Originally posted by Palynka


I also don't know which one is more likely. I definitely agree that Price overdoes the myth position. He seems to have an axe to grind, while I have not. I'm interested in this subject because not only I like ancient history, but it's also something that seems to contradict conventional wisdom.

Well, yes. I simply find the idea of some actual person giving rise to a very particular myth more plausible, because more simple, than the alternatives. In the case of Jesus, along with the 'mythic hero' are created apostles, disciples and even, somehow, early Christians. I've read a similar argument somewhere claiming Mohammed was also dreamt up. Well, maybe ...

On an aside, regarding the idea of Jesus as folk hero -- hero of what folk? Nor am I aware of any folk heroes that claim to be 'the Way, the Truth and the Life' and so on. In fact it seems that not a few Jews felt a bit let down that he wasn't the folk hero they were expecting: the Messiah who would drive the Romans into the sea. The way he played with their expectations is quite fascinating ... Also, the form of the gospels -- the peculiar combination of myth and historical texture -- is enough to persuade me that whatever we are dealing with, it's not a folk hero.

Originally posted by vistesd
Of course, the consideration here was not whether a man called Jesus of Nazareth was a divine god-man (etc., etc.), but whether there was a historical personage at the center of whatever stories and beliefs arose with respect to him. Some scholars who do not believe in the divinity of said person, nevertheless thought that there was a historical person behind the stories. That hardly fits Russell's quote.

I dont need the person to be real. I'm more interested in the story. What the hell difference does it make anyway?
We are all,(collectively and individually), presented with a problem called "Life". (The ignorant(the ones that live in bliss) will not have reached the end of my first sentence, which leaves the rest of us)

Does it make a difference to anyone out there whether the stories are a literal account or not? I just like good stories. Good stories resonate with something inside of me which draws forth a 'need to understand' the point behind the particurlar story.
Given that upto 75% of everything we hear or read could be false, do you not think that it is up to us to get in touch with our inner truth indicaticators to figure out our dharmas and hence the way forward ...?