Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 11 of 11

Thread: The Historical Jesus

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Come one, come all
    This myth sure is tall
    Come see, Rome fall
    But grow - we stall
    Our truth "within"
    Our own soft skin!

    "Jesus Never Existed – A crackpot idea?

    In a culture based upon Christianity {Make no mistake about this - our laws and nations are Manifest Lies not Destiny.} the denial of Jesus' existence may appear at first glance absurd or even stupid. After all, goes the argument, "mainstream scholarship" accepts that there was a historical Jesus, even if there is no agreement as to actually who he was, precisely when he was, what he did or what he said.

    Fact and Fancy

    Today, New Testament scholars steer a course between two worlds, one in which a theological Jesus ("divine son of God") holds centre stage – but this Jesus, of course, is acknowledged to be a matter of faith; and the other, "the world of a historical Jesus".

    Detailed, often meticulous, investigation of the history, culture and politics of Palestine in the second temple period creates a historically authoritative background. Against this background, a wafer thin construct of "Jesus" makes his spectral appearance.

    But it is the historical context itself which allows this phantom saviour to "live", "die" and "resurrect" and thereby cast its false shadow back upon history.

    "We're certain that Jerusalem existed, Herod, Pharisees and Romans, why not a Jesus?" Cue the Discovery Channel documentary:

    "These are the type of sandals Jesus would have worn.This is the type of tree he would have rested under."

    Inertia of the Soft Option

    Professional historians are not necessarily engaged by any particular interest in the issue of Jesus – and are all too aware of its controversial nature. A scholar who announces that he thinks there was no historical Jesus is likely to face scorn, even ridicule, and will gain little for his candour.

    Thus most scholars, raised and educated in a Christian culture are content either to assume Jesus lived (and defer to the opinions of biblical specialists who are often men of faith) or, given the paucity of evidence for a great many historical personages, preface their uncertainty with a "probably". It is much safer for them to aver the "probability of a man behind the legend" even while arguing that layers of encrusted myth obscure knowing anything about him.

    This "safe" and gutless option maintains simultaneously the "obscurity" of a carpenter in an ancient provincial backwater ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") and an academic detachment from "faith issues" which raised that supposed obscure guru to an iconic status.

    A Flawed Scenario

    Yet would, could a world-faith have arisen from a nonentity who failed in his own lifetime to have been noticed by anyone? How creditable is it that a wandering rabbi, who wrote nothing himself, an also-ran in a world full of fakirs, soothsayers and exorcists, could have cast such a spell as to have reverberated through the ages?

    A "minimalist" Jesus is actually less satisfactory than no Jesus at all because it still requires a search elsewhere for the roots of the new religion. And if the roots are to be found elsewhere what need is there for the obscure personage anyway?

    "It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundations of a historic Jesus ... who was little more than a teacher of practical philosophy."

    – J. Macquarrie (An Existential Theology, p23)

    If we agree that a peripatetic, rabbinic radical called Jesus, unnoticed in the historical record, is not implausible then by the same token, nor would several such Jesuses be implausible.

    Which of them would we elect to be the basis for the Christian faith as God's "only begotten son"? If it could have been any of them then it was none of them.

    Either JC was a divinity who chose to dazzle multitudes but leave no trace, who contrived to influence – not the Jewish people – but a mere handful of shadowy devotees whose successors rapidly split into numerous warring factions; or JC is the fabrication of human minds, a construct betrayed at every turn by contradiction and omission."

    - See more at:

    For me I find the investigation of the origins of the philosophy provide much value and historical insight. But I do tire of the myth and dogma which infects the mental state and well-being of so many people. It is especially sad to see so many grifters and con artists like Hubbard, Gnostic Christians, Thelemics and a thousand more every year - The Secret etc., making life a living and enslaved Hell based on stolen and appropriated myths like all the UR stories and archetypes Jung referred to.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-24-2016 at 06:41 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts