http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articl...tory.htm#3

Quote:The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.

I'm sure the fundies will show up whining soon enough. Before you do, give some thought to how long a link like this would last any any xtian boards. They are terrified that any of you will ever do any thinking.

In far too many cases their terror is misplaced. Thinking is not big in xtian circles.

(May 12, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articl...tory.htm#3

Quote:The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a real person. Perhaps he wasn't really "the Messiah", perhaps he was not "The Son of God", and perhaps he didn't actually perform miracles and rise from the dead, but he really was a great moral teacher who traveled around Galilee with followers and got arrested by the Jews and crucified by the Romans right?

Not likely. In fact, a close examination of the evidence shows that the best explanation for the story of "Jesus Christ" is what we call "mythology". The case that I will be outlining here is that there never was any "Jesus Christ" nor any meaningful real life basis for the story of "Jesus Christ". Like many other religious figures, "Jesus Christ" began as a theological concept, was later used as a character in allegorical stories, and was then historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal "human" Jesus most likely emerged as eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the "flesh" and "blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.

I'm sure the fundies will show up whining soon enough. Before you do, give some thought to how long a link like this would last any any xtian boards. They are terrified that any of you will ever do any thinking.

In far too many cases their terror is misplaced. Thinking is not big in xtian circles.

This is pretty retro, I haven't seen any real recent "Jesus Myth" stuff. I like how he went with a literary approach in his arguments, trying to locate the Jesus tradition more firmly in the Jewish context, but I don't think it's an entirely new angle. Most of the modern scholarship I'm aware of is pretty firm on Jesus as a real historical figure, but I'm not as up-to-date on this end of critical scholarship. Have you seen some renewed interest in the "Jesus Myth" theory? I have yet to hear a real convincing "Jesus didn't exist" argument personally, but where do you stand on this Min? Is there a particular scholarly source you ascribe to?

I fucking love Robert Price, cheers for the link.

Thank you Minimalist for the article, I will certainly read through it sometime.

I first ran across this idea in "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty where he systematically goes through the gospel of "Mark" and indicates from where in the OT these various ideas were borrowed. By the time I had read this (c 2007) I was well aware of the total dearth of historical references to any 'jesus' or 'messiah' or even some criminal coming back from the dead among the Greco-Roman and Jewish writers of the first century. When you start adding in some of the obvious mistakes in the gospels ( serious conflict between Jews and Romans - people living in "Nazareth" having to go to Bethlehem for a census ) it becomes clear that the gospel writers were discussing events within the context of their time....late first, early second century at best... and not the so-called 'jesus' time in the first third of the first century. By the time this shit was written the political situation HAD deteriorated into conflict. That, however, began under Caligula and xtians claim that jesus was already dead by the time Caligula became emperor. Likewise, in the time that the so-called jesus lived "Nazareth" ( if it existed at all which is doubtful ) and Bethlehem were in different countries. This did not change until 39 when Herod Antipas was deposed and his kingdom added to that of Herod Agrippa I by Caligula. Oops....once again jesus was already dead.

So it is not one line of evidence which leads to the conclusion it is several.

The first film in the Zeitgeist series touches on the historical documentation of jesus ... or rather, the lack thereof.

http://vimeo.com/13726978

If you give it a second to stream - the exact spot I'm referencing can be found at 35:25 minutes.

Zeitgeist, especially the part on religion, is complete bullshit.

Here's a reputable account of Zeitgeist:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/zeitgeist-refuted/

(May 13, 2011 at 7:31 am)theVOID Wrote: Zeitgeist, especially the part on religion, is complete bullshit.

Zeitgeist is crap but I'd argue that the political parts (II and III) were even crappier than the part on religion.

That may be subjective, like which religion is a bigger stinking pile of bullshit.

To see Robert Price engage with other New Testament scholars , a good book to pick up is The Historical Jesus: Five Views, where Price interacts with Crossan, Dunn, LT Johnson and Bock.

(May 13, 2011 at 7:31 am)theVOID Wrote: Here's a reputable account of Zeitgeist:

Good link, I ended up watching all of it. I never really knew much about the zeitgeist films -- with acception to the religious part of the original.