The Existence of Jesus Christ

Earl Doherty's web site and book by the same name is a very in depth examination of how Christianity could have begun as a mythical religion that later moved it's God into history. I found Doherty's arguments compelling. I remain uncertain about his interpretation of Paul. Did Paul know of a historical Jesus or not? Several passages in Paul seem to imply references to an actual person and this undermines Doherty's arguments that Paul was referring to a mythical Christ. This leaves open to me the possiblity of a teacher who was deified by his followers.lfen

Although I am not convinced of the mythicist position I do respect it. I think there remains an equally likely possibility that there was a teacher whose life and death form the core of the Jesus myths.Christianity like all religions developed over time with input from many people. You might like to look at the Yahoo Group: JesusMysteries - Was Jesus a Historical Figure?Though I imagine you will prefer to read the apologists for your particular sect so that you will feel your group is right and Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, atheists, whoever else are wrong and need to be persuaded to change their beliefs to yours.lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 05-29-2005 11:30 AM

The mythicist argument is not that Paul never said those things. The argument is about what he was talking about. The resurrection did not take place on earth in recent times in Jerusalem. That is an idea that was developed later, perhaps by the author of the Gospel of Mark.What the early chuch left of early writings is not an acurrate picture of the way people thought in the days of Paul. At this time there is not enough evidence to establish a historical vs. a mythical Jesus, but the mythicist have some strong arguments. Of course if you are a believer in the story Church authorities have been conveying then this argument is one you must resist and attack as an apologist. That is not the same sort of reasoned criticism a scholar would make.Apologists use the emotional rhetoric of persuassion and ridicule. Perhaps this is very effective for the average church goer but I find it boring, empty and meaningless. Earl Doherty's study of the NT is in depth and he has some interesting perceptions. I don't think he has proved his case but given the evidence, propaganda and wishful thinking aside, not enough is known to establish the historicity of Jesus.And yes, Christians, and believers in other mythical Truths have died for these truths. It's something some humans do.lfen

But Paul's "direct personal experience" was not with a flesh and blood fellow human being. It was a mystical encounter with the Christ. That Christ had been killed by powerful spirits who were the rulers of the age and that death and rebirth had taken place not in Jerusalem on this planet but in the realm of Spirits. It was supposed to result in the triumph over death, resurrection, etc, but it was a spiritual story not a history of actual events here on earth.So yes, just like the flying saucer people they were willing to die for their mystical visions. That is what the early Christians were dying for, their mystical experiences which are very powerful. Only later was this mystical Christ given earthly details such as the name of the mother and father, town of birth, place of execution etc. This is the scenario and it fits Paul better than the later story the church came up with.It's not a perfect fit but the orthodox story is full of holes which have kept apologists busy patching up ever since though it still leaks badly.lfen

And the evidence for this is?We all know the story the church put together and it's a story many have found compelling, but then many finds Star Wars compelling also.You know where these affidavits signed in blood are? Any chance you posting reproductions of them here?lfen

Well, of course. That is what Paul and the early Christians were excited about. God had sacrificed his Son to triumph over death and they experienced this Christ. They were talking about a spiritual being who had undergone experiences in a spiritual realm that supports life on earth. The powers of that realm rule this earth and had sacrificed Jesus but he triumphed over them and believers could receive him in visions. It was all visionary.It wasn't about a flesh and blood human being developed in the uterus of an earthly woman. That part is added later. Later the risen Christ came to mean a flesh and blood human being whose physical body disappeared from a tomb on earth in the environs of Jerusalem, but that is not what Paul is talking about.lfen

This is the first that I've heard the claim that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of the Buddha. My understanding has always been that he is the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.An interesting viewpoint to your point though is something I just read in the book:Re-enchantment : Tibetan Buddhism comes to the West
Author: Paine, Jeffery, 1944-
Publisher, Date: New York : W.W. Norton, c2004.
ISBN: 0393019683 (hardcover) - Description: 278 p. ; 25 cm.On pg. 6 is Paine talks about Thomas Merton meeting the Lama Chatral Rinpoche in Nepal."'Is it true,' Chatral asked Merton, 'that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?' In Tibet when a dead man pulled that stunt, a lama was called in to pray and get the dead man to lay down again. "Has Christianity erected an entire religion around a ghoul?'"The Tibetans had no problem believing Jesus rose from the dead, they just didn't understand why this was regarded as a good thing!lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 06-12-2005 11:48 AM

Title: God against the gods : the history of the war between monotheism and polytheism / Jonathan Kirsch. BookAuthor: Kirsch, Jonathan, 1949-
Publisher, Date: New York : Viking Compass, 2004.
ISBN: 0670032867 (alk. paper) - Description: xii, 336 p. : map ; 24 cm.But there is a lot of material on this. The argument you make is great for revival tents for people who know nothing about the history of the times. The reason that Judaism and by extentsion the Christian cult of Judaism were offensive to the pagans was because they like many modern fundamentalist were intolerant of other people's religions.The pagans were tolerant and the Romans had even made exceptions for the Jews but the Jews and Christians wouldn't make any compromises and so were offensive on purpose cause just like you they had the truth and anyone who disagreed was to be looked down on as Godless. This evil of rigorism is alive to this day in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic fundamentalism. I grew up in a small town rife with Christian rigorism. Its stupid, narrow minded, and evil. I dispise it.Also your argument that people only will martry if they believe Jesus arose from the dead doesn't explain why the Jews martyred themselves at say Masada. But because some clever snake oil salesman of an apologist found he could close conversions of the ignorant by this false claim it gets repeated here ad nausem. Christians martyred each other over doctrinal points such as Arianism, etc. The church used the martyrs and did even more martyring than the Romans and then lied to claim that only ever have Christians been martryed. Not true. And the fact that only ever Christians have been martryed means that all the claims of the Church are true. Not logical. This is bad illogical propaganda and I totally disrespect it and the motives and behaviour of those who advance it. It is tawdry cheap rigorist religion of the worst kind.I feel enraged and sick that this is advanced as a religion deserving respect. It's not. It's stupid, sick, and evil. Grow up. Learn to think. If believing in Christ helps you love and help other people great. But if you are believing in this like some fundies do here in order to feel superior and special because you have the sole truth however nonsensical it is, then realize you are just indulging your self in nasty ego exclusiveness and repeating old stale apologetic nonsense that appeals to you emotionally but that is without evidence or logic.Your arguments only demonstrate to me how desparately irrational Christian fundamentalists are about their self righteous claims to knowing the only truth even though they aren't capable of logical argument but only of illogical emotional appeals and blackmail for uninformed people.lfen

I'm intrigued. What other avenue of experience do you think we have? Are you asserting that consciousness can be independent of the nervous system so that we can or do experience independent of our brains?I'd like to think that is possible actually but it's difficult to make that argument.lfen

We have to keep in mind that the historical Buddha of the Shakya clan, Shakyamuni Buddha is only one of many Buddhas. Buddha means awakened and at least in Mahayana Buddhism all sentient beings have Buddha nature. I think the Bodhisattva of Compassion is a reference to another Buddha that might be thought of an aspect of the awakened mind, namely compassion and that might be Avalokiteshvara which the Tibetans call Chenrezig. I'm not sure of the authoritative answer. I suspect Arach read a claim similiar to the one I've quoted and later misremembered it as a claim that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha.The word Buddha is used in many ways in Buddhism. The story is that Siddharta when asked if he was a human or a god answered by saying he was awake, which is what Buddha means. The awakened mind sees that all things are interdependent, that thus no things exist independently. The word Buddha then is used for the pure or primordial mind unclouded by ignorance. So, yeah, the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of Buddha but it's not claimed, to my knowledge, that he is the reincarnation of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni.I might have misunderstood the point Arach was making also. I had thought he was comparing Shakyamuni Buddha to Jesus Christ and then saying that the Dalai Lama was regarded as Shakyamuni Buddha reborn even though everything I've read claims that Shakyamuni Buddha entered complete perfect nirvana and would never be reborn.lfen

My "odd" concept does not claim the persecutions of Christians as tolerance. Nor do I claim any perfection for polytheism or monotheism, my concept of tolerance is that usually polytheists Roman or otherwise accepted the gods and practises of other believers. I cite Jonathan Kirsch's recent book God Against the Gods. Rome and pagans as polytheists were generally quite tolerant of religion. They expected that there would be other gods. Rome asked as a display of civic virtue and solidarity that incense be offered. Later they allowed the Jews to pray for the emperor in lieu of an offering.I won't at this time go into the arguments in Kirsch's book. He does look at Akhenaton and Josiah's attempt to force monotheism on their subjects but the bulk of the book is focused on Constantine and Rome.I think you have a viable argument that it was the worldly power of Rome that led to the worst abuses. That doesn't mean I think you are right but there is real substance to that argument.A large question exist as to how much the Church exagerated the persecutions. There is no doubt that there were periods where Rome persecuted Christians and some Christians were tortured and killed in the Colliseums. The extent of this persecution is debated. I have no trouble believing that for some people Jesus Christ is real, alive, and present. I believe that for some people Krishna is real, alive, and present, and for other people that prescence is the Buddha, or Avalokiteshvara. What I don't accept is the rigorist notion that only one belief system is true and good and all others are false and evil.lfen

I like that question and one good question deserves another. What does knowing Jesus Christ have to do with knowing your Buddha nature? Or as the Advaitist put it, knowing the Self?lfen

I'm not attempting to answer for Phat but this is such a good question I wanted to add in my opinion as to how Hinduism sees this.There are different types of people so different types of religious practise are better suited to some than to others. The path of devotion, bhakti, often begins with devotion to a Deity or image of the Deity. Hinduism is fine with this. It doesn't hold that the idol whether real or conceptual is the ultimate truth but that it can function to help an individual progress towards realization. When their understanding has matured they will surrender their idols or images and move to a more direct experience.Some individuals will relate better to a feminine deity usually the Divine Mother archetype others may be attracted to Krishna, Vishnu, perhaps the Buddha of Compassion or Jesus.I've little time and I need to be succinct. There are depths to consciousness, to our being. We experience these in various forms. As our experience deepens the forms change. The mystery of being, of AMNESS, or I AM can be related to as Jehovah, or Jesus, or Allah, or Siva, or Krishna but those are all concepts to address this "spirit". Following this "spirit", our beingness and I don't mean ego, to awakening leads beyond theologies, stories, concepts and images of deities to being itself.Most people are sectarian in their religion. Lao Tzu knew that being in itself was nameless and someone in the Old testament may have known that when Yahweh says his name is "I Am That I AM". But most people get hung up on the name and on the external concepts. At least for a time they do.lfen

Good point. If external concepts is all one has I'd say learn to meditate. I think that is one of the main functions of meditation at least in the beginning, that is to move from concepts to actual experience. I'm thinking primarily of vipassana meditation.lfen

Well of course not. How could it? The novel is a comparatively recent literary form.No one is claiming that the authors of the Gospels were writing fiction. Earl Doherty claims Mark was writing a midrash on the old testament to give scriptural authority to Paul's visionary experience of an other worldly Christ. But there are other ways to arrive at Gospels that aren't historically accurate other than claiming they were novels. No one was writing novels in those days, and wouldn't for over a thousand years.lfen