Does it really matter…

[Crow]

...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

[Whitney]

With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

[Guardian85]

The story of Jesus, and his teachings were not new in the first century. The story and teachings are an amalgamation of multiple predating characters and several other similar stories of the time, including Mithra, Horus, Appolonius, Zoroaster, and so on. The ideas existed long before the church codified them.

As for Sun Tzu, Socrates and Siddhartha Gautama, we have multiple accounts of their existences from independent sorces. That is why their existence is concidered history, not mythology.

[Too Few Lions]

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

You have exactly the same view of Jesus and Christianity as me Crow, that it was a result of the Hellenising of Judaism.

As an atheist it makes no difference to me if Jesus existed or not (I don't think he existed, but I'm also sceptical about the historical existence of Socrates, Gautama Buddha and King Arthur). Even if he did exist, he was just a Jewish philosopher who'd read too much Plato, not the son of Yahweh.

You're an atheist too, so Jesus' historicity is no big deal for you either. But I think Jesus' historicity matters massively to a Christian, if Jesus was a wholly mythological figure that destroys their religion and belief in their god. All they're left with is a mythical son of god like Heracles or Perseus and some second-hand philosophy, that's a big step down from 'the Son of God'!

[Gawen]

So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

Because what no good evidence they have is based on a partially hate filled doctrine and one of fear and twisted into a philosophy of love and believed in. The holy book is cherry picked to whatever a member of the death cult's particular world view means...or what they want their world view to mean. And sadly, in this country, that world view gives power in politics - power over the people in even the lowliest positions of the political spectrum.

So why argue? Well, there is the money, notoriety, fame, position...(all the things the make believe Jesus preached against)

Why do we argue against it? To keep planting the seeds of doubt, I would say. To try to get them to examine their own biases and prejudices, to see their cognitive dissonance as defective as we do...but only for a moment...enough to pry away the god goggles because as one is able to read much Christian response here, some of those goggles are veritably welded on.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

Correct. In Christianity, the faith is wholly wrapped up in the person of Jesus, not just his teachings or ideas. It's much more dependent upon what he actually did rather than on what he said.  If his historicity were destroyed, the faith would die on the vine. Nothing else would have that effect, IMHO. 

[En_Route]

With religious ideas it matters if the person who is the focus of religion existed or not.  For philosophical ideas in general it doesn't matter if who we think first came up with the idea was real or not.

Correct. In Christianity, the faith is wholly wrapped up in the person of Jesus, not just his teachings or ideas. It's much more dependent upon what he actually did rather than on what he said.  If his historicity were destroyed, the faith would die on the vine. Nothing else would have that effect, IMHO. 

That is incontrovertibly so.

[Reprobate]

...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

I agree it doesn't matter because it's clear to anyone who cares to do the research that Jesus was not viewed as divine by all christians until a few centuries after his death (Council of Nicaea - 325 CE). That fact alone should carry some weight, yet with believers it doesn't.

[En_Route]

...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

Its very rare you get the argument arising about Sun Tzu, Laozi, Siddhārtha Gautama, Socrates, King Arthur, etc. All of which have had some sort of impact on modern society and many are surrounded in myths and legends as such is the case with Jesus, but does discrediting any of these figures dismiss the ideas put forth under their names, therefore does discrediting the Jesus presented in the bible discredit the ideas representing Christianity. If you want to discredit Marxism you don't discredit Karl Marx but rather the ideas behind his philosophy, only discrediting the person when they are at odds with the teachings. Even though there is ample evidence for the existence of Marx if we pretended there wasn't any evidence those ideas would still stand and doesn't discredit them at all.

In my view the Jesus figure is a literary devise to add spiritual credibility to a Greek philosophy for dummies and adapt the Jewish religion into one that is more inclusive, therefore becoming more acceptable to the masses. If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone. So why argue a point that makes little difference to the philosophy behind Christianity on which its deepest roots lay, especially when there isn't enough evidence to fully support any argument?

What I am really trying to say is that the Jesus figure is the symbol, a name tag, a metaphysical logo. People already know that the words attributed to Jesus have been the works of other men that came decades after the supposed death of Jesus, yet people still believe. Its what Jesus represents that people believe in rather than the actual person, discrediting the man makes no difference to those that do believe because everything else still stands with firm foundations.

I agree it doesn't matter because it's clear to anyone who cares to do the research that Jesus was not viewed as divine by all christians until a few centuries after his death (Council of Nicaea - 325 CE). That fact alone should carry some weight, yet with believers it doesn't.

I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

[Crow]

I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

[Sandra Craft]

...if Jesus (the biblical one) existed?

Occasionally the argument arises that the mythological Jesus never existed, some saying that there was possibly a historical Jesus and others saying that there was possibly no such man at all (as well as a few other arguments). But does it even really matter.

I don't think so, but Xtians sure seem to.  Maybe that's another point of disconnection between religious and non-religious.

[Reprobate]

I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

I don't remember the names of the various sects off of the top of my head. I just think that it's pretty obvious that the council was determined to consolidate power and unify the church not to establish any factual basis for a religion. What they accomplished was forming a powerful political entity.

[En_Route]

I thought that the Arians who were outvoted at Nicaea regarded Jesus as divine but as a lesser entity than God.

I think Reprobate was referring to the Ebionites, which are a 1st century Jewish Christian sect which believed Jesus was similar to Moses; a prophet appointed by god.

However what you said is true but they still didn't consider him to be one with god as the trinity implies it was more of the Greek demi god kind.

There is lots of debate in the area about early Christianity and what forms it actually took, the view points that don't conform to the Christian view of the trinity surprisingly enough are lumped together into a category called "nontrinitarianism", the Arian and Ebionite view are two of these with many other forms of nontrinitarianism found in early, medievel and modern Christianity which range from like Adam to the preacher man concepts of Jesus. The Jesus seminar which again is also lumped into the nontrinitarianism category is a modern christian organization that actively look at historical documents to find out who the real Jesus was, they fall on the side that he never preached he was a god as well as many many more assertions and make an interesting read.

I don't remember the names of the various sects off of the top of my head. I just think that it's pretty obvious that the council was determined to consolidate power and unify the church not to establish any factual basis for a religion. What they accomplished was forming a powerful political entity.

Nicea did not in fact resolve the controversy. The key issue is that Christians have always believed that what Jesus said represented the word of God (whether or not he  himself was God or an emanation thereof) and if you remove that foundation the entire edifice of their faith collapses.

[Stevil]

If you remove the mythical Jesus from the bible the teachings still stand but without the authoritarian tone.

But the bible itself is authoritarian.
Christian morality is authoritarian, driven via coercement from a (belief of an) all powerful, all knowing dictator.
There is no justification behind Christian morality, only that certain things are good because God says so and that certain things are bad because God said so, and of course God is perfect thus what he says must also be perfect and disobedience must be flawed and worthy of just punishment. This is more of a law than a morality. Christians amorally and selfishly obey this law. But that is not what gets them to heaven.

The funny thing about Christianity is that it is all about Jesus. Well, the name "Jesus" anyway and a belief that if you accept his death as payment for your sins then you get to go to heaven for eternal happiness.
If you used the name "Horus" instead, and accepted that Horus died for you and you then mentally accept Horus' sacrifice as payment of your sins, then presumably Christians would think that you are worshiping a false god and hence you will perish in hell.

Shakespeare wrote "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...", but Christianity does not accept this philosophy, for Christians the name "Jesus" is more important than the man. You must believe in the name, you must believe that this name represents your path from sin, your path to heaven.
It's exclusive nature is a driving force behind the growth of Christianity. No different to a brand name of a sporting franchise.

[Gawen]

A most excellent post Stevil.