RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
June 18, 2010 at 4:27 am
Quote.
Yes, all 3 names were common. Why assume that the factual element was the "jesus" part? Perhaps the factual part was that there was religious ferment with jesus later concocted and added into the mix?
Your question suggests that you think that Jesus was a deliberate, total fiction. That 'tactic', in the days of pen, ink and precious papyrus, would have required an enormous amount of work to publicise and is unlikely to be correct. It would have been far simpler to take existing folk lore of a man called Jesus and promote him as the son of god. Anything written down is still taken by some deluded people to be fact but when few could read and write, anything written was generally assumed to be fact. Each re-write would likely have more and more fantasy added but the original charecter was, I suggest, kept as Jesus - the teacher/ rabbi/ Zealot/ vandal/ Nazareen/ magician/ healer/ Essene/ whatever he was in the various legends.
Given that the original question asked whether a man called Jesus actually existed, I have to say that I find that far more likely than your implication that he was a total fabrication. It is rather like Arthur and/or Merlin; there is much myth, much fiction and no reliable historical record but on the balance of probabilities I would suggest that a warrior called Arthur and a druid called Merlin did exist and probably interacted.
So yes, on the balance of probabilities a 'stand out' charecter called Jesus really did exist somewhere around 1-40BCE. What Jesus actually did however is open to as many questions as what Arthur and Merlin really did.
Yes, all 3 names were common. Why assume that the factual element was the "jesus" part? Perhaps the factual part was that there was religious ferment with jesus later concocted and added into the mix?
Your question suggests that you think that Jesus was a deliberate, total fiction. That 'tactic', in the days of pen, ink and precious papyrus, would have required an enormous amount of work to publicise and is unlikely to be correct. It would have been far simpler to take existing folk lore of a man called Jesus and promote him as the son of god. Anything written down is still taken by some deluded people to be fact but when few could read and write, anything written was generally assumed to be fact. Each re-write would likely have more and more fantasy added but the original charecter was, I suggest, kept as Jesus - the teacher/ rabbi/ Zealot/ vandal/ Nazareen/ magician/ healer/ Essene/ whatever he was in the various legends.
Given that the original question asked whether a man called Jesus actually existed, I have to say that I find that far more likely than your implication that he was a total fabrication. It is rather like Arthur and/or Merlin; there is much myth, much fiction and no reliable historical record but on the balance of probabilities I would suggest that a warrior called Arthur and a druid called Merlin did exist and probably interacted.
So yes, on the balance of probabilities a 'stand out' charecter called Jesus really did exist somewhere around 1-40BCE. What Jesus actually did however is open to as many questions as what Arthur and Merlin really did.
Man cannot make a worm yet will make gods by the dozen. Michel de Montaigne
