So what if there were no historical Jesus?

[neilgodfrey]

Some years ago (around the time I seized the opportunity to personally thank Bishop Spong for helping me on my way to atheism) I asked a well respected anglican cleric what his response would be if it could be reasonably established that Christianity did not begin with a real historical Jesus. My query was via email so he had a little time to think before responding. His words in effect were:

"Well it seems the Jews can still get along without a literal historical Abraham so I suppose Christianity could still find a way to survive without an historical Jesus."

Thoughts?

[spin]

This is another non BC&H thread.

Christianity is founded on the notion of salvation through the vicarious participation in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. No Jesus means no salvation.


spin

[neilgodfrey]

This is another non BC&H thread.

Christianity is founded on the notion of salvation through the vicarious participation in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. No Jesus means no salvation.


spin

The non-historical view of Jesus does not deny this. Simply removes it from the historical realm.

[spin]

This is still not a BC&H thread.

Christianity is founded on the notion of salvation through the vicarious participation in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. No Jesus means no salvation.
The non-historical view of Jesus does not deny this. Simply removes it from the historical realm.
Sorry, but what does "this" refer to? the salvific act? And what realm is whatever it is moved to, so that it still has religious significance for humans?


spin

[Solo]

This is another non BC&H thread.

Christianity is founded on the notion of salvation through the vicarious participation in the death of Jesus and his resurrection. No Jesus means no salvation.

spin

The question here is whether Jesus needs to be historical.

The "vicarious participation" seems to have originated in Paul's head, and his expose needed no reference to the historical figure (1 Cr 11:23-28, 1 Cr 15:3-8, and Rm 1:3 are later church fakes of Paul). But Paul was addressing a select audience. Paul Tillich sees Paul's participation "mystery" originating with Delphic Apollo (the first instance, he says, of God's participation in the suffering of man). The ecstasis through the participation in the death and rising of the god is brought about through "psychological means. Intoxication is brought about by a change of light and darkness, by ascetic fasting, by incense, sounds, music...etc". Tillich stresses that the esoteric nature of the practices was protected "against profanation". "Later, in the Christian congregations", he writes, "a similar thing took place to protect against betrayal to the pagan persecutors". (Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, ed. Carl E.Braaten, N.Y., 1968, p.13-14).

So, one can look at the gospels themselves, as the works of pneuma, gained by insight into the "unio mystica" with the risen Lord, written up as koans and riddles, and read according to the depth of participant's initiation.
But the problem is this: with the emergence of the Church, the universaility of the creed can only be maintained by the mainenance of the lowest, but most common, spiritual denominator. The commonest believer will read everything in the Bible literally - as history. So what is the pope to do ? Say, ok, but the real resurrection is just for the gnostic maniacos ?

Jiri

[Amedeo]

The question here is whether Jesus needs to be historical.
.................

Jiri

I agree, that's the question! But you seem to give an answer in terms of Paul, as if to say: Following Paul, Christians believe that Jesus is the Savior of (in principle) mankind, but it is logically necessary in Paul's doctrine that there be a real Jesus?

You or I could ask the same question but on our terms (about historicity): Does Paul's doctrine of salvation logically require a real (a historical) Jesus?

I would answer the first question by aYes, for if there was no crucifixion [of a real Jesus], there was no atonment; and if there was no resurrection, "our faith would have been in vain."
[I don't know what the real Paul said or di not really say; I simply speak in terms of what is attributed to him.]

The second question will be answered differently by different readers of the biographies [Gospels] of Jesus.

In order to relate to Paul, you have to start considering the biography of Jesus the Messiah/Christ, not the biography of Jesus the King... who died on the cross as the [claiming] King of the Judaeans, rather than as the messiah. You see, the Messiah was born of God and of Mary (not of Joseph, son of David, and Mary). He was literally a son of God or, as he was understood by the Christians, a God-Man [like the Giants and the Titans and the Heroes of Greek mythology]. It is the crucifixion of the God Man that, according to Paul, makes for the expiation of human sins. [This was not Jesus/Messiah's own mission, which was to prepare Israel for the imminent end of the world -- within one generation! Christians forgot about that and took Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion as Jesus' real mission. Of course, Paul himself had to forget that Jesus died as the King of the Judaens, not as the messiah to mankind.]

So, for the Pauline salvation, it is necessary NOT that there was a real Jesus, but that there was a real GOD-MAN [begotten by God and Mary]. Without this, the crucifixion had no expiatory value and could not serve the purpose of saving mankind.

I personally think that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, maybe of the bloodline of David, was a rabbi (learned in the Scriptures) who noted what the Messiah would have to be, and he impersonated the Messiah -- preaching his messianic autobigraphy along with moral sermons and the parables about the Kingdom of God.

I could say that Jesus was not the pre-figured or foretold messiah. But what would the real messiah have that Jesus did not have? Was the real one supposed to be a political leader? But Jesus of Nazareth was or was claimed to be: he was the legitimate king who was going to displace the foreign Herodian dynasty. Do you remember the tale of the magi who, having informed Herod, he took measures to protect his rule over Judaea? (The Gospels, compiled by Greek Christians, eliminated most of the episodes that had to do with the royal Jesus: They are predominantly the biographies of Jesus THE MESSIAH.)

If the Messiah was the God-Man that is told in the Gospels, then there had to be a real God-Man in order for the Pauline universalistic doctrine to have any validity at all.

The end of the world did not come and Jesus' own mission ended with his crucifixion, but the Church of Jesus the Christ lived on since it was Paul's universal, not the Israelitic, Church {People}.

[Peter Kirby]

I once asked someone such a question, Neil, and this is the response I got...


It seems to me that those who are Christians would have three basic
alternatives.

Alternative One: we've been buffaloed, give up and go home. If we can't beat
the atheists, join them :-)

Alternative Two: Become a Gnostic. THAT should ever put Christianity beyond
the reach of historical science. Unfortunately, it also (IMHO) puts it (as a
revelation from God, anyway, rather than as a merely damned fine idea)
beyond the reach of any conceivable intersection with human life and
historical existence.

Alternative Three: Rethink the Incarnation. Rather than viewing the locus of
the battle between God and sin, death and the devil as being in the
historical figure of Jesus, view the locus of the battle between God and
sin, death and the devil as occurring in the flesh and blood lives of the
early Christian communities. They experienced suffering, defeat and death at
the hands of the fallen powers and principalities, they also experienced the
transcendence of death concealed within such events.

FWIW.

[Draconis]

I think they'll just be jews then

[Doug Shaver]

His words in effect were:

"Well it seems the Jews can still get along without a literal historical Abraham so I suppose Christianity could still find a way to survive without an historical Jesus."

Thoughts?
Whether the cleric was correct depends on which version of Christianity we're talking about. I have known some Christians whose beliefs were not contingent on Jesus' historicity, but I doubt that they are in the majority.

Certainly, no kind of Christianity that presumes scriptural inerrancy could adapt itself to irrefutable proof of Jesus' nonexistence. But then, no dyed-in-the-wool inerrantist would accept any proof. They would just deny that it was irrefutable.

[aa5874]

I personally think that Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, maybe of the bloodline of David, was a rabbi (learned in the Scriptures) who noted what the Messiah would have to be, and he impersonated the Messiah -- preaching his messianic autobigraphy along with moral sermons and the parables about the Kingdom of God.

Where did you get information about this Jesus, son of Joseph. There is no such Jesus in the NT. I cannot locate your Jesus, son of Joseph, in any historical writings of the 1st century, not even an anecdote.

All we know is that the story of Jesus' birth, as recorded in Matthew and Luke is false, neither Joseph nor Mary, herself, could understand how this Jesus could be conceived, according to the authors of the very same books.

[Amedeo]

Today I asked myself whether the Pauline doctrine of redemption (the sacrifice of the God-Man) requires the persisting existence of Jesus.

According to the Gospels, Jesus not only resurrected but also ascended into Heaven [the Sky above, or beyond the Sky]. It was the whole God-Man that ascended, not the soul of Jesus, or the divinity of Jesus.

Theoretically, Jesus could have died again of old age, so that, at that time, the Divine Jesus would have joined his Father... and eventually the Son of Man would be resurrected like everybody else at the end of time. But the Gospels themselves, as in the Parable of the Weeds, Jesus says of himself (Matt.:13-40+), "As the weeds are pulled and burnt in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace , where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father."

So, the Kingdom of Heaven, or Kingdom of God, is the Kingdom of the father, but Jesus will be there as administrator and judge, BEFORE the Final judgment and the weeding out. Hence, the parable implicitly fortells his ascension into heaven: he has to be in heaven before the end of the world. (Unfortunately his prophesy that the end of the world would occur within one generation did not materialize; hence, there is no reason to believe in his escatology -- his doctrine of the last things, the Kingdom included. So, the implicit fortelling of his own ascension is null and void.)

The whole story of Jesus the Messiah is something he constructed and preached. He must have believed he was the Messiah and that he came to prepare Israel for the imminent end of the world. He was as sure of this end as he was of his being the one who would send out his angels to weed out the evil ones.

Like others, I have always been puzzled why, in the Gospels, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man [a human creature] and never as either King or as Messiah. He was a God-Man by the implication that God Mary to conceived him, and he was called the son of God by heavenly voices and by others. At the most we have his assertion that "I and the Father are one" (if it was really he that made this assertion, or perhaps it was one of the Greek interpolations).

What is strange is that jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man precisely in contexts where he would be operating as a god or as the son of God (as in aforementioned parable).

The expression, "son of man" occurs in some books of the Bible and especially in Ezechiel, but it does not seem to mean more than "human creature" or pehaps " true man" in the sense that Andros and Vir differ from Anthropos and Homo.
There is at least a superficial contradiction between the idea of "son of man" and "son of God" (in whose function Jesus would be the administrator of the heavenly kingdom).

To go back to the Pauline doctrine of salvation: If salvation is due to the atonment of the God-Man on the cross, how can there be salvation unless the God-Man remains dead? Aside from the fact that it would be the MAN, not the God, that underwent death, the temporary death of Jesus is not an accomplished sacrifice. A temporary death (though accompanied by great pain) is not basically different than going to sleep. In fact we resurrect every morning. (According to the Gospel reports, the resurrected Jesus did not show signs of decay... while supposedly preserving the spear-wound at his side.) To Paul, the resurrection proved that jesus conquered death -- which only a god could do, and he forgot the fact that the resurrection invalidates his doctrine of redemption from sin.

Once Paul is refuted, there is no foundation left for the CHURCH of Jesus Christ (that is the church of the Gentile converts). Gentile Christianity rested and rests on Paul's illogical mind. (But, as I stated in another post, the endeavor to convert Gentiles FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME had to do with Jesus the King. The Pauline doctrine of universal salvation was the bait at the end of the hook. The Gentiles got taken and Theodosius established Christrianity the religion of the Roman empire.)

Let Jesus the messiah be returned to his People. His real messiahship ended with his death and with the non-fulfilment of his prophesy about the end of the world.

[Amedeo]

Where did you get information about this Jesus, son of Joseph. There is no such Jesus in the NT. I cannot locate your Jesus, son of Joseph, in any historical writings of the 1st century, not even an anecdote.

All we know is that the story of Jesus' birth, as recorded in Matthew and Luke is false, neither Joseph nor Mary, herself, could understand how this Jesus could be conceived, according to the authors of the very same books.

Matt:1
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,......
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." [See also the different genealogy in Luke:13, who is uncertain and says, "Now Jesus... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ...]

Matthew states in no uncertain terms that Jesus was a descendent of King David (wherefore Jesus is the legitimate king of Jerusalem and Judaeah...) Jesus the king was born under Herod, on or before 4 B.C.

Luke is intent on speaking of Jesus the messiah (Christ), who was born of an unwed mother, Mary, wherefore Joseph received a dream message that God caused Mary to be pregnant. Jesus the Messiah was born in Bethlehem during the Roman census (?around 6 A.D.?)

(Sorry, I am not going to repeat my posts that show that the Gospels are TWO interwoven biographies: of Jesus the king and Jesus the Messiah.)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Moving this to GRD for consistency.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

[Newton's Cat]

Matt:1
"A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,......
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." [See also the different genealogy in Luke:13, who is uncertain and says, "Now Jesus... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, ...]

Matthew states in no uncertain terms that Jesus was a descendent of King David (wherefore Jesus is the legitimate king of Jerusalem and Judaeah...) Jesus the king was born under Herod, on or before 4 B.C.

Luke is intent on speaking of Jesus the messiah (Christ), who was born of an unwed mother, Mary, wherefore Joseph received a dream message that God caused Mary to be pregnant. Jesus the Messiah was born in Bethlehem during the Roman census (?around 6 A.D.?)

(Sorry, I am not going to repeat my posts that show that the Gospels are TWO interwoven biographies: of Jesus the king and Jesus the Messiah.)

Jesus, King of the Jews was, in my opinion, a fictional character used by the the original author as a vehicle for his criticisms of contemporary Jewish society. I suspect that the original story took the form of a play. Later someone founded the CULT we now call Christianity by interpolating into the text the character Jesus Christ, Son of God.

Joseph Smith founded Mormonism, Hubbard founded Scientology, etc.

Someone founded Christianity.

IESOUS CHRISTOS = OSIRIS SET CHOUS (CHOUS means "grave")

Ergo - Christianity has its origins in the Egyptian myths of Osiris and Set.

What people need to look for is two individuals who actually existed:

Paul - and whoever used his writings to create the CULT that became Christianity.

I've said this before - I'm convinced that ALL references to Jesus Christ and Christianity in Romans and Mark are later interpolations or additions.

If Hubbard can use anagrams (Xenu Etrawl, one of Scientology's major "Gods", anagrams to WE R LUNATEX) then why not the founder of Christianity? In the 70s I was personally acquainted with someone who founded his own cult (EMIN). Initially he called himself LEO IV - which is, of course, an anagram. His followers did not seem to be aware of this ... and considered it to be of no significance when they were told.

[TySixtus]

Christianity will adapt.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to be bothered by this. It causes them no cognitive dissonance whatsoever to learn that their religion has changed.

Liberal Christians are by nature dealing with a meta-narrative. They don't really care what "happened". They care about what it "means".

Ty

[Solo]

Christianity will adapt.

Unfortunately, people don't seem to be bothered by this. It causes them no cognitive dissonance whatsoever to learn that their religion has changed.

Liberal Christians are by nature dealing with a meta-narrative. They don't really care what "happened". They care about what it "means".

Ty
Sorry but I disagree. The liberal churches are of course the ones emptying the fastest. The only ones growing are the evangelicals. Catholicism would not survive if it gave up its conservative theological stance, and noone knows it better that Vatican. John XXIII. was an aberration. The church is back to the gibberish of Trident mass.

Christianity is not Judaism. It does not have national identity. Christ is to Christianity in religion, as UFO's are to Roswell N.M. in tourism. You can't just say, O.K. ok, so it wasn't quite a UFO and quite extraterrestials that came down here, but come on in to Roswell for the thrills anyhow.

Jiri

[Biff the unclean]

We are already in a condition where we totally lack an historic Jesus.

Christians insist that all professional historians accept historic Jesus as a fact…the lack of evidence for Jesus is the same as for (insert uncontested historic figure)…Jesus mythers and Jesus fictioners are all fools and idiots…etc. If it could be reasonably established that Christianity did not begin with a real historical Jesus nothing would be different than it is now.