Is Jesus the Christ?

[_harmony]

Or is Christianity the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Surely as I am Polygamy THE Porter, YES Harmony, Christianity is a hoax.

"Religion is the opium of the people"

[_Ray A]

Or is Christianity the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind?

There are some interesting debates going on over the web at the moment. In the latest one I read I think David Lewis has pretty much put the nail in the coffin of the historical Jesus: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517078.htm

Albert Schweitzer concluded the same in the 19th century, but he continued to be a nominal Christian, even going on a mission to African. John Dominic Crossan's books also give a good overview of this subject. Crossan was a monk who left the priesthood to pursue independent studies of the historical Jesus, and is considered to be the foremost authority in Jesus studies. I've read several of his books, the last one being The Birth of Christianity. Looking at what evidence there is, I think Jesus may have been based on a real person, but very mortal, not the sort of person who walks on water, and I hate to say this, but I think it's something like the real St. Nicholas, and the Santa Claus myth we have today.

[_richardMdBorn]

Or is Christianity the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind?

John Dominic Crossan's books also give a good overview of this subject. Crossan was a monk who left the priesthood to pursue independent studies of the historical Jesus, and is considered to be the foremost authority in Jesus studies. I've read several of his books, the last one being The Birth of Christianity. Looking at what evidence there is, I think Jesus may have been based on a real person, but very mortal, not the sort of person who walks on water, and I hate to say this, but I think it's something like the real St. Nicholas, and the Santa Claus myth we have today.

Crossan is the foremost authority in Jesus studies? I don't think so. I asked Bruce Metzger five years ago about Crossan, and Metzger responded that Crossan was on the outer edge of skepticism. William Lane Craig drubbed him in a 1995 Chicago debate, though Crossan emoted rather than debating. You can order the audio or video of these debates from

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... isting.htm

[_Ray A]

Crossan is the foremost authority in Jesus studies? I don't think so. I asked Bruce Metzger five years ago about Crossan, and Metzger responded that Crossan was on the outer edge of skepticism. William Lane Craig drubbed him in a 1995 Chicago debate, though Crossan emoted rather than debating. You can order the audio or video of these debates from

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... isting.htm

I guess that's a matter of opinion. Evangelicals usually don't like scholars like Crossan, nor fancy the Jesus Seminar.

[_richardMdBorn]

Crossan is the foremost authority in Jesus studies? I don't think so. I asked Bruce Metzger five years ago about Crossan, and Metzger responded that Crossan was on the outer edge of skepticism. William Lane Craig drubbed him in a 1995 Chicago debate, though Crossan emoted rather than debating. You can order the audio or video of these debates from

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... isting.htm

I guess that's a matter of opinion. Evangelicals usually don't like scholars like Crossan, nor fancy the Jesus Seminar.

Truer words were never written. The interested person should order the tapes.

[_Ray A]

Truer words were never written. The interested person should order the tapes.

My opinion though is that scholars like Crossan make more sense. Craig is more interested in promoting faith. I read Strobel's The Case for Christ years ago and came away convinced there wasn't much of a case. This is not to decry the Jesus of Faith, because there is a difference. I really think Christian apologists are grappling at staws. It's always circumstantial evidences and guesswork in the final analysis. Reminds me so much of the debate on Book of Mormon historicity. Faith conquers all historical barriers. I'm a great fan of the ethical teachings of Jesus, and I think in that regard the gospels have done a marvellous job. The Book of Mormon, in my opinion, does even better.

It's a pity we can't know about the historicity of Jesus like, say, Caesar.

[_harmony]

Truer words were never written. The interested person should order the tapes.

My opinion though is that scholars like Crossan make more sense. Craig is more interested in promoting faith. I read Strobel's The Case for Christ years ago and came away convinced there wasn't much of a case. This is not to decry the Jesus of Faith, because there is a difference. I really think Christian apologists are grappling at staws. It's always circumstantial evidences and guesswork in the final analysis. Reminds me so much of the debate on Book of Mormon historicity. Faith conquers all historical barriers. I'm a great fan of the ethical teachings of Jesus, and I think in that regard the gospels have done a marvellous job. The Book of Mormon, in my opinion, does even better.

It's a pity we can't know about the historicity of Jesus like, say, Caesar.

If Jesus was just a man and not literally God's son, then Joseph Smith lied. Without Jesus, the Son of God, there is no First Vision. No "this is my beloved son, hear him". Nothing, but lies.

[_Ray A]

If Jesus was just a man and not literally God's son, then Joseph Smith lied. Without Jesus, the Son of God, there is no First Vision. No "this is my beloved son, hear him". Nothing, but lies.

I worked out that one, harmony. It's in line with nearly every religious tradition. I think the safest bet is Buddhism if one doesn't want to rely on history. In regard to your comment, I was actually told by an ex-Mormon in 1988 that by trying to find the truth about the Book of Mormon in archaeology or history I was wasting my time. She said you have to get at the root of the tree, which is Christianity. If Christianity had no firm historical basis, then every religion springing from it was false. In the sense of the historical claims.

[_richardMdBorn]

Ray My opinion though is that scholars like Crossan make more sense. Craig is more interested in promoting faith.

Richard Maybe Crossan is interested in promoting agnosticism which he finds congenial. As C.S. Lewis pointed, out psychological arguments work both ways.

Ray I read Strobel's The Case for Christ years ago and came away convinced there wasn't much of a case. This is not to decry the Jesus of Faith, because there is a difference. I really think Christian apologists are grappling at staws. It's always circumstantial evidences and guesswork in the final analysis.

Richard I disagree (big surprise). If anyone's interested in more "circumstantial evidences and guesswork", here's a link:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm