Continuing on with the series...
Was Jesus a historical figure?
Some believe there is enough evidence to say yes, and others believe there is enough evidence to say no (or at least not enough evidence to say "yes" definitively). I tend to be a fence-sitter on the issue who leans gently but firmly toward the concept of Jesus being more of a myth, although I'm fully open to the possibility he was an actual person. The reason I can stay pleasantly seated on this fence is simply because the answer to this question does not affect my faith much whatsoever.
The fact is, the myth/story of the Christ events was not news to the world, and has actually been recorded thousands of years ago in pre-Christian religions, such as stories/beliefs from the Ancient Egypt and Persia. These are just two examples of many.
It is proof that the concept behind Christ, the ideas and the stories, are far more important than any literal and/or bodily man. Just as I've mentioned that the divinity of Jesus doesn't matter (I'll get into that in another article), similarly whether or not Jesus was historical has no impact on the truth conveyed by the story of Christ. A priest once said to me, there can be much truth conveyed in fiction. Never have more true words been spoken.
Outside of the Bible, is there evidence Jesus was historical?
Other than the Gospels (and one cannot prove the gospels by using the gospels, that is faulty logic), there are exactly four people who ever mention Jesus: Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. It was Harry Elmer Barnes who notes that the sum total of information on Jesus from these individuals is about 24 lines, but Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn goes on to mention it may be about double that.
Regardless if it is 24 or 48 lines, it is about the poorest showing of information on the central individual involved in the greatest event of human history. What's worse is that the information from these individuals can be traced more reliably back to forged information to begin with; however, even if the information were reliable, the sheer lack of it based on the single most great turning point in the history of the world does not bode well for it being reminiscent of truth.
We have so much information about other individuals from early times, information we can validate as truth of the existence of a variety of individuals (political figures, writers, historians, etc). It just makes no sense at all if Jesus were real, that the references to him would be in such short supply.
Does that firmly mean he didn't exist?
No. In fact, just because Christ-like stories have existed pre-Jesus in other forms, does not mean God wouldn't recreate the entire event all over again in more "modern" terms. Who knows, perhaps another version is yet to come in the future. Hinduism has an excellent concept of this, as stated the Bhagavad Gita: "Whenever the Law declines and the purpose of life is forgotten, I manifest myself on earth. I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to re-establish the Law."
So no, nothing is ruled out for certain, and yes, there could still have been an actual Jesus in physical form. I haven't ruled it out completely, and that is why I sit on this fence as I do.
How can Jesus still be important while not historical?
Because the story of Christ (be him Jesus or not) and the concept of Jesus Christ along with his message is one of love, hope, peace, joy, sacrifice, reconciliation, and most importantly... God. Whether it is myth or legend, reality or history, this message is still important in enriching our spirituality and connecting us with God.
Contrary to popular belief, whether or not Jesus was historical or not has no impact, negatively or positively, on Christianity itself. The message remains the same. It is only the pushers of literalism that demand you to believe desperately that you must belief in an historical individual with a physical death on a tangible cross. This is actually the simplified beliefset for Christianity -- the more complex beliefset lies deep behind the words on any page in religious or spiritual history.
Are there other ways to look at Jesus' existence?
Yes. For instance, There is a potential (and somewhat Gnostic view) for Jesus having been here in spirit but without human body, with the potential to have been the central figure of Biblical events, or as a representation of what we must understand to get to God. But this body would have been not of flesh and blood in the literal sense, but of spiritual form and vision. God has more powers than we can ever comprehend, and I think this is well within the realm of possibility to get the message across.
Identifying Jesus more as a spiritual figure than a bodily one could account for a some confusing things about Jesus that do not stack up with him having been a historical person with solid records. It would also make sense when considering the history of sources about the Christ-like stories throughout history.
Is the "mythical Jesus" a common belief in Progressive Christianity?
Not necessarily, though you definitely would never find it on the far right obviously. Actually though, the concept of Jesus not necessarily being historical is controversial even on the far-left of the liberal and progressive movements.
Please always use your own discretion when deciding what is right for your belief system, and your life. Progressive Christianity stands for a lot of things, but at the top of that list sits the idea of a personal and unique relationship with God that no one else can dictate for you.
Was Jesus a historical figure?
Some believe there is enough evidence to say yes, and others believe there is enough evidence to say no (or at least not enough evidence to say "yes" definitively). I tend to be a fence-sitter on the issue who leans gently but firmly toward the concept of Jesus being more of a myth, although I'm fully open to the possibility he was an actual person. The reason I can stay pleasantly seated on this fence is simply because the answer to this question does not affect my faith much whatsoever.
The fact is, the myth/story of the Christ events was not news to the world, and has actually been recorded thousands of years ago in pre-Christian religions, such as stories/beliefs from the Ancient Egypt and Persia. These are just two examples of many.
It is proof that the concept behind Christ, the ideas and the stories, are far more important than any literal and/or bodily man. Just as I've mentioned that the divinity of Jesus doesn't matter (I'll get into that in another article), similarly whether or not Jesus was historical has no impact on the truth conveyed by the story of Christ. A priest once said to me, there can be much truth conveyed in fiction. Never have more true words been spoken.
Outside of the Bible, is there evidence Jesus was historical?
Other than the Gospels (and one cannot prove the gospels by using the gospels, that is faulty logic), there are exactly four people who ever mention Jesus: Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. It was Harry Elmer Barnes who notes that the sum total of information on Jesus from these individuals is about 24 lines, but Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn goes on to mention it may be about double that.
Regardless if it is 24 or 48 lines, it is about the poorest showing of information on the central individual involved in the greatest event of human history. What's worse is that the information from these individuals can be traced more reliably back to forged information to begin with; however, even if the information were reliable, the sheer lack of it based on the single most great turning point in the history of the world does not bode well for it being reminiscent of truth.
We have so much information about other individuals from early times, information we can validate as truth of the existence of a variety of individuals (political figures, writers, historians, etc). It just makes no sense at all if Jesus were real, that the references to him would be in such short supply.
Does that firmly mean he didn't exist?
No. In fact, just because Christ-like stories have existed pre-Jesus in other forms, does not mean God wouldn't recreate the entire event all over again in more "modern" terms. Who knows, perhaps another version is yet to come in the future. Hinduism has an excellent concept of this, as stated the Bhagavad Gita: "Whenever the Law declines and the purpose of life is forgotten, I manifest myself on earth. I am born in every age to protect the good, to destroy evil, and to re-establish the Law."
So no, nothing is ruled out for certain, and yes, there could still have been an actual Jesus in physical form. I haven't ruled it out completely, and that is why I sit on this fence as I do.
How can Jesus still be important while not historical?
Because the story of Christ (be him Jesus or not) and the concept of Jesus Christ along with his message is one of love, hope, peace, joy, sacrifice, reconciliation, and most importantly... God. Whether it is myth or legend, reality or history, this message is still important in enriching our spirituality and connecting us with God.
Contrary to popular belief, whether or not Jesus was historical or not has no impact, negatively or positively, on Christianity itself. The message remains the same. It is only the pushers of literalism that demand you to believe desperately that you must belief in an historical individual with a physical death on a tangible cross. This is actually the simplified beliefset for Christianity -- the more complex beliefset lies deep behind the words on any page in religious or spiritual history.
Are there other ways to look at Jesus' existence?
Yes. For instance, There is a potential (and somewhat Gnostic view) for Jesus having been here in spirit but without human body, with the potential to have been the central figure of Biblical events, or as a representation of what we must understand to get to God. But this body would have been not of flesh and blood in the literal sense, but of spiritual form and vision. God has more powers than we can ever comprehend, and I think this is well within the realm of possibility to get the message across.
Identifying Jesus more as a spiritual figure than a bodily one could account for a some confusing things about Jesus that do not stack up with him having been a historical person with solid records. It would also make sense when considering the history of sources about the Christ-like stories throughout history.
Is the "mythical Jesus" a common belief in Progressive Christianity?
Not necessarily, though you definitely would never find it on the far right obviously. Actually though, the concept of Jesus not necessarily being historical is controversial even on the far-left of the liberal and progressive movements.
Please always use your own discretion when deciding what is right for your belief system, and your life. Progressive Christianity stands for a lot of things, but at the top of that list sits the idea of a personal and unique relationship with God that no one else can dictate for you.
