lukethethird
unknown member
However, I doubt it will have any effect on Christianity.
Or, do you think it will?
Or, do you think it will?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity
- Thread starter lukethethird
- Start date
lukethethird
unknown member
Professors in seminary schools have lost tenure for letting their thoughts be known, that may be finally lessening somewhat, so no, it has not been legit for the likes of those that have been expelled.
Well obviously you can't teach at a seminary that Jesus didn't exist. Lol.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Can they keep an open mind, and question the claim for an historical Jesus?
I'd be all for debate, but teaching that Jesus did not exist at an explicitly Christian teaching school would be wrong. It would be like promoting God belief or Christianity at secular schools.
So Jesus' meaning, myth, and message only means something if he was a completely real dude, and not a symbolic mythological figure?
Or even a real mythological figure, just not one that was ever actually corporeal/earthbound?
No, but that isn't the basis of orthodox Christian belief. It would be teaching heresy.
lukethethird
unknown member
It would be wrong to teach that the gospels are allegory?
In many senses, yes. Again, teaching heresy.
Seminaries are not places for secular spiritualism. They're places for orthodox Christianity.
lukethethird
unknown member
Good questions, which is why I think that it would make no difference to Christianity should it become common knowledge that Jesus is a symbolic mythological figure.
PureX
Veteran Member
Nor should it. Christianity isn't about the historicity of Jesus. Or at least it shouldn't be. It should be about the message and the promise of 'Christ within'. That God's love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity exists within us all. And that if we will allow this divine spirit within us to become us, we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help to heal and save others. The story of Jesus' life and death and resurrection is the means of conveying this message and promise to us. And that's all we need to know.
It's not 'common knowledge' though. We don't 'know' this.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Actually, people have probably been questioning it since the first or second century.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
There are two distinct issues here.
The "historical" Jesus and the "magical" Jesus.
One probably existed, one didn't. That is the consensus amongst respected historians, afaiaa.
However, as they keep on reminding us, religionists are not interested in historical or archaeological or scientific evidence - unless it's some crackpot who claims to have found the ark or something, then "the evidence" is suddenly beyond question.
The times call for change. There are numerous little gods running numerous little temples in the name of Christianity, and they are parceling up communities, dividing everyone up. They drain people like batteries. People are avoiding one another. The white churches stay white and the black black. People don't dance. They don't go to public squares. They don't greet strangers. They aren't visiting, aren't doing what they are supposed to do. The churches aren't trying to stop evils like they're supposed to. Instead they are focused upon the sweet by and by. This has led to a very bad reputation for Christian churches and the current large numbers of people choosing not to be church folk anymore. The seminaries are responding by shining a little more destructive/creative light.
There is a problem with the use of the word historicity. How much of that account can be removed and call the remnant a historical reality? If we remove the supernatural, such as virgin birth, water to wine, waking on water, and resurrection, but retain all of the rest, is that a historical Jesus? Most people, I presume would say yes.
Can we remove Joseph and Mary from the story and maybe replace them with an unmarried mother named Rachel? Suppose that it were confirmed that that was the case, but the rest of the story apart from the miracles was accurate. I wouldn't quibble that Jesus existed if the rest were true. That's probably still a historical Jesus for most people.
How about we remove a little more? How about if there were only six disciples? What if one was named Felix, and another was a woman. Is this enough to call Jesus historical? If we say yes, then take a little more away. Suppose there was no Last Supper, and no disciple named Peter nor a betrayal of Jesus? What if the Jews never tried anybody named Jesus?
The point is that this is an example of the sorites paradox. If the whole story is accurate, the answer is yes, there was a historical Jesus. If the whole story is fiction, then no. When does it go from one to the other?: "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?"
Can we remove Joseph and Mary from the story and maybe replace them with an unmarried mother named Rachel? Suppose that it were confirmed that that was the case, but the rest of the story apart from the miracles was accurate. I wouldn't quibble that Jesus existed if the rest were true. That's probably still a historical Jesus for most people.
How about we remove a little more? How about if there were only six disciples? What if one was named Felix, and another was a woman. Is this enough to call Jesus historical? If we say yes, then take a little more away. Suppose there was no Last Supper, and no disciple named Peter nor a betrayal of Jesus? What if the Jews never tried anybody named Jesus?
The point is that this is an example of the sorites paradox. If the whole story is accurate, the answer is yes, there was a historical Jesus. If the whole story is fiction, then no. When does it go from one to the other?: "A typical formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap, the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?"
lukethethird
unknown member
There are no stories where we remove the supernatural bits and call what remains historical, (Superman comes to mind), to do so in the case of Jesus would be special pleading. If there is an historical figure lurking behind the myth we just have no way of knowing, it merely becomes arbitrary to say that there is.
lukethethird
unknown member
I happen to be one of those Christians that actually read the story for myself, that same story that was rammed down my throat week after week, year after year, the story that was brought to my ancestors at the end of a sword, so is there an appropriate time to acknowledge a change in scholarship?