Feb 13, 2012 -- 9:11AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Who was the Jesus of history and how does he differ from the Christ of faith? Can we get to him with historical analysis. Does the Historical Jesus matter? Was there an Historical Jesus? Was he purely a literary figure? A pure mythological figure? A revolutionary general? An Essene? A Pharisee? A Cynic? A long haired hippy freak? Pure spirit only appearing to be material? Who was this guy around which Christianity spins like vortex?

Here:

www.beliefcorner.com/showthread.php/3154...

We really don't know much, he was killed because some people thought he might be the messiah. What did he teach, I've gleened from the Gospels, he taught be compassionate,  purify your thinking, love each other, do no evil, do good, follow his example, find divinity within and without.

I am no historian, but I'd like to offer an answer to one of these questions: Does it matter who the historical Jesus was?

No. Christianity has a 2000-year history centered around a certain set of teachings about Jesus, and it is probably fortunate that there is no way to know who and what the historical figure may have been.

But let's suppose that there was compelling evidence that Jesus really was the divine savior, versus evidence that he was not divine (maybe he was just a rabbi who was executed as were uncounted others, or maybe he is a cobbled-together fictional character based on various archetypes of that setting and era)? How would Christians react and how would non-Christians react to each of these possibilities?

For Christians, evidence that Jesus was the divine savior would change nothing, because they already believe that. Evidence that he was not divine might be dismissed or it might be suppressed--the theme of the long parable called "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor," which appears in the novel The Brothers Karamazov, describing the sudden reappearance of Jesus at the height of the Inquisition, and how he is immediately arrested by the Grand Inquisitor and accused of trying to upset the entire edifice of ecclesiastical power.

For non-Christians, evidence that Jesus was divine might just be dismissed. Evidence that he was not divine would change nothing, because they already believe that.

In short, the factual truth of who Jesus was would probably not change anything today, because so many people believe any damned thing they want to believe and disbelieve any damned thing they don't want to believe.

There probably was a historical Jesus. And I say that not to avoid annoying Christians (I worship the devil, annoying Christians is rather unavoidable) but because we know a few things about how mythologies are born and survive. Jesus's lifespan can't be properly dated but he died in, let's say, 30ce. Within around fifty years, multiple groups of followers had sprung up who, even if they differed on details of Jesus's life, mostly agreed on the gist of his teachings. That points to there having been a real historical person at the base of them because if there wasn't, we'd probably be looking at a much slower, much longer growth period.

Now, everything about that historical Jesus (or, more accurately, Yeshua) is pretty much up for grabs but I think there are a few things which can be said to be likely. Firstly, it's likely that he was executed. The Romans were extremely pro-active about threats to their control and would have thought nothing of executing a rabble-rousing preacher (especially since rabble-rousing preachers were a growth industry in that area at the time). It's likely that he and his followers practiced religious communism, as many such groups did and still do. It's fairly likely that he preached peace and love because he was living in an occupied nation under military rule and if he'd been preaching rebellion, he wouldn't have even gotten three years. He probably looked fairly ordinary but was a compelling speaker and his profession would mean he was physically fit and strong, a long way from the meek and mild image that's often seen.

Personally, I think Jesus was a good man with a good message of peace and love who was executed for that message, as humanity is regrettably prone to doing. If that makes him a hippy, so be it. What's wrong with peace and love anyway? I don't think he was divine and I think a lot of what is now preached in his name would have been shocking to him (the Phelps clan alone would have given him fits). I also think his teachings of peace and love are much more important than the historical personage. The dream always matters more than the dreamer.

Feb 13, 2012 -- 3:30PM, bigbear6161 wrote:

Literature produced by the communities of faith become our only access point to the Jesus figure so the many gospels, letters, liturgical dramas, etc. paint pictures of Jesus. We in turn have the intervening 2000 years of interpretation plus our own spiritual and personal subjective filter at play.  My Jesus is the outcome of the effects of this literature, these texts, working on me. Same true for your Jesus. So given this process, does recovering an historical Jesus matter?  Sometimes I think Mark was writing fiction, but glorious fiction. Does the historical quality of a work make it anymore powerful than well crafted fiction? Is history the only way to interpret value?

Beautifully stated. The question of establishing historical accuracy (even if such a thing were possible) would be relevant IF the question were: Should Christianity close up shop and go out of business? But that is not the question. It doesn't matter to me whether Jesus was the son of God, the son of man, or a made-up character, because I cannot know the answer with certainty, and I would not lead my life differently if I could know the answer with certainty. Certain details of the story as I read the New Testament ring spiritually true for me, and they are therefore relevant and important to me, regardless of historical accuracy.