Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?

[C.H. Tongueek]

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.

[SleepingDemon]

It wouldn't have been that difficult to fabricate Jesus. The Greeks had a host of demigods that were fabricated yet whole-heartedly beleived in as part of the heirarchy at the time. No one doubted the existence of Hercules or Achilles. If we take for example Hercules all it would take is a "discovery" by the church to completely fabricate this mythology, and then circulate the dogma in the centuries afterwards. Literacy amongst the common people was non-existent, so they took everything from figures of authority as gospel.

I too believe that Jesus more than likely existed, however it is entirely possible that the church fabricated his mythology and existence over the centuries.

[Minimalist]

Your question suggests that you think that Jesus was a deliberate, total fiction.

Just like every other 'god' ever created. Demon is right. It isn't all that hard when the emperor gives a religion the power to kill people who profess disbelief. When he gives a religion the authority to close down other shrines and steal their property. Or when he allows book-burning on a massive scale.

If you give me the power to torture and kill people in 20 years I could have large numbers worshiping a toaster.

[radorth]

I came accross the question while browsing online and was wondering if I could get some opinions on the matter.

I for one am really not sure.

The atheist H.G. Wells wrote at length about the person of Jesus in his "Short History of the World." (Bartleby.com, interesting reading)

"We are obliged to say 'Here was a man,'" he wrote. The agnostic Willl Durant said the invention of such a character in one short period would be a miracle exceeding anything claimed in the Gospels and called the claimed Gospel contradictions "minutae." There are contradictions, like was the stone rolled away before or after the disciples showed up? The Gospels don't agree, but Durant is calling this a dumb reason not to believe the story.

The end of Mark was probably added as it does not appear in early copes of Mark, but this has been admitted by Christian scholars for hundreds of years. To throw up your hands and say well then, how do we know anything? is a logical fallacy called "false in one part, therefore false in all."

I might ask, why is it that if the Gospels agree, atheist "thinkers" say they must have been copied, and if they don't agree they must be made up? Now there's a contradiction to think about, no?

[Minimalist]

Because much was copied from the first effort, "Mark" and still other parts were invented by later writers to fill in Mark's blanks and refined by later editors.

It isn't so hard. Read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle."

[zip_ster]

I have been reading a lot about the lack of evidence surrounding the whole Jesus story. I have to admit that it is possible that it is a myth at best, a complete fraud at worst.
Having been raised around all this for 45 years, its just hard to wrap your brain around... that it all really was just bullshit. Even if I know it was.

[radorth]

Because much was copied from the first effort, "Mark" and still other parts were invented by later writers to fill in Mark's blanks and refined by later editors.

It isn't so hard. Read Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle."

I read it. He said Luke "slavishly copied Matthew" So I guess Earl contradicts your statement, not to mention himself. How exactly do the Gospels contradict, or filled in later, if they were "slavishly copied" by Luke? Earl could not seem to remember what he wrote the day before IMO.

A far more rational and less cynical conclusion is the one reached by the non-Christian Wll Durant, which is basically "you can't make this stuff up" even if there are some contradictions. And BTW, how do a few fishermen write similes as good as Shakespeare's and "the greatest system of morals" ever laid down? (Jefferson)

The only major addition is the end of Mark and otherwise, a few verses like "many are called but few chosen."

---

I have been reading a lot about the lack of evidence surrounding the whole Jesus story. I have to admit that it is possible that it is a myth at best, a complete fraud at worst.
Having been raised around all this for 45 years, its just hard to wrap your brain around... that it all really was just bullshit. Even if I know it was.

If you can answer Durant's rationale in "Caesar and Christ" I will agree with you. Or the atheist H.G. Wells' rationale in his "Short History of the World." They will give you something to wrap your mind around, assuming it can stretch that far.

[Minimalist]

"you can't make this stuff up"

Of course you can.

Are you suggesting that there is a historical person behind, Osiris, Zeus, Odin, Quetzlcoatl, and Ahura Mazda?

If that stuff was made up it is merely special pleading to argue that "jesus" was not made up.

[Forsaken]

A far more rational and less cynical conclusion is the one reached by the non-Christian Wll Durant, which is basically "you can't make this stuff up" even if there are some contradictions. And BTW, how do a few fishermen write similes as good as Shakespeare's and "the greatest system of morals" ever laid down? (Jefferson)

And what about the Veda's? They are probably the oldest system of morals on earth, written hundreds of years earlier than any biblical scrolls. And yes, the literature can rival Shakespeare at any given time.