1. Comment #101954 by jimbob on December 21, 2007 at 9:03 am

The gospels are "faith documents!"

No kidding!

Happy Solstice to all readers!

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #101956 by USA_Limey on December 21, 2007 at 9:07 am

Can't wait to get home I think I am going to like this...

Christianity has always been a house of cards on a terrible foundation. This is my favourite approach to tackling the religious.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

3. Comment #101957 by BNCbright on December 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

Tom Harper might be my favourtie ever priest!

Other Comments by BNCbright

4. Comment #101961 by Bonzai on December 21, 2007 at 9:25 am

Watched the doc when it was aired on the CBC. It is not very good in my opinion.

It doesn't really explore any issue in depth. Basically it gives a run down of Harpur's view (with his own voice over), interviews four guys, two for two opposed. The two guys who are for Harpur are actually his source and apparently most important source if not the only source(though that is not mentioned in the documentary). The documentary doesn't mention that these guys are pop religious writers with dubious scholarly credentials. The two guys who are against are theologians. There is no debate, no back and forth, no point by point rebuttal from each side. Each side makes a few assertions on separate interviews and that is that.

It would be a lot more interesting if they have a panel discussion where people with different view points can actually engage each other in debate. Also, ostensibly absence are the voices of solid secular religious scholars who can evaluate Harpur's claims with knowledge and impartiality.

I should note that Harpur's thesis that Jesus didn't exist even as a man is a very fringe opinion among scholars. Even secular scholars such as Bart Ehrman find it unsupported by scholarship.


Other Comments by Bonzai

5. Comment #101968 by robaylesbury on December 21, 2007 at 9:53 am

I haven't watched this yet, but even as a weak Atheist I'd have to say that the available evidence appears to suggest that there was a historical figure called Jesus. I think there's about 18 non biblical references to his life, although a number of these are vague, whilst parts of the famous Josephus passage were probably also an interpolation.
I'm open to being corrected on this of course, and would welcome comments.

Other Comments by robaylesbury

6. Comment #101972 by zendal_darkman on December 21, 2007 at 10:21 am

Its more like three or four references, but excluding Josephus, they are simply statements of "what Christians believe". The Josephus "evidence" on the other hand is suspicious because until the 4th century Christian writers never mentioned it despite hundreds of documents where they DID quote him.

No reference is found in the dead sea scrolls despite them falling slap bang in the middle of his ministry.

If an important teacher did exist at the time we would expect to find lots of evidence, in fact we would be swamped by it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but on the balance of probabilities, I doubt if a historical Jesus existed, and even if he did, I don't think there would be a single link between him and the Jesus we know through the bible.

Other Comments by zendal_darkman

7. Comment #101979 by DavidJGrossman on December 21, 2007 at 10:38 am

Pffft. This doesn't mean anything. The Egyptians simply copied Christianity. Christianity predates everything. Just ask Sherri Shepherd!

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

8. Comment #101998 by Roy_H on December 21, 2007 at 11:16 am

I am a bit baffled about all this to say the least. Tom Harpur has blown Christianity out of the water, but he is still practicing as an Anglican Priest?
P.S. I want that book!

Other Comments by Roy_H

9. Comment #101999 by elise97 on December 21, 2007 at 11:16 am

there doesnt appear to be any evidence for jesus when you look into it. i cant understand why the general concensus of historians seems to side with there being an historical figure that christianity formed around. beats me *shrugs*. looks like the most plausable explanation is that it is simply the evolution of a jewish version of gnosticism.

ive noticed even keen atheists extremely reluctant to accept the probable non histority of this guy, even richard dawkins goes along with it, which seems odd as its central to the belief system for most christians

Other Comments by elise97

10. Comment #102008 by Vinelectric on December 21, 2007 at 11:37 am

Harpur claims 180 similarities between the stories of the Egyptian Horus and Jesus of Nazareth.

If that were true then further discussion about the historicity of the Christ would be entirely inappropriate !!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

11. Comment #102009 by junklight on December 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

robaylesbury - am intrigued by the concept of a 'weak' atheist - you believe sometimes? or one or two Gods seem possible to you? or are you just not very strong...

Surely the best evidence for Jesus is the bible - after all it is a bunch of texts written by disparate people over a fairly large period all refering to this guy. The non-canonical texts all mention him as well.

Mind you if you read lots of Harry Potter Fan Fiction you could come to the same conclusion about Harry Potter....

Other Comments by junklight

12. Comment #102010 by nogodsever on December 21, 2007 at 11:40 am

I'm willing to be persuaded either way. My own opinion is that there was probably some dude named Jesus around which the cult started, and the biographical details were filled in later using stuff from mystery religion, as well as things to 'fulfill' OT prophecies. Of course, whoever he was, if he did exist, he didn't do no miracles, etc.

Other Comments by nogodsever

13. Comment #102014 by nogodsever on December 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

'Weak atheist' refers to someone has has no belief in gods. 'Strong atheist' refers to someone who asserts that no gods exist.

Other Comments by nogodsever

14. Comment #102016 by annabanana on December 21, 2007 at 11:55 am

junklight,

That isn't a very good refutation...there were a good many stories written about King Arthur, but evidence indicates that even if the stories were based on an actual person, the guy definitely got romanticized. Couldn't this be the case with Jesus?

Also, has anyone ever read the Russian Lit. book, The Master and Margarita, where the devil tells the "true" story of Jesus being followed around by an idiot scribe who kept misquoting him despite Jesus' protesting? Anyway, it's hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_master_and_margarita

Other Comments by annabanana

15. Comment #102020 by Jenin on December 21, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I love how the Christian critics of Harpur claim that he is not looking at the "evidence" and he is "buying into a view" that no historians believe is credible.

Robaylesbury--there are only two independent references to Jesus from the time, one by Tacitus and one from Josephus, I believe. Both are, as you mentioned, very vague and neither source claims to have actually seen Jesus or even heard about him from a firsthand witness.

Other Comments by Jenin

16. Comment #102022 by Jenin on December 21, 2007 at 12:07 pm

According to Harpur's critic, "the evidence is incontrovertible" that Jesus existed and was crucified. He also claims the evidence shows that he was resurrected. He also claims that the four gospels are independently written. Not so--everyone knows the Synoptic gospels (matthew, mark and luke) were borrowed from each other.

What an idiot.

Other Comments by Jenin

17. Comment #102025 by junklight on December 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"the guy definitely got romanticized. Couldn't this be the case with Jesus"

Oh absolutely - if you look at message boards and forums you can see that people don't even agree about events they all witnessed earlier - see sport and reality TV etc.

All I would take it as evidence for is that someone called Jesus was either a strong enough mythical figure to be written about as though he was real - or a real person called Jesus was wandering around and had enough charisma to be well known.

I would tend to think that there was some historical basis in both Arthur and Jesus even if it was just to provide the name - however would the tales of either figure tell us *anything* else about them? - nope. Not a thing.

Other Comments by junklight

18. Comment #102031 by smithyboy on December 21, 2007 at 12:40 pm

ive noticed even keen atheists extremely reluctant to accept the probable non histority of this guy, even richard dawkins goes along with it, which seems odd as its central to the belief system for most Christians

I don't think somebody should be taking a position simply because it is the most convenient for their cause. I would hope that RD and others conclude that Jesus was probably historical (though then 'romanticised' etc) because they think, as I do, that this is where the evidence points.

Other Comments by smithyboy

19. Comment #102032 by Arcturus on December 21, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Joyful season, isn't it?

I'm starting to like Anglican priests. Rational thinking can get you far. If all religious people were like Harpur, I might like them.

Other Comments by Arcturus

20. Comment #102043 by _J_ on December 21, 2007 at 1:07 pm

annabanana

[...]has anyone ever read the Russian Lit. book, The Master and Margarita[...]

Oooh, thanks for reminding me! I've been meaning to read that since seeing a play about Bulgakov years ago. I wonder if it's too late to write a Christmas list?

Other Comments by _J_

21. Comment #102063 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 1:52 pm

It is highly likely that Jesus existed - it's just that he wasn't very important in his lifetime. There were messiahs popping up all over the gaffe back then; some got crucified, some escaped. It was same old same old for Pilate and the boys.

The gospels do have some very good historical evidence in them for a real Jesus, but unfortunately for Christians it portrays a very credible yet bog standard Galilean Hasid. The resurrection is the key issue, and the evidence of the gospels again points pretty conclusively (in my view) to members of Jesus's family taking his body back to Galilee for burial early on Sunday morning, in order to avoid those disciple assholes, with whom the family had fallen out.

*Christianity* as we know it crystallised around that disaffected and confused Hellenised Jewish bigot, Saul of Tarsus and his clique, some decades later. The individual gospels were not just isolated tracts, but the principal documents of various divergent Jewish Christian sects that later came together, and absorbed lots of Egyptian and Hellenistic elements. These 4 gospels got included at the Council of Nicea only because each of these 4 groups had a strong lobby, and insisted that *their* version must go in the definitive "Bible" - including all 4 was the compromise that was worked out. Smaller groups had their own gospels too, but they were ditched simply because they were small.

So, bottom line, I feel is that there almost certainly was a Jesus of Nazareth, and he almost certainly made no big splash during his lifetime. But since that's more or less as far as we can take it, what's to argue about?

A historical Jesus is not a threat to atheism - quite the reverse - he is a threat to Christianity.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

22. Comment #102072 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Are you saying that despite the fact there was an historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible is fictional?

Other Comments by Radesq

23. Comment #102073 by smithyboy on December 21, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Shane McKee
Excellent summary. (Except not so sure there is enough evidence to be conclusive about the family-taking-the-body bit.) And I agree absolutely that the historical Jesus is a major threat to Christianity.

Other Comments by smithyboy

24. Comment #102075 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Because if you are Shane then I would have to agree with you.

Other Comments by Radesq

25. Comment #102078 by Elcristoph on December 21, 2007 at 2:18 pm

YES THANK YOU....SOMEONE FINALY LOOKS AT THE FACTS

Other Comments by Elcristoph

26. Comment #102081 by nogodsever on December 21, 2007 at 2:24 pm

The New Testament wasn't 'canonized' at the Council of Nicea.

Other Comments by nogodsever

27. Comment #102084 by stevecaldwell on December 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm

On 21 December 2007, Radesq wrote:
-snip-
"Are you saying that despite the fact there was an historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible is fictional?"

It's entirely possible that the "real" Jesus of history and the "fictional" Christ of faith are not the same person.

The Jesus Seminar is a good source for exploring this -- they use multi-disciplinary methods (textual analysis, anthropology, history, etc) to scrub away the trappings of faith so one can see what remains.

To borrow a secular example, the George Washington of history isn't same person as the George Washington of legends (e.g. the Washington who didn't lie about cutting down the cherry tree, who piously prayed to God during the harsh winter at Valley Forge).

Just because fictional legends are associated with a historical person doesn't mean that the historical person didn't exist.

Other Comments by stevecaldwell

28. Comment #102089 by walk on December 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Can't wait to see the findings of the "Jesus Project", which will differ from the "Jesus Seminar". As I understand it the Seminar started with the assumption that Jesus was real, whereas aim of the Project is to discover if he was.

Other Comments by walk

29. Comment #102100 by quill on December 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Did anyone else laugh when Jesus slipped and fell?

Other Comments by quill

30. Comment #102102 by elise97 on December 21, 2007 at 3:03 pm

"I don't think somebody should be taking a position simply because it is the most convenient for their cause. I would hope that RD and others conclude that Jesus was probably historical (though then 'romanticised' etc) because they think, as I do, that this is where the evidence points. "

but the evidence simply doesnt add up to anything.

all there is just vague mentions of some 'christ', a proven forgery, spiritual dreams of this person by some magic mushroom eating space head, and tales of a life by competing vested interests years after his supposed 'death' using only the above and some pretty vivid imagination as evidence.

sorry but thats not really the type of evidence required for a person of this historical importance. we need alot more considering we also know for a fact the original christians did not believe in him either, a fact hushed up by the later type of christian we still have today, and probably the most important point of all.

however in a way it is probably irrelevant to the arguments of RD, as the existence or not of a particular man in history doesnt exactly prove any supernatural claim associated with him. so no big deal to RD. but in a way it does really matter, because its a probable lie that most people have been forced through history to believe and continue to be misinformed about, and a major reason why christianity continues churning out the faithers.

Other Comments by elise97

31. Comment #102104 by agg on December 21, 2007 at 3:05 pm

On the historical accuracy of the bible:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/10735/Penn_Teller_s_Bullshit_The_Bible.html

P.S. Elvis never did no drugs!

Other Comments by agg

32. Comment #102109 by walk on December 21, 2007 at 3:13 pm

elise97,

I've never heard the claim that the original Christians didn't believe in the existence of Jesus. (Fantastic!). If possible could you direct me to some more info on this? Thanks.

Other Comments by walk

33. Comment #102114 by FightingFalcon on December 21, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I'm halfway through and I have to say that I'm thoroughly enjoying this. I'm currently working on my MA in the Classics by examining Mithraism in the Roman Empire and I'm hoping to get my PhD in the connection between sun-religions and Christianity, so this is right up my alley.

Still, the connections between Jesus and Horus, Isis, Mithras, etc. do not prove his non-existence. What it does prove is that, although Jesus may or may not have existed, clearly many of the stories about him were "borrowed" from pagan faiths.

Jesus' existence or non-existence is rather inconsequential, IMHO. It's inconsequential because the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity is simply the amalgamation of numerous pagan faiths. While we can't be certain over whether Jesus existed or not, we can be fairly certain that very few (if any) of the stories of the Bible are original and unique to him.

Just my two cents.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

34. Comment #102119 by Arcturus on December 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm

It doesn't really matter if someone named Jesus roamed the Earth 2 millenia ago. It is more important to debunk the myths surrounding him. And this seems to be easier to do.

I'm really amused by the Christian response to the Horus similarity. They say that they aren't EXACTLY the same, so the comparison is wrong. It seems to me more that Christianity has plagiarized the Horus myth and not taken it entirely.

The interesting question is not whether they are exactly the same, but why they are so similar.

Other Comments by Arcturus

35. Comment #102123 by black wolf on December 21, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Let 'em have "new spiritual" approaches anyway they want. No more SonOfGod and going to hell scaretactic BS, along with no need for subsidies, church taxes or buildings to gather in. Because we know they're unable to sort it out and agree on Teh Truth, they've gotta live with the problems they created. Do they have a 'Death By Mindf*ck' category at the Darwin Awards?

Other Comments by black wolf

36. Comment #102127 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 4:02 pm

nogodsever, fair point re the "canonisation" of the 4 main gospels. I was premature to bring Nicea into this, nevertheless, the point remains that these gospels were each the core "gospel" document of a particular strand of Christianity that ended up being unified centuries after Jesus was dead.

Radesq:

Are you saying that despite the fact there was an historical Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible is fictional?

Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Except that I don't think we need to dig as far as has been suggested, in order to uncover the "most likely" (as opposed to "real") Jesus. The gospel of Matthew is my favourite, and although the guy was clearly unhinged, I kinda like him, and as RD has said before, if he were alive today, he'd probably be an atheist himself.

The parable of "The Good Samaritan", for instance, is a classic depiction of how religion actually doesn't matter. The Priest and the Levite who passed the injured man by were in fact obeying god's law (as they saw it - the same law that Jesus had said not one jot nor tittle would pass away), yet it was the "infidel" who did the right thing. Obeying god was therefore *wrong*. Human law should trump divine law. Religion is not a basis for moral behaviour. This is often lost on Christians; they would do well to re-visit it.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

37. Comment #102129 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Shane it almost sounds as if some parts of the Bible actually contradict other parts. How can that be the case if the Bible is the inspired word of God? Are you merely describing transcription errors?

Other Comments by Radesq

38. Comment #102130 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm

OK I'm being silly I know -- but I like to hear people who know more about the Bible and Church history give me details -- even if it is only confirming what I already think. Don't let me waste your time though if you don't want to respond.

Other Comments by Radesq

39. Comment #102131 by walk on December 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm

You know, I actually wouldn't mind being a Rational Christian (RC) if it entailed the following:

1. Jesus was a cool, hippie looking, philosopher/teacher, who roamed around Galilee with a bunch of folks trying to figure out how to live a good, moral life and have a successful society.

2. He was the natch'll born chile' o' Mary and Joseph.

3. He never did any miracles, other than inspiring people with a sense of purpose, and an appreciation for the beauty and complexity of the natural world.

4. He taught some fairly profound things that might be useful to employ in daily life. Some of the best were "Be skeptical of authority, think for yourself, and question everything." Oh yes, and, "Love your neighbor, if at all possible."

5. He wasn't divine. He didn't believe in God. He was crucified as a radical trouble maker. He died on the cross, and that was it . . .

6. We reject the bible in general, and all the un-cool things it says he talked about. (Hell, baptism, turn the other cheek, God, Satan, eternal life, heaven, hell, etc.)

7. We meet in small groups one a month to discuss how to improve on his teachings.
___________

Now this Christianity I could get behind!

Other Comments by walk

40. Comment #102132 by Shane McKee on December 21, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Hi Radesq,
Christians (theistic ones ;-) often protest that we should treat the bible the same as any historical document. I think that's fair. So we should highlight falsehoods, contradictions, propaganda etc the same as for any text.

Other Comments by Shane McKee

41. Comment #102133 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Hi back Shane: What does that mean though to treat it like any historical document. The US Constitution is an historical document and I attach a very strong importance to it. I don't think it is infallible (or there would be no need of amendments)but then again it isn't literature. The Iliad would be a historical document but I don't take it as being a literal history. Where does the Bible fit on this spectrum?

Other Comments by Radesq

42. Comment #102134 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 4:48 pm

38. Comment #102129 by Radesq

Shane it almost sounds as if some parts of the Bible actually contradict other parts. How can that be the case if the Bible is the inspired word of God? Are you merely describing transcription errors?

Are you serious?

Since "'tis the season" etc, the contradictions about the nativity alone run to several pages (and it's only worth mentioning in two of the four gospels - odd for what you'd think was a fairly important event for them).

There's even a 10 or 12 year difference in their dating of the event. Luke (from the census) reckons 6 AD, Matthew (from Herod's reign)somewhere between 4 & 6 BC.

Other Comments by Geoff

43. Comment #102135 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Hi Geoff: No I am not serious, but I love to learn new things like the nuggets you just provided. Thanks...sorry if I exasperated you a bit.

Other Comments by Radesq

44. Comment #102136 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Geoff I don't have a Bible, never have. I've tried reading a little online but it doesn't usually go well for me. I actually know a fair amount just through osmosis I guess -- I can tell from the posts I have read here in the past couple of days that quite a few people here know their Bible intimately.

Other Comments by Radesq

45. Comment #102137 by quill on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 pm

The strawmen set up by the apologists in the final leg the video were fairly disappointing. They keep insisting that there was a historical Jesus. The question isn't whether there was a historical Jesus or not; it's whether the Gospel stories were lifted from other cults, and they were.

Other Comments by quill

46. Comment #102138 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Thanks quill, I was thinking of changing my log in to "thread killer" because every time I post something it seems like it goes dark.

Slightly off topic, isn't this recycling of myths pretty common place? Isn't there a striking similarity between the story of Noah and of the Mesopotamian (where the Jews spent a great deal of time if I've got my facts right)flood story of Gilgamesh?

Other Comments by Radesq

47. Comment #102139 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm

No problem! It's sometimes difficult to spot irony on a message board!

Often even more difficult to spot the difference between "real" fundies and parodies - something the Onion does so well.

Came across this recently that you might like:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=21031815

Other Comments by Geoff

48. Comment #102140 by Radesq on December 21, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Thanks for the link Geoff.

Other Comments by Radesq

49. Comment #102141 by elise97 on December 21, 2007 at 6:07 pm

"I've never heard the claim that the original Christians didn't believe in the existence of Jesus. (Fantastic!). If possible could you direct me to some more info on this? Thanks. "

this is what ive learned from reading around the subject for a while.

the early christians were gnostics, or those that eschew the material world in order to connect with the spiritual which for them was the real world.

the objects of worship, ie deities such as osiris or dionisus and for the jewish gnostics sects, jesus, were seen as perfect symbolic ideals that through their death and rebirth story could teach initiates how to be reborn into this ideal spiritual world.

they did not necessarily dismiss the deity as having an origination but its purpose was as a first step for initiates, the real intent, revealed later, was for the believer to use the ideal to acheive union with the spiritual self, ie their 'real' world. so the backstory in fact could get away with being entirely mythical right from the start (and could easily be transfered from another myth base such as the jewish one) to serve its function; it did not need to be particularly plausable for it to be used as a gnostic ideal.

the literalist school evolved on from this, took the embryonic jesus story for real and eventually replaced the former deeper gnostic meaning with familiar christianity.

Other Comments by elise97

50. Comment #102143 by Jerome on December 21, 2007 at 6:26 pm

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14784
on this site's forum is my discussion of the sources as far as got, and debate about said evidence.

Harpur is discussed in this thread
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11822&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Just trying to tempt you in!

j x

Other Comments by Jerome