T or F: Jesus Christ walked the earth/rose from dead

[BurtWorm]

[freetobegay]

1. I rest my case.

O8)

[BurtWorm]

2. Would the Christians who voted "don't know" and "false on both counts"

mind elaborating on their votes? I find them most interesting of all.

[Catholic Sensation]

3. i think it was a smart ass

kind of like the people who vote for "George W. Bush" in the "Best President since <event>" poll

[On the Road]

18. Maybe There are Some Docetists Here

who believe that Jesus only "appeared" to walk the earth, but that he was a spirit. :)

[BurtWorm]

21. Heretics!

;)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Case dismissed due to inconclusive evidence on both counts.

It's not really a matter of true or false anyway. None of us know, as such. It's a matter for faith.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. There is pretty good evidence

that the man we now call Jesus did exist. The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945.

The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

This is a large collection of teaching credited to Jesus written either by his own apostles and disciples or people who were taught by them. So most of these writings are based on first or second hand information.

Second, they have not gone through 2000 years of translating and editing. These documents have only been translated and available to the public for about 30-40 years.

As for whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, not all sects bought into the supernatural stuff that Paul and some other started to attribute to Jesus.

[BurtWorm]

14. The gnostic gospels are pretty vague about the person of jesus

What does all this, from the Gospel of Philip, say about the person of Jesus? This doesn't seem to be about personhood, but about symbol, meaning and image:


http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html


Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect. So also with "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit" and "life" and "light" and "resurrection" and "the Church (Ekklesia)" and all the rest - people do not perceive what is correct but they perceive what is incorrect, unless they have come to know what is correct. The names which are heard are in the world <...> deceive. If they were in the Aeon (eternal realm), they would at no time be used as names in the world. Nor were they set among worldly things. They have an end in the Aeon.

One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it.

...

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled <...> the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

The Lord said to the disciples, "<...> from every house. Bring into the house of the Father. But do not take (anything) in the house of the Father nor carry it off."

"Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus". While as for "Christ", in Syriac it is "Messiah", in Greek it is "Christ". Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.

...

The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" <...> has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.

When the pearl is cast down into the mud, it becomes greatly despised, nor if it is anointed with balsam oil will it become more precious. But it always has value in the eyes of its owner. Compare the Sons of God: wherever they may be, they still have value in the eyes of their Father.

If you say, "I am a Jew," no one will be moved. If you say, "I am a Roman," no one will be disturbed. If you say, "I am a Greek, a barbarian, a slave, a free man," no one will be troubled. If you say, "I am a Christian," the <...> will tremble. Would that I might <...> like that - the person whose name <...> will not be able to endure hearing.

God is a man-eater. For this reason, men are sacrificed to him. Before men were sacrificed, animals were being sacrificed, since those to whom they were sacrificed were not gods.

...

The eucharist is Jesus. For he is called in Syriac "Pharisatha," which is "the one who is spread out," for Jesus came to crucify the world.

...

Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name ("Christian") will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the <...> of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Christian but a Christ.

The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber. <...> he said, "I came to make the things below like the things above, and the things outside like those inside. I came to unite them in the place." <...> here through types <...>and images....

[BurtWorm]

15. Mark's blunders on Judaism (Warning: Devastating Biblical criticism)

For anyone interested in the question of the usefulness of the Gospels as historical documents, I recommend the Website below, which catalogs a number of errors in the Gospel of Mark that a Jew or one familiar with Judaism would never have made. The implication is that the author of Mark was clearly not Jewish and, thus, was almost certainly not an eyewitness and not even likely to have taken his account from an eyewitness, as some Christian "authorities" claim. Mark, being the oldest Gospel, is posited as the more historically accurate being the closer to the alleged events it describes.

A sampling:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html


Comparing Matthew 15:4 with Mark 7:10, Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as "Moses said" rather than "God said." Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the 10 commandments to Moses. It was God who said them, as all Jews will tell you.

Mark 5:22: "One of the rulers of the synagogue." Diaspora synagogues may sometimes have had more than ruler, as at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15), but Palestinian synagogues normally had only one. Matthew 9:18, drops this phrase.

Mark 14:12: On the first day of unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Passover, confuses Nisan 15 with Nisan 14. Naturally, Matthew 26:17 drops the phrase "when they sacrificed the Passover". Was Mark a Jew who did not know about the Passover?

Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Matthew 26:18 drops the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman's work.

Mark 15:42, "When evening was already come, because it was Friday (paraskeue) that is, the day before the sabbath ..." . This means "either that Friday began with that sunset, and Jesus had died on Thursday; or else, the evangelist forgot that the Jewish day began at evening." Matthew 27:57-62 clarifies Mark's confusion over Jewish days. Interestingly, the NIV tries to translate the problem away by writing for Mark 15:42 'So as evening approached ", rather than "And when evening had come ", as the RSV has it.

Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Matthew drops the idea of a Jew buying something on the Sabbath. No Jew could have made that mistake.

Mark 1:2 wrongly ascribes Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah. Matthew 3:3 corrects this

In Mark 2:7 the teachers of the law complain that Jesus is forgiving sins and say 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?'. Jews did not think that. Matthew 9:3 drops the phrase. There is a Dead Sea Scroll called 'The Prayer of Nabonidus'(4Q242) , written and copied by Jews, where it is said by Nabonidus '... an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew...'.
Jews did believe that God could give authority to men to forgive sin.


Mark 2:26 - Abiathar should be Ahimelech.Matthew 12:1-8 does not repeat the mistake. Incidentally, if Jesus was thinking of 1 Sam. 21:1-8 when he said that David and those who were with him were hungry, then , in his omniscience, he forgot that David was on the run alone and the story that David told Ahimelech was a falsehood - David was not on a mission from the king and he did not have an appointment with any young men.

Mark 10:19 misquotes the Ten Commandments and inserts an extra commandment: "Do not defraud." Matthew 19:18-20 sticks to the orginal 10, plus the one that many Rabbis regarded as a summary of the commandments.

Mark 15:34 has Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic (Eloi). Had Jesus done this, bystanders could hardly have supposed that he was calling for Elijah. Jesus must have used Hebrew Eli, as at Matthew 27:46. The NIV tries to harmonize Matthew and Mark here by using Eloi in both places.

[patcox2]

62. Mark is said to be a Roman and disciple of Peter

He is said in the writings of very early church figures (3rd and 4th centuries) to have written what he heard from Peter's mouth.

Mark is not history, none of the gospels are "historical." This is a given in formal exegesis. Its not exactly earth-shattering for someone to have figured that out. If you look into some christian works, for example, seminary textbooks on the interpretation of the New testament, you will find a thousand more reasons Mark is not history.

If you were to read any average seminary textook (from a non-evangelical denomination) or, for a more popular source, the works of John Dominic Crossan, a Catholic monk, you will find a very cold-blooded appraisal of what is genuine recorded oral tradition and what is obviously made up fairy tales in the gospels. The shortest summary is that the quotes of jesus and the miracle stories are very reliable and date from very soon after the events, while the birth and the resurrection are obvious fables added later.

Seriously, you will find much better "refutations" of scripture in the works of beleivers than in the works of sceptics. Sceptics are just dabbling, biblical scholarship has a long history of realistic, honest appraisal.

[BurtWorm]

65. Some skeptics go far deeper into the question than most Christians.

Or is researching and writing a booklength argument "dabbling?"

[patcox2]

68. Compared to my texts and Crossans work, yes

That article is dabbling compared to contemporary christian exegetical works and works on the historicity of Christ. Nothing devastating, is what I am getting at, far far better material can be found in my seminary textbooks (not mine, but I have been reading my father-in-law's old textbooks, he is an anglican priest).

[liberalhistorian]

5. I'm a liberal Christian

who voted yet on both counts, but live and let live. People have the right to believe or disbelieve whatever they want, or not believe at all.

[pagerbear]

6. Who cares? It's about his message!

[BurtWorm]

7. I do!

I'm curious about what people believe about Jesus, and how similar or different Christians and non-Christians' beliefs about him are. As the Nicene creed expresses a straightforward belief in both of these premisses, you'd expect Christians to uniformly vote for the first choice. I'm surprised that some who apparently view themselves as Christians say they don't know if either premise is true. I'm not surprised that many non-Christians accept the first premise, but according to a Rasmussen poll released yesterday, while 70% of those polls said they were Christian, 75% said they believed Jesus rose from the dead. That's a strange statistic, in my opinion. I wonder how someone could hold that view and consider himself or herself a non-Christian. Do they think rising from the dead is no biggie? Are they playing? Did they mishear the question?

I'm also curious about the belief among non-Christians that Jesus actually existed. I subscribed to that belief a few years ago, but have since come to see Jesus as mythological. I'm curious to see whether belief in the historicity of Jesus will go the way of belief in the historicity of Adam, Eve, Noah et al.

[sangh0]

16. T & T - I'm not a Christian

but I believe that Jesus walked the Earth and that he did rise from the dead. In fact, judging by how often His name is invoked, I'd say he is still with us

[BurtWorm]

23. Do you believe in ghosts?

Seriuous question. If you do, then it's not surprising that you believe someone rose from the dead. Do you think Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead? Or Jesus and Lazarus? Or do you think this is a plausible phenomenon in any age?

[sangh0]

46. Yes, in a manner of speaking

Do you think Jesus is the only one who rose from the dead? Or Jesus and Lazarus? Or do you think this is a plausible phenomenon in any age?

I suspect that I believe in a less literal interpretation of these words than you. I believe in ghosts, but not the kind that go floating around with a white sheet over them.

They are metaphors.

[On the Road]

19. Historical Evidence for Jesus

I think there's enough evidence, Butworm, from people close enough to Jesus in time to conclude that someone of that name and description actually existed.

It's possible to make a surprisingly good case (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/) for believing that Jesus was invented, and that the gospels were written as stories later attributed to a real human being. The origin of stories becomes muddy pretty fast, even today. (For example, how many people know if Casy Jones, Johnny Appleseed, Uncle Sam, John Bull, and John Henry were real people? )

But to me, Josephus's mention of Jesus' brother James pretty well seals it. James was indisputably a real person, "the brother of him who was called the Christ."

[BurtWorm]

20. But isn't that reference in Josephus in doubt

for being a possible Christian interpolation?

[On the Road]

22. Yes, It's in Doubt

But it appears that Christians expanded it rather than invented it.

It's easy to see how early Christians would have taken a neutral reference by Josephus and embellished it to make it sound as if Josephus believed James's brother was the Son of God. It's difficult to see why they would have simply have inserted a made-up sentence into this particular part of his work. The reference to James seems to be an integral part of the text. That's why I believe it.

In fact, early Christians may have actually removed something from the text -- namely, the popular belief that Jerusalem was destroyed as a divine punishment for James's death, not Jesus'. Three church fathers report having seen that text, which offended them, and thought it must have been a mistake -- obviously, Josephus must have meant Jesus. But it's not in any existing version, so it must have been removed.

[BurtWorm]

24. Others have pointed out that Jesus (Yoshua, actually) was a common

name--as it still is. And so was James (or whatever the Hebrew or Syriac equivalent). It would be like saying "Jimmy, brother of Joshie." Or "Robert, brother of John."

[On the Road]

27. Yes, But in This Case

Josephus writes "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." Along with the dates and other similarities, it pretty well identified him as the same person. There were not that many people in the first century who were publicly regarded as the Messiah, and none that I know of who had a Messianic movement following their deaths.

James wasn't just a miscellaneous priest. He was the chief opposition figure -- more like the Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is today. He was the head of Messianic Judaism after Jesus, as depicted in Acts and Paul's letters. This is the context in which Josephus presents him.

[BurtWorm]

30. It's the "who was called the Christ" that gives it away.

It's an interpolation, probably.

[On the Road]

32. If That Were Written by Christians

it would have said "who was CALLED" the Christ, as if the writer were in doubt or didn't care. It's the later reference, which states "he was the Christ," that sounds like the Christian interpolation.

[BurtWorm]

40. Even if this really were by Josephus and not an interpolator

Isn't it strange that it's the only reference to the "historical" Jesus Christ outside the Bible?

[Whitacre D_WI]

43. One of the Plinys

I'm not up on my Roman history, but Pliny the Younger or Pliny the Elder (don't know which) made a comment somewhere. A brief mention of some hippie cat executed for sedition during the reign of Tiberius.

[BurtWorm]

53. The elder never mentioned Christ or Christians

The younger mentioned Christians, but he lived 112 years "AD."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/pliny.html

[patcox2]

64. There is a series of letters between Pliny and Trajan

About how to deal with an oubreak of christianity in the province Pliny (the younger) was governing. They are fascinating reading. Pliny wrote that the roman temples were going broke for lack of donations. The emporer advised a fairly moderate course of action, essentially "don't ask." He said not to seek them out, but only to respond to accusations. No anonymous accusations were to be accepted, those who recanted were to be forgiven. Of course, those who persisted were to be killed.

Here is one of them:

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

[On the Road]

55. No, Not At All

in fact, Josephus's Antiquities and Jewish War are the only histories of that time and place that we have.
Someone who was politically prominent would be mentioned, but not an itinerant rabbi. How many independent references are there to religious figures like John the Baptist or Hanan the Hidden, or to insurgent leaders like Judas the Galilean or "the Egyptian"? Just one or two.

Once you get past the first century, there are actually tons of references to Jesus outside the Bible if you count the apocryphal books. As the Pauline church grew, there are a lot of critical references in the Talmud and other Jewish literature. Most are not reliable sources. But then so much has been altered, very little is absolutely certain.

[BurtWorm]

58. Well, maybe we should be cautious about thinking of them as historical

figures, too.

By the way, if you have to wait to get beyond the first century to find references to a historical Jesus, how reliable can those histories be?

[On the Road]

72. The Fascinating Thing is That

No single reference is reliable. They can't all be right. But these things do have an origin -- they didn't appear out of nowhere. The secret is to sift through the sources and find the best fit.

A lot of it has to do with realizing the agenda of the different writers and taking those into account. For example, it's commonly accepted that Paul didn't know Jesus and basically invented his own religion. But in reading the gospels, most scholars don't carry that insight through.

The gospels were all written by followers of Paul or people associated with Paul's movement rather than James's. The longer I look the gospels, the more I think that Jesus was nothing like the way he was depicted. All the controversial issues like Roman taxes, associating with tax collectors, centurions, and prostitutes, declaring all foods clean -- it's very suspect that Jesus takes Paul's side rather than the movement composed of his family and the people who knew him when he was alive.

The most reliable references are those with no agenda and which are publicly known, meaning they can't be altered by a subgroup. This is why Josephus is convincing to me -- his reference to James is neutral. His writings werewidely available and read by Romans even more than Jews.

The second reason that convinces me Jesus lived is Paul's letters. The core letters -- Galatians, Romans, Corinthians, etc -- are among the most genuine first-hand documents from that period. You just have to recognize Paul's rhetoric. Although he claimed to communicate with Jesus in visions, he still saw him as a real person with real relatives.

[BurtWorm]

73. Have you seen this Web site?

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jhcjp.htm

Piece No. 2: A Transcendent Christ and a Missing Equation

When early writers like Paul speak of their "Christ Jesus", they do so in exclusively mythological terms. He is the divine Son in heaven, speaking through scripture, connected to the believer in mystical ways. Christ Jesus is the very substance of Godhead, pre-existent and the image of the Father. Through him God effected creation, and his sustaining power holds the universe together. Christ is also the cosmic redeemer who descended from heaven to undergo a sacrificial death (an earthly time and place is never stated) and was subsequently exalted and enthroned by God??s side. Through this saving drama, Christ has subjugated the demon spirits of the air who harass humanity, he has brought the souls of the dead righteous out of Shoel, he has been given kingship over all supernatural and earthly powers, and he has reconciled an estranged universe to God. He has also been given divine titles formerly reserved for God.

Heady stuff. And all within two decades or less of the presumed man’s life, a life which has apparently disappeared from the minds of those early believers in the cosmic Son, since they provide no mention of it, nor make any connection between the two. For all that Paul and others have to say about faith, no one ever raises the need to have faith that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and Messiah. The very equation: "The divine, spiritual Son = Jesus of Nazareth, recently on earth," is universally missing.

Even the death of Christ is presented in mythical terms. Passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:13 ("We believe Jesus died and rose again"), and the apparent designation of scripture as the source of Paul’s doctrine that Christ died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3), suggest that Christ’s death was an article of faith, not a remembered historical event. The same is true, of course, for the resurrection. Paul never places Jesus’ death in an historical setting (he never even tells us that Christ was tried), and in 1 Corinthians 2:8 he assigns responsibility for the crucifixion to the "rulers of this age" who unwittingly crucified "the Lord of glory" and thereby ensured their own destined destruction.


While the meaning of the phrase "rulers of this age" has been much debated, weight of opinion4 has come down on the side of the demon powers who were thought to inhabit the lower celestial spheres and were responsible for the evils of the world and its separation from God. This interpretation is supported by references to the demonic powers in relation to Christ’s work in Colossians 2:15 and Ephesians 3:10; and by chapter 9 of the Ascension of Isaiah, which describes the descent of the Son through the heavenly spheres and declares that he shall be hung upon a tree "by the god of that world," meaning Satan and his angels of the firmament. They, too, do not know who he is (9:13,15).


...

[On the Road]

74. Yes, I Know Earl Doherty's Stuff

It fascinates me. Most people who do not believe Jesus was real don't really examine the record very closely, but just dismiss everything. He looks at the documents and their context, and makes a very cogent case. It's one reason I began to consider that the way Jesus is depicted could be greatly at odds with who he was.

One of the things that struck me about "The Jesus Puzzle" was his claim that Paul saw Jesus as being exclusively a heavenly figure. The language Paul uses is pretty compelling and it's very striking to look at it that way, especially the part where Paul seems to say that the communion ritual was given to him in a vision.

Where I think Earl's argument falls short is that Paul extensively dealt with Jesus' brother. To sidestep this, Earl has to rely on the Catholic argument that "brother" was being used metaphorically or that it meant cousin. The Catholics believe Jesus had no brother because of the perpetual virginity of Mary; Earl believes that it's because Jesus didn't exist. Either way, there's absolutely nothing to support the claim that "brother" does not mean "brother." It's just asserted with no supporting evidence.

I used to lurk on Crosstalk, a discussion group for historical Jesus scholars. Earl Dougherty came on and a long argument began on Jesus' existence. Although I do not believe Earl's conclusion, I thought he handled himself pretty well for a nonprofessional and was not fairly treated by the academic historians and linguists.

[Endangered Specie]

9. Kinda like Aesops fables...

Dont need to have English speaking forest creatures to learn the morals of the story.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

11. True for some, but not all....

Like you, I feel his message is what the religion should be about. But when I've suggested this to Christian friends, even some of the most liberal ones have said, "No, it's about eternal salvation for those who believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead".

[qb]

8. Waffling between T/F and F/F

I finally selected T/F. I think there must have been an actual person on which to base a new religion, but events in his life were largely invented or embellished based on earlier virgin birth/savior myths (like Mithra) to meet the needs of the new church.

[mvd]

12. True and True

I'm a liberal Catholic, but I find the Ressurection essential to my faith. I believe that Jesus was special, and he could have easily had the power to raise himself up. It's not like the Noah's Arc story, which would be impossible by the material world's standards.

[BurtWorm]

13. kick

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. how about "dont care"?

regardless he was supposed to be "the saviour"...anyone around you looks saved really?

[arcane1]

25. you mean like our fine blessed President?

:evilgrin:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. exactly

or like the world...there is so much ugliness, poverty, famine, drought and war...its a completely UNsaved place....

[arcane1]

31. indeed

and I want nothing to do with any 'saving' that Bush has in mind!!!


one of these days we may actually depend on ourselves... but I'm not exactly counting the days until that happens

[smirkymonkey]

51. Good point...

What is Jesus or Christ worship really about?? It certainly doesn't appear to be his teachings.

[KinkyDem]

28. Your poll is flawed

"Jesus Christ walked the earth"

Jesus seems to have been a person or persons who made some impact on the region some two thousand years ago. The TITLE Christ denotes that this is the mesiah and I do not believe that.

By using the TITLE Christ you scew your results.

Was Jesus real? Noone knows for sure.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? I doubt it.
Was Jesus the Christ? No. I don't think so. But then, I don't believe a messiah is gonna come from the sky and save us all.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. hi kinky..how are you?

wish you could have made it to dim sum with us...anyway as usual i am in agreement w.ya (this is getting kinda boring..i am sure we have different opinions about Some thing :) ) did you chk out my website..i added a couple new pics

[BurtWorm]

33. You could have a point, but I use "Christ" the way most people nowadays do

as a "last name" or an identifying name. If I were to leave it as "Jesus," I'd get a lot of references to Jesus Hernandez or Jesus Garcia. I suppose I could have said Jesus of the New Testament. Or Christianity's Jesus.

If anyone besides kinky or John Locke had this trouble, could you report it here? I voted false on both counts, I'm an atheist, I understood who or what I meant--and to be clear I don't think the New Testament's Jesus, whether Christ or not, ever really walked the face of the earth. Is there anyone who answered F/F who thinks there was a real Jesus on whom the one in the New Testament is based?

[Whitacre D_WI]

34. Jesus the Nazarene is perfectly fine with me.

As a non-Christian who nonetheless digs that crazy hippie-radical a lot, that's what I call him.

[BurtWorm]

35. I just read something that makes me think "Nazarene" is a red herring.

Apparently "Nazara" means "Truth" in Aramaic. His whole name seems to be purely symbolic from top to bottom. Why is he called Nazarene, anyway, if he's from Bethlehem?

[Whitacre D_WI]

37. But the family was from Nazareth.

The whole "Bethlehem" story became necessary to tie him in with David.

[BurtWorm]

38. So if you find the Bethlehem story suspect, why believe the Nazareth story

? Why believe anything about him?

[Whitacre D_WI]

42. Ultimately, one must believe in what one has at hand.

There is no less reason to believe in the man called Jesus than there is to believe in Gautama.

Anyway, the Josephus account is convincing to me. Here's the thing: sure, Christianity could have originated around a non-existent figure, or a composite -- but so soon?

I look at the evidence. I see no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, and I do not have faith that he did. Therefore, I am not a Christian. On the other hand, I do see evidence that he existed as a man, and no convincing evidence that he didn't.

I don't see why there's any need to break it down, though. As a non-Christian -- hell, as an agnostic (damn, I hate that word, but it's the best description I have for myself), all that matters is that I do not believe Jesus is God. The guy at work who sits across from me -- his name is Gary -- I do not believe Gary is God, either, so does that mean that I have to believe Gary does not exist?

Most agnostics, most atheists, most Jews, most Muslims believe Jesus existed as a human being. Hell, so do a lot of practitioners of other religions. They just don't believe that he's God.

That should be sufficient.

[BurtWorm]

47. Obviously, a person does not have to believe Jesus is myth to be

agnostic or anything non-Christian. But if we realized how much of Jesus as historical figure is taken on faith... We're in a better position than Christians to question it, because we have nothing to gain or lose either way. I'm just amazed by how much resistance there is just to the question among even the most rational non-Christians.

I was there a few short years ago myself, getting completely annoyed with the atheists who gave nonbelief a bad name by insisting that the whole religion was a fiction. But then I started reading some devastating critiques of the historicity stance. And very recently I read a book by self-described Christian gnostics who argue very convincingly that taking Jesus literally at all undermines the very meaning of the earliest Christianity, which was to initiate Christians into self-knowledge, to find the "Christ in us."

[Whitacre D_WI]

49. You are confusing "myth" with "falsehood"

A myth is simply an instructive story. True, it is usually built up with tales of the fantastic, but it is often founded in fact, and even more often founded in Truth (which is quite a different thing from fact).

Here we are on a political board. There are many political figures who are mythic, whether they be nice or nasty -- Rameses, Caesar, Hannibal, Khan, Washington, Napoleon, Jefferson, Mao, King... et cetera ad nauseum. Hell, even folks like Dean, Kucinich, and (ugh) * are mythic, to an extent.

The idea of mysth is that the story is larger than the surface matter. That can certainly be said about Jesus, whether one believes him to be God, the Messiah, or just a man. Hell, even someone who doesn't believe in the man can see Truth in the story.

What was I talking about again? ;)

[BurtWorm]

52. You might be confusing myth with legend.

Like the legend of King Arthur or Robin Hood or El Cid, which may have been based on historical figures or not. (Although El Cid really did exist, his legend is full of fiction.)

A myth is a symbolic story to explain the mysterious, like the origins of a people or the forces of nature.

[Whitacre D_WI]

54. There are plenty of myths that are not origin stories.

Heracles? Odysseus? These are mythical and legendary stories. Myths do not need to be about gods and goddesses, but they need to illustrate a larger point. Legends do not neccessarily need to point to anything eternal -- for instance, Paul Bunyan. What do those stories mean? Well, they don't mean anything; but I would say that myths sprung up around people like Washington -- for instance, he was a slaveowner, didn't really give a damn about women or the poor, killed a lot of Indians, the whole "Father of his Nation" thing is not the whole story to say the least -- these myths still serve a purpose. The Washington of myth is different than the Washington of fact, but the faults of the factual Washington don't make the mythic Washington any less worthy of emulation.

I used alot of words there, and my head is spinning. Anyway, there can be legend in myth, and vice-versa. The point is, that while both legend and myth may stretch the factual record, myths serve a larger, instructive purpose. Legends are just fun stories.

[BurtWorm]

57. Is the Legend of King Arthur really just a fun story?

Or was it intended more to be heard as myth? Or allegory?

:crazy:

There are a lot of thin lines we're crossing here!

[Whitacre D_WI]

59. There is plenty of myth in the story of Arthur.

But when you get down to it; the lines between myth, legend, and fact all begin to blur after a while. That's why there is so much belief in god-men (Christian and otherwise) around the world. Who's to say where humanity ends and divinity begins? Only God. But as we are not gods, and there may not ever be a God -- well, there's the conundrum.

[BurtWorm]

60. For me, this question has become a logic problem.

We can't point to bones and do a DNA test. We can't even point to scrolls of alleged hand-writing and do a carbon-dating test. We can only examine the logic of the evidence on one side or the other. We have to look at the handful of references that seem to be about Jesus outside the Gospels. And that's about it. The logic on the side in favor of historicity is astonishingly shaky when you start to examine it closely. Belief in the living Jesus looks more and more like a matter of faith--for Christians and others--to me.

[Whitacre D_WI]

61. But without concrete evidence to the contrary...

...NON-belief in the historical Jesus is also a leap of faith. I know this is a bit academic, as why would an historian write about someone who never existed -- but we do have early non-Biblical sources that mention the existence of a man named Jesus, none that mention the non-existence of Jesus.

I know that sure as hell ain't proof. But regardless of any source-shakiness, they be sources anyway. That's what'cha got.

Sure it requires faith to believe Jesus the man existed. Then again, this DU thing could just be a bot, right? It requires faith for me to believe YOU exist. Not so much, but...

That said, I think it requires MORE faith to believe Jesus did not exist. And as I am not possessed with a great deal of faith (this is why I am neither a theist nor an atheist), I just let that particular sleeping dog lie.

[BurtWorm]

63. We have early Christian doctrinaires insisting on the reality of Jesus.

I think that's pretty weird. Do we have early Americans insisting on the reality of Washington?

PS: Insisting this on pain of excommunication or death!

[BurtWorm]

75. Answer 2: It requires vastly more faith to believe Jesus lived

which is why Christianity is a faith to begin with.

Biography of Jesus: son of Yahweh by virgin Mary, escapes to Egypt with mother and step-Dad while king of Jews slaughters all male infants to be sure Jesus is dead, disappears for a few years until at age 12, presumably, he wows scholars with his prodigious knowledge, disappears again until his early 30s when he performs several miracles common to man-Gods of Mediterranean religions--including raising corpses to live again, changing water to wine, feeding mobs with a single loaf, predicting his end--and spouts aphorisms based on Stoic philosophy (turning the other cheek, loving neighbor as self, etc.), then meets an end like other man-Gods of Mediterranean (Osiris, Mithra, etc.) amd, like these man-Gods, is resurrected (conquers death).

What about the above does not require faith to believe?

The alternative "rational" biography of Jesus--brilliant radical rabbi and revolutionary--is merely a rationalized version of the Gospel biography for which there is no historical evidence. None.

[patcox2]

69. The "embarrasment" principle.

Its one of many rules of thumb used by historical christ researchers. the premise is that if a story is contradictory or embarrassing to the faith of the early christians, they would of course have taken it out if they could. I mean, if they were making it up, why include something embarrassing? Since the Nazareth origin doesn't jibe with the story they want to tell, that Jesus was of the House of David and born in the town where scripture said the messiah would be born, and since "nazorean" was actually something of an insult, then the only reason they left it in was because it was such a well known fact that they had to.

[BurtWorm]

71. But as I showed in the gnostic gospel post above, "Nazarene"

apparently refers to "nazara"--"truth" in Aramaic. It doesn't refer to a place, but to a principle to this early Christian.

PS: From the Gospel of Philip:

<<The apostles who were before us had these names for him: "Jesus, the Nazorean, Messiah", that is, "Jesus, the Nazorean, the Christ". The last name is "Christ", the first is "Jesus", that in the middle is "the Nazarene". "Messiah" has two meanings, both "the Christ" and "the measured". "Jesus" in Hebrew is "the redemption". "Nazara" is "the Truth". "The Nazarene" then, is "the Truth". "Christ" <...> has been measured. "The Nazarene" and "Jesus" are they who have been measured.>>

[patcox2]

67. Jesus was likely born in nazareth

Calling him the Nazorean was usually meant as an insult, in the new testament its a name most often used by sceptics, not his followers. That part of Gallilee had a reputation as a backward place filled with bumpkins and hillbillies.

New Testament scholarship, even that written by beleivers in church-related publications, pretty much accepts as given the fact that the whole nativity story, including the census and the trip to Bethlehem, was a fabrication for the purpose of making Jesus' story match some old testament prophecies about the messiah being born in Bethlehem.

These facts are no impediment to faith, and are readily admitted by theologians and even priests in any but the most literalist fundamentalist sects.

What one wonders is, what was so special about Jesus that after he died his followers wanted so much to exalt him that they would make up these stories about him being born in fulfillment of old prophesy.

[BurtWorm]

70. That last question is a darn good question.

People should play more attention to it, on both sides of the aisle, so to speak.

My question is, if Jesus lived and was as special as historicists believe, why is his "life" known only in these mythologizing gospels? Why are only a handful of "original" sayings--none of which is particularly original in light of Greek philosophy hundreds of years older--preserved?

[FunBobbyMucha]

36. I'm in the yellow column

I think the Dogma script summed it up:

"You took a good idea and built a belief system around it."

[BurtWorm]

39. My criticism of the "good idea" hypothesis

Is that Jesus's ideas are basically warmed over stoicism. They're Greek philosophy. They're not really as original as claimed. And this, it seems to me, would support the theory that the originators of Christianity were Hellenized Jews who were trying to Hellenize Judaism.

[Whitacre D_WI]

44. Except that the originator of Christianity as we know it today was Paul.

Hellenic, yes. But not a Jew.

There are two things that sour Christianity for me: 1) the God stuff, and 2) that insufferable Saul of Tarsus, at whose feet we can lay the blame for most of the evil spewing from the RW fundies.

[BurtWorm]

50. Paul was a Jew, from Tarsus.

He may also have been misread, or mistranslated. I don't know for a fact, but this was the argument in "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, who call themselves Christian gnostics. It's worth looking at the book if you're interested in the question.

[Whitacre D_WI]

56. Ah -- I may have been... oh, wait.

DAMN!

Luke. Luke was a Greek gentile. I switched his ethnicity around with that of Saul. My bad.

If I keep posting so many things, I will eventually get all screwy.

[TXlib]

41. I am an atheist. I think JC existed. However...

I think he was just a man. A very charismatic, influential, progressive man.

[Frangible]

45. The only evidence is that he was a living person, and nothing more

I'm agnostic and try viewing everything objectively, from a fact-based perspective. There's strong evidence he existed as a human, but no evidence he rose from the dead or was the "son of god".

I can't say for certain either way about the latter, but it's pretty obvious IMO he at least existed as a human.

That's not proof of christianity though-- there's also proof Mohammad the prophet of Allah existed as a human.

[BurtWorm]

48. What strong evidence, out of curiosity?

;)

[Skittles]

66. about as believable as the virgin mother nonsense

nt

[MissMillie]

76. Isn't it possible to believe

that he did both and still not be a "Christian"?

What I mean is, I think Christians believe that Christ died to "save" them from sin. I believe Christ lived and died and rose again, but I have no belief in the concept of "sin".

[BurtWorm]

77. Interesting.

Do you believe other people have died and risen again?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

78. yes its possible

i believe in all myths and legends and fairy tale magic because it makes life interesting. but i dont believe in one true god. or that we have been saved.

[alfredo]

79. During his time, there was a law that the family had to check the

grave of the recently buried. They passed this law because of the number of people buried alive.

Most likely he woke up from the shock that made him appear dead to those there. Realizing he survived, he pushed away the door freeing himself from the grave. He probably crawled away, linked up with partisans, and ran to Damascus where he could find safe haven.

Damascus was where a lot of rabble rousers ran to avoid punishment.

The ascending into heaven sounds like a cover story to protect the partisans, the guards and their activities that day. Guards were probably in the graveyard to prevent families stealing the bodies so they can be buried according to their rituals. The guards knowing they would be put to death for falling asleep on guard duty, Or not noticing the escape, made up a story about an angel putting them to sleep. No word if they were executed too.