Here's another reason I think the arguments for a mortal, historical figure on whom the myths of Christianity are based are completely moot.
I've heard that some historians think there was a real "King Arthur" in history. Does that mean the English folk tales are based on a real person? Remove the magical elements, his famous sword and companion wizard, etc. and what is left? An English king with a group of loyal knights? And this is distinct from so many other English kings who lived during that time how?
If we're going to seriously talk of the "historical Jesus" or the "historical King Arthur", there's a certain level of truth we need to expect from the legends. Washington was real, though the story of the cherry tree was a fabrication. There's still enough of the story left over that we can speak of a real person behind the folklore. What about with Jesus?
When you take away the miracles from Jesus, you've already stripped away most of the story. Nearly all of his scenes in the Gospels involved some kind of miracle as a punctuation point or the only thing that makes the event remarkable.
What about the teachings of Jesus? The sermon on the mount didn't involve a miracle. But many of Jesus teachings were either uttered by OT scribes ("Love thy neighbor as thyself" appears in Leviticus) or discovered by ancient Greek philosophers like Plato. Additionally, since Jesus wrote nothing down and since nothing was recorded for at least 40 years, we have no dependable sources as to what his teachings were.
How about the ministry of Jesus? Again, since no contemporary reports exist and even the ones that came later are cursory and oblique, we can only assume his movement was far from famous or controversial as the Gospels contend.
What's left?
What do we mean when we say "historical Jesus"? Some wandering rabbi named "Yeshua" who was a doom crier that ended up being crucified?
Yeshua was a common name back then. Doom criers, messiah contenders and splinter factions of Judaism abounded. Judea was chafing under the yoke of Roman occupation and looking for their messiah. Absolutely nothing about what's left, if there is anything to speak of, was unique. The legend could have been a fabrication, or based thinly on the life of a real Yeshua, or based on several religious leaders who might or might not have had the name Yeshua.
How can we ever know anything about this hypothetical person? Does it even matter at all?
I've heard that some historians think there was a real "King Arthur" in history. Does that mean the English folk tales are based on a real person? Remove the magical elements, his famous sword and companion wizard, etc. and what is left? An English king with a group of loyal knights? And this is distinct from so many other English kings who lived during that time how?
If we're going to seriously talk of the "historical Jesus" or the "historical King Arthur", there's a certain level of truth we need to expect from the legends. Washington was real, though the story of the cherry tree was a fabrication. There's still enough of the story left over that we can speak of a real person behind the folklore. What about with Jesus?
When you take away the miracles from Jesus, you've already stripped away most of the story. Nearly all of his scenes in the Gospels involved some kind of miracle as a punctuation point or the only thing that makes the event remarkable.
What about the teachings of Jesus? The sermon on the mount didn't involve a miracle. But many of Jesus teachings were either uttered by OT scribes ("Love thy neighbor as thyself" appears in Leviticus) or discovered by ancient Greek philosophers like Plato. Additionally, since Jesus wrote nothing down and since nothing was recorded for at least 40 years, we have no dependable sources as to what his teachings were.
How about the ministry of Jesus? Again, since no contemporary reports exist and even the ones that came later are cursory and oblique, we can only assume his movement was far from famous or controversial as the Gospels contend.
What's left?
What do we mean when we say "historical Jesus"? Some wandering rabbi named "Yeshua" who was a doom crier that ended up being crucified?
Yeshua was a common name back then. Doom criers, messiah contenders and splinter factions of Judaism abounded. Judea was chafing under the yoke of Roman occupation and looking for their messiah. Absolutely nothing about what's left, if there is anything to speak of, was unique. The legend could have been a fabrication, or based thinly on the life of a real Yeshua, or based on several religious leaders who might or might not have had the name Yeshua.
How can we ever know anything about this hypothetical person? Does it even matter at all?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
