I've seen several threads here regarding the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historic personage, an amalgam of mythic figures, or something in the middle. Personally, I'm of the opinion that there was no historic figure comparable to the Jesus described in the synoptic Gospels, but I don't think the issue is all that important.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the historic Jesus as described is more or less accurate - an itinerant rabbi who was born in Bethlehem to a carpenter and his wife, preached for a few years, attracted a sizeable following, got into a kerfuffle with the local authorities and was killed for his trouble. Leaving aside for now the question of Jesus' supernatural abilities, would the existence of such a person have any effect on the views of non-believers? I really don't think so.
On the other side of the coin, we can suppose that the Jesus of the Gospels was a completely a-historic figure, but this is no bar to believers accepting him as a savior or the son of God. In fact, Paul seems blissfully unaware of Jesus as an actual flesh-and-blood, and I don't think anyone doubts the religious sincerity of this particular lunatic.
I strongly suspect that Christians (and others) have a need to believe in Jesus as an historic figure in order to help give some kind of provenance to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the story: if Jesus didn't exist in a flesh-and-blood sense, then there wasn't anyone to walk on water or heal lepers or cater the wedding and so forth. They need a miracle worker to believe in miracles and Christianity simply doesn't hold up with out miracles.
But if proof of an actual Jesus as described in the synoptics were to be revealed tomorrow, I can't see it weakening my atheism even a little bit.
Boru
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that the historic Jesus as described is more or less accurate - an itinerant rabbi who was born in Bethlehem to a carpenter and his wife, preached for a few years, attracted a sizeable following, got into a kerfuffle with the local authorities and was killed for his trouble. Leaving aside for now the question of Jesus' supernatural abilities, would the existence of such a person have any effect on the views of non-believers? I really don't think so.
On the other side of the coin, we can suppose that the Jesus of the Gospels was a completely a-historic figure, but this is no bar to believers accepting him as a savior or the son of God. In fact, Paul seems blissfully unaware of Jesus as an actual flesh-and-blood, and I don't think anyone doubts the religious sincerity of this particular lunatic.
I strongly suspect that Christians (and others) have a need to believe in Jesus as an historic figure in order to help give some kind of provenance to their belief in the supernatural aspects of the story: if Jesus didn't exist in a flesh-and-blood sense, then there wasn't anyone to walk on water or heal lepers or cater the wedding and so forth. They need a miracle worker to believe in miracles and Christianity simply doesn't hold up with out miracles.
But if proof of an actual Jesus as described in the synoptics were to be revealed tomorrow, I can't see it weakening my atheism even a little bit.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
