Some scholars doubt the existance of an historical Christ. If this is the case why was this myth started?

Question

Who were the models?

Re: Wolfie
This is one of the few intelligent answers to this question.

Answer 1

This has been the source of debate since the crucifixion itself.

Many people have died over this one and whole populations groups have been massacred for their beliefs (or lack of them in someone else's eyes).

The fact is there was a movement in the Palestine by many Jews to attempt to throw off the yoke of Roman oppression. That movement went by many names and a great many people tried unsuccessfully to succeed.

One of the translations of the Apostle Judas Iscariot's name is as follows "Judas of the Dagger" indicating he was a 'freedom fighter' (terrorist in the eyes of Rome). Rome burned Jerusalem to the ground in 70 A.D. and removed the Jews from Palestine forever.

The ancient Jews foretold of the coming of 'Messiahs' (not one but many, and from certain genealogical lines) the first of which was King David himself. Each Messiah would come to lead the Jewish people out of bad times or to lead the Jews into the heights of their successes.

Jesus was of the lineage of King David (although there is some difficulty considering his mother Mary did not have the child because she slept with Joseph who was actually of that line).


One BIG problem is that "Jesus Christ" ('Jesus, the christened one' in the original Greek) was a very common name. So we might as well be looking for "John Smith" now.....

My guess is that he was real.... but that his story became larger than life the way most martyrs lives always become afterwards.

Answer 2

I am going to take this one "out of the box".

Bill Moyers did an interview with Joseph Campbell on the Masks of God, and they got into this discussion.

Campbell suggested that there is as much more physical evidence to support the existence of Alexander the Great than there is for Jesus. Campbell explained that we have statues of Alexander, but most were made after his death, as well as coinage with his image, but that image is based on Alexander constantly comparing himself to Herakles, so even that is not really accurate. The images of Christ we have also post dates Christ, and most are images that are interpreted by other men.

We do have writings, but most of those writings are also after both of these people, in some cases written many centuries after their death.

However, belief in both is strong. And the question is... why?

The answer Campbell gave is very interesting. He said - because of the impact their words and lives had on the people of the time, and how actions and words have lived on far longer than any graven images or physical proofs. And one is an historical figure while the other is a spiritual figure.

We can not deny the existence of an historical Christ. The impact he made on his contemporaries has stood up for centuries. He was a great teacher, if nothing else, and his words have touched many.

Give that some thought. The DVD is available from most libraries, and Campbell is a wonderful teacher. Worth getting hold of and watching.

Answer 3

There are some historians and scholars who are now doubting the historical existence of the Holocaust. Perhaps one day students will be asking how that "myth" started and what were the models.

Point is, no matter what your agenda, there will be historians and scholars somewhere with the same.

Answer 4

what's the damage of human beings doubting he existed if there is lack of knowledge. many non secular characters from many religions are basically fantasy. And basically listening to that packing bins were stumbled on would not coach it to human beings outdoors the shape any more beneficial than telling creationists that the large bang replaced into stumbled on. even although, might want to such continues to be extremely be got here across, then i wager which could be a risky discovery to beliefs that he got here decrease back to existence and took is body with him. in my opinion i do not care if he existed or not. If he did, nicely good for him, besides the indisputable fact that it would not have any influence on as we talk IMO. even although rofl @ the superb line.

Answer 5

I think it should be noted that several scholars acknowledge the historic Jesus. Everyting that we learn about Jesus of Nazerath comes from testimony passed down to us. The same can be said of Julius Ceaser, Alexander the Great, Plato, and many others. The most common source for learning of Jesus is the record of the gospels. One might say that these are biased, but these people wrote what they had seen , heard and known. Two of the writers, Matthew and John, were disciples. Mark and Luke were close associates of the apostles. Luke wrote- "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Lk.1:1-4). John writes-"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 Jn.1:1). The records were written in the first century and could have been disputed, but noone during that time even hinted that Jesus had never existed.
There are many records outside the Bible which are given. Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, mentions him, as well as John the Baptist, and James the brother of Jesus. This record is often disputed, but there are many who attest to the fact that Josephus did indeed write these things. Tacitus, a Roman historian, also metions Jesus, as does Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, and others.
I urge you to read 'Evidence That Demands a Verdict' by Josh McDowell. He brings numorus facts concerning the Bible as well as the historical Jesus.

Answer 6

"ok i do believe that Jesus existed however ... i feel that much of what we are told about Jesus was built around the life of Mithra a Roman God
there are just too many similarities".

Yes, this is true.
The records on Jesus where not written to 30plus years after his death..
His word where changed, bits taken off, bits put on. That is if he was real...
As it is well say, his words where written by men. Jesus never kept no records himself, we are told.

Belief in proof, not what you are told to be right..
Because we don't know

Answer 7

It not a myth. Jesus was documented by Roman historians. Read Josephes for instance.

Answer 8

ok i do believe that Jesus existed however ... i feel that much of what we are told about Jesus was built around the life of Mithra a Roman God
there are just too many similarities
but there are other non biblical reports of the existence of Jesus
i think perhaps the similarities between Jesus and Mithra caused the initial doubt for some

Answer 9

Antri-christ troll alert.

What a lovely way to spend your Sundays, profaning the diety.

Answer 10

Who says these scholars are right?