jesus altogether. For my part, I like to think there was such a rabbi and that he was an egalitarian radical. If you take that tack or just look carefully at the man portrayed in the New Testament then either way I think it's clear he'd be disgusted by the people purporting to act in his name in this day and age.

[Atomic Rooster]

Christianity should really be called Paulineism since he's the one who made it all up. Even changed his name from the Jewish Saul to the Latin Paul. Jesus or Joshua or whatever his name is/was, was never cristos.

As for the twelve tribes of Israel=twelve apostles? No proof there was even twelve tribes so your leap is what you believe. I've sucked in all the information and misinformation and out comes this guy who never existed but probably a composite of a bunch of mythical chappies made up to make a good story.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

A Muslim source? That would be centuries after Jesus's time. The only Jewish source is aforementioned Josephus who mentions Jesus in one or two lines which were altered by later Christian transcribers. We know this because of versions passed down through the East and preserved by Muslim scholars.

Wait, so are Muslims sources too late or not?

Sorry, there are absolutely no contemporary sources documenting the life of Jesus. Not a one.

No one is saying there is. What we're talking about is reliable sources.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Horus turned water into wine and in some versions of the story he was born of a virgin, crucified, and rose in 3 days.

Got a source for any of that? Horus' mother (either Isis or Hathor) was never depicted as a virgin mother. Horus crucified - by whom? Rose in three days? Sorry, my BS meter is going haywire.

Remember that Egyptian mythology is not a monolithic faith, but a long, long series of varying traditions, some of which lived on in mystery cults that passed on elements of their son worship into all parts of the Near East.

You have it backwards. Mystery religions are a Greek idea, not an Egyptian one. Also, when the Greek world adopted Egyptian gods, they twisted them beyond recognition. There is very little "Egypt" in the cults of Isis, Osiris-Dionysus, or Serapis.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

There's really not much of a compelling reason to believe in his existence as an individual person. There's clear historical evidence that most of the information about him in the New Testament is fictional.

Most historical writing contains huge fictions. If we applied your standard to any historian of that era, we'd be forced to erase Roman Emperors from history. History from that era naturally includes mythology, as part of the aggrandizement of the person. The job of the historian is to separate the facts from the fictions, not to throw the whole thing away.

With as many literature Jewish and Roman scribes running around the old world, we would expect any of the miracles attributed to Jesus to be recorded if they had really happened.

I'm not claiming Jesus performed miracles. Let's stick to his existence.

We have adequate documentation of Herod's rule to know that he never slaughtered 400,000 children in cold blood...

Ok, but where did that number come from? That's a lot of dead babies in one little town.

...and never issued a widely illogical census that would've displaced half the ancient world by having them move around to their place of birth.

Herod was dead ten years by the time of that census. It was a Roman initiative, but of course the traveling part is absurd.

Finally, the crucifixion itself is thought by many (based on textual comparison) to have been grafted onto Mark.

By whom? Regardless, Paul wrote of the crucifixion in the 40s.

It makes no historical sense for the Romans to somehow be involved anyway.

Are you sure about that? Most biblical scholars are confident that Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" was the trigger for his arrest. A self-proclaimed prophet tossing tables and shouting "evil-doers!" in the middle of Passover season would have attracted Jewish and Roman attention. Especially if it occurred in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple, disrupting the pilgrimage of non-Jewish visitors.

Many of the other elements of the story, including the virgin birth, can be connected to far older myth traditions in the region.

True, there are Zoroastrian myths of virgin saviors. But the fact remains that the mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin" in the Septuagint is the real source of the virgin story. Don't go looking outside of Jewish writing for no good reason; Occam's Razor and all that.

For my part, I like to think there was such a rabbi and that he was an egalitarian radical. If you take that tack or just look carefully at the man portrayed in the New Testament then either way I think it's clear he'd be disgusted by the people purporting to act in his name in this day and age.

No doubt.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

As for the twelve tribes of Israel=twelve apostles? No proof there was even twelve tribes so your leap is what you believe.

What? That's a pretty well established Biblical concept.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Christianity should really be called Paulineism since he's the one who made it all up. Even changed his name from the Jewish Saul to the Latin Paul. Jesus or Joshua or whatever his name is/was, was never cristos.

Ok, while Paul is the source of some Christian doctrines (like the atoning sacrifice), we know he's not the sole source. Paul wrote several of his letters to places he had yet to visit (like Letter to the Romans), yet they were addressed to the Christians already living there. Paul also speaks very tersely of the long-established leaders like James and Peter. Second, it was very common for Jews to have an Aramaic and a Greek (not Latin) name if they interacted with the Gentiles; the Herodian family, as well as Philo and Josephus, all have Greek and Semitic names.

As for the twelve tribes of Israel=twelve apostles? No proof there was even twelve tribes so your leap is what you believe.

It doesn't matter if the twelve tribes ever existed, it only matters what the Jews of the 1st century thought. And they definitely believed that there were once 12 Hebrew tribes.

I've sucked in all the information and misinformation and out comes this guy who never existed but probably a composite of a bunch of mythical chappies made up to make a good story.

If Jesus' mythic acts have a source, it's from Jewish stories of Elijah and Daniel, not the pagan world.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wait, so are Muslims sources too late or not?

No one is saying there is. What we're talking about is reliable sources.

Got a source for any of that? Horus' mother (either Isis or Hathor) was never depicted as a virgin mother. Horus crucified - by whom? Rose in three days? Sorry, my BS meter is going haywire.

You have it backwards. Mystery religions are a Greek idea, not an Egyptian one. Also, when the Greek world adopted Egyptian gods, they twisted them beyond recognition. There is very little "Egypt" in the cults of Isis, Osiris-Dionysus, or Serapis.

Most historical writing contains huge fictions. If we applied your standard to any historian of that era, we'd be forced to erase Roman Emperors from history. History from that era naturally includes mythology, as part of the aggrandizement of the person. The job of the historian is to separate the facts from the fictions, not to throw the whole thing away.

I'm not claiming Jesus performed miracles. Let's stick to his existence.

Ok, but where did that number come from? That's a lot of dead babies in one little town.

Herod was dead ten years by the time of that census. It was a Roman initiative, but of course the traveling part is absurd.

By whom? Regardless, Paul wrote of the crucifixion in the 40s.

Are you sure about that? Most biblical scholars are confident that Jesus' "cleansing of the temple" was the trigger for his arrest. A self-proclaimed prophet tossing tables and shouting "evil-doers!" in the middle of Passover season would have attracted Jewish and Roman attention. Especially if it occurred in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple, disrupting the pilgrimage of non-Jewish visitors.

True, there are Zoroastrian myths of virgin saviors. But the fact remains that the mistranslation of "young woman" as "virgin" in the Septuagint is the real source of the virgin story. Don't go looking outside of Jewish writing for no good reason; Occam's Razor and all that.

No doubt.

Most of this is fresh in my mind from a documentary about that book The Pagan Christ. The 400,000 is the number I remember the zealot maintaining the memorial in Bethleham using, but I could be wrong. I would put Jesus's overturning the tables in the temple in the same category of "things which probably did not happen," as it is something that had a reasonable chance of being recorded, particularly if it led to the bizarre scenario of an offense to the Jews leading to crucifixion. It's possible he was crucified, but given that Mark may very well not have included it and that a great many other gospels which were not included in the NT make no mention of it, I'm pretty skeptical.

By the way, I'm not familiar with any reliable scholarship that puts the epistles of Paul at 40AD. My impression was that Mark, as the oldest gospel at 70AD, was also the oldest part of the NT.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I doubt Jesus was from Nazareth. Nazareth is never mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, and no events take place there. Instead, Mark specifically says that Jesus lives in Capernaum. Jesus is identified as "Iesous Nazoraios," which is usually translated as "Jesus the Nazorean." Nazorean is probably a Greek transliteration of "nazur," which means "holy man."

Interesting, I hadn't heard that. But most of the sources that I trust indicate Nazareth is likely, and given the shenanigans the gospels go into to get Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem (or vice versa), those authors certainly had some reason to believe that he was from there. But who knows?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Most of this is fresh in my mind from a documentary about that book The Pagan Christ. The 400,000 is the number I remember the zealot maintaining the memorial in Bethleham using, but I could be wrong. I would put Jesus's overturning the tables in the temple in the same category of "things which probably did not happen," as it is something that had a reasonable chance of being recorded...

Historians are rarely around when history is actually happening. Moreover, historians generally write about people they think are important. The only people who thought Jesus was important were Christians. Fortunately, the Christians were a diverse group, each writing from their own point of view. By taking all the NT together, noting similarities, noting disputes and contradictions and partisan agendas, and being watchful of symbolic or prophetic interpretations, we can come to a reasonable conclusion about what actually happened.

For instance, Jesus predicting his death 3 times is suspicious, given the symbolism of 3, and adding also the large number of events with the number 3 in the gospels.

An example of contradictions, agendas, and prophetic meanings: Jesus' birth in Bethlehem is unlikely. Matthew tells us that Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem, but move to Nazareth to avoid Herod Archelaus. Also, the angel talks to Joseph, and the visitors are rich wise men. All these details point to a writer who is sympathetic to conservative Jewish Christianity: Jesus' family is Judean, God talks only to men, favors wealth, and the overall Gospel of Matthew is pro-Torah observance. Luke tells us the opposite: Joseph and Mary are Galilean but only travel to Bethlehem for the census, the angel talks to Mary, the visitors are poor shepherds, and the gospel overall is anti-Torah and pro-Pauline Christianity. So both stories fulfill the prophecy, but differ in theological agendas. The attitude towards wealth is particularly stark: for Luke, money is the root of evil, and the happy are the poor, but for Matthew, only the love of money is evil, and the happy are spiritually poor. Matthew wants nothing to do with the glorification of poverty, because he favors a conservative interpretation where wealth is symbolic of God's blessings.

So Luke and Matthew disagree on almost everything, except what must be true - the Bethlehem birth - for Jesus to be the Messiah. That's suspicious, to say the least.

...particularly if it led to the bizarre scenario of an offense to the Jews leading to crucifixion. It's possible he was crucified, but given that Mark may very well not have included it and that a great many other gospels which were not included in the NT make no mention of it, I'm pretty skeptical.

There are many other "gospels" (such as the Gospel of Thomas), but they very different from the NT gospel narratives. Instead, they are lists of saying, or stories of events not found in the other Gospels (like the Infancy Gospel of James). Most of these "gospels" are now just a couple of lines, because the early Christians didn't preserve them, and we only know them from quotes in other writings. They don't mention the crucifixion because they don't mention much of anything - we just don't know what else they might have contained when they were complete texts.

BTW, I think Tom Harpur is an idiot. He writes an eye-roll inducing religion column in the Toronto Star that has convinced me to spend my book money elsewhere. If you want to read some serious biblical scholarship, I'd recommend Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, or Gary Wills. Crossan's "God and Empire" and Wills' "What Paul Meant" are excellent places to start. Better yet, subscribe to Thomas Sheehan's The Historical Jesus at iTunes U.

By the way, I'm not familiar with any reliable scholarship that puts the epistles of Paul at 40AD. My impression was that Mark, as the oldest gospel at 70AD, was also the oldest part of the NT.

Mark is the oldest gospel, but Paul's writing isn't a gospel-narrative, it's a bunch of letters.

[smacintush]

As a non-believer I fail to see the relevance of whether he actually existed or not. The importance of Jesus is solely based upon his status as the "son of god".

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I really don't buy that. The whole census story is a bunch of baloney made up to get Jesus out of his real hometown of Nazareth and into Bethlehem, because Bethlehem (the city of David) was a more prestigious place than Nazareth. I don't believe the people who wrote the Bible knew anything about Jesus except just the short period of time before he was executed.

Jesus was conveniently "born" on December 25th, because Saturnalia was celebrated during that time. His resurrection occurred during Easter, which was conveniently the same time people celebrated the Equinox.

A lot of the current Christian holidays were only made to snuff out old religion holidays. Funny thing is that a lot of the pagan rituals (like trees, lights, bunnies, eggs, etc.) have been adopted by Christians.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Jesus was conveniently "born" on December 25th, because Saturnalia was celebrated during that time. His resurrection occurred during Easter, which was conveniently the same time people celebrated the Equinox.

A lot of the current Christian holidays were only made to snuff out old religion holidays. Funny thing is that a lot of the pagan rituals (like trees, lights, bunnies, eggs, etc.) have been adopted by Christians.

I think Dec. 25th is accepted by everyone, including fundie Christians, as a placeholder date. I hadn't really thought about Easter though. I had assumed that it was generally accepted that Jesus got into trouble over something that happened around passover and was executed almost immediately after that. No?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Jesus was conveniently "born" on December 25th, because Saturnalia was celebrated during that time. His resurrection occurred during Easter, which was conveniently the same time people celebrated the Equinox.

A lot of the current Christian holidays were only made to snuff out old religion holidays. Funny thing is that a lot of the pagan rituals (like trees, lights, bunnies, eggs, etc.) have been adopted by Christians.

BRussel's response is pretty much spot on, but I'd like to point out that even if it weren't for the coincidence of Passover and Easter (sometimes) occurring at (nearly) the same time, what's wrong with the resurrection happening during the equinox? Pretty much every culture, up into modern times, has believed that celestial events have spiritual/magical significance. Why shouldn't God/Jesus have chosen the vernal equinox equinox for the resurrection? If you accept the premise of God, I don't see how you could deny the possibility that God might choose dates of astrological significance for His actions if for no other reason than to give/maintain astrological significance.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

His resurrection occurred during Easter, which was conveniently the same time people celebrated the Equinox.

No, BRussell is right. Easter is timed following a Jewish lunar calendar, then adjusted to a Sunday. That's why it doesn't have a fixed date like Christmas.

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Why shouldn't God/Jesus have chosen the vernal equinox equinox for the resurrection? If you accept the premise of God, I don't see how you could deny the possibility that God might choose dates of astrological significance for His actions if for no other reason than to give/maintain astrological significance.

It is, but based on a lunar calendar, not a solar calendar.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

BRussel's response is pretty much spot on, but I'd like to point out that even if it weren't for the coincidence of Passover and Easter (sometimes) occurring at (nearly) the same time, what's wrong with the resurrection happening during the equinox? Pretty much every culture, up into modern times, has believed that celestial events have spiritual/magical significance. Why shouldn't God/Jesus have chosen the vernal equinox equinox for the resurrection? If you accept the premise of God, I don't see how you could deny the possibility that God might choose dates of astrological significance for His actions if for no other reason than to give/maintain astrological significance.

I think not even god believes in astrology...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

I think not even god believes in astrology...

I saw a rather disturbing statistic that something like 40% of Brits believe in astrology. I believe it was in a BBC documentary or something about disproving various superstitions like dowsing &c. All I really remember is that it gave the impression that the average Brit is horribly backwards and ignorant...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I saw a rather disturbing statistic that something like 40% of Brits believe in astrology. I believe it was in a BBC documentary or something about disproving various superstitions like dowsing &c. All I really remember is that it gave the impression that the average Brit is horribly backwards and ignorant...

I would say "In before Doofy" or something like that, but is he even here anymore?

[Dakar the Fourth]

I'm sure he lurks, but he's probably like me on the weekend. Can't be bothered to post unless it seems worth it.

[Mithras]

Just like Jesus -- omnipresent, but can't be bothered to manifest himself.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I saw a rather disturbing statistic that something like 40% of Brits believe in astrology. I believe it was in a BBC documentary or something about disproving various superstitions like dowsing &c. All I really remember is that it gave the impression that the average Brit is horribly backwards and ignorant...

The average human is horribly backwards and ignorant. What's your point?

[- - e r i k - -]

And as for good ol' Jesus, there really isn't much point discussing the man. The myth and the legend and characteristics embodied into the concept of Jesus seem to be the main point, no?

[Atomic Rooster]

lpkmckenna...

Why start a thread and disagree with the opinions of other non-believing posters, and even well known literary atheists and humanists around the world. It appears that your beliefs and reasons for them are set in cement.

Therefore discussion is not warranted and therefore this may be the reason this thread is slow to almost dead.

My ownsome opinion. Do you DISAGREE? Probably.

edit:

There is no proof this man ever existed therefore he never existed and it's only been 2000 years ago. Yet we know volumes of information on others who lived before then.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And as for good ol' Jesus, there really isn't much point discussing the man. The myth and the legend and characteristics embodied into the concept of Jesus seem to be the main point, no?

To whom? Some people are interested in what he actually meant.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why start a thread and disagree with the opinions of other non-believing posters, and even well known literary atheists and humanists around the world. It appears that your beliefs and reasons for them are set in cement.

Therefore discussion is not warranted and therefore this may be the reason this thread is slow to almost dead.

My ownsome opinion. Do you DISAGREE? Probably.

The thread is only three days old, and has over forty posts. We obviously disagree on what makes for a dead thread.

Why start the thread? I'm curious. I knew there would be crackpot talk inspired by Zeitgeist and Harpur, but I was hoping for something more credible. My opinions are not set in stone. There are so many things about the subject that I am undecided on, and there are some things I'm quite confident in, but that confidence is borne of textual evidence. I'd be glad to hear contrary theories, but they need to make sense, unlike "sun of god" nonsense. I'm not gonna say "oh, that's interesting" about something that's plainly absurd.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

To whom? Some people are interested in what he actually meant.

Does that require physical evidence of the guy's actual existence? People, legend and literature has long since replaced Jesus the Man with Jesus the Myth. This happens to people still alive today, so to think one might get to the bottom of one man's original intent and meaning 2000 years past with all the muddle of history, opinion and anthropopathy clouding it is rather futile don't you think?

In short, it doesn't matter if Jesus existed as an actual person or not. Especially not for today's Christians.

[- - e r i k - -]

For the record, I personally believe there was a historical Jesus who attracted a small following and to whom all this mythology (from various sources) has been ascribed.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

In short, it doesn't matter if Jesus existed as an actual person or not. Especially not for today's Christians.

Why would you propose to speak for "today's Christians?" I"m pretty sure most would have a different opinion of Jesus if it was found he didn't actually exist as a real person.

The idea that he didn't simply comes off as absurd though. Christianity started right after his death. His followers continued on. HIs disciplines wrote about him. Maybe not during his life or right after his life, but they likely didn't feel the need. His memory was still fresh in their minds. It was only later that they decided to put into records their memories and beliefs.

The idea that they could just make Jesus up out of nothing makes little sense. A lot of the people who were around at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and preached still were around when some of the writings about him occurred. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that these people as a group simply invented the existence of someone out of nothing, on top of the other circumstantial evidence he did exist. I'd guess it's fair to debate the history of WHAT he did or who he really was, but I simply can't wrap my head around the idea (based on the evidence) that he didn't exist at all. It seems to be a huge reach for non-believers to help them feel good about their views.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

For the record, I personally believe there was a historical Jesus who attracted a small following and to whom all this mythology (from various sources) has been ascribed.

I tend to agree with this view. He's probably historically real, but I'm of the view that he was no more than one who was a voice of "reason" to an oppressed people. They, like others before and after, needed to find the answers to questions they couldn't fathom the answers to, so they glom onto people like him. History is replete with personalities like him, although it's obvious that his fantasy has had a stronger grip on people than most others'.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Does that require physical evidence of the guy's actual existence?

We're never gonna have that.

... to think one might get to the bottom of one man's original intent and meaning 2000 years past with all the muddle of history, opinion and anthropopathy clouding it is rather futile don't you think?

Pessimist.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

HIs disciplines wrote about him.

Although I agree with your basic point here, I don't think it's true that Jesus' disciples wrote about him - or if they did, none of the writings survive today.