Jesus: Man or Myth?

[Polycarp]

Boiling down the Synoptic Problem as much as possible, you have:

Mark: outline of Jesus’s ministry, with a limited selection of teachings. Passion story #1. (“Passion” here is a technical term used to group together accounts of the Last Supper, arrest, crucifixion, and accounts of Resurrection appearances.)

Matthew: Nativity story, told from Joseph’s perspective; account of Jesus’s ministry following Mark closely, including identical or extremely similar phrasings; Jesus’s teachings greatly expanded, with the majority of them in five main apparent sermons. Passion story #2.

Luke: Extensive Nativity and pre-Nativity accounts, told from Mary’s perspective; account of Jesus’s ministry following Mark fairly closely; Jesus’s teachings greatly expanded, including much of Matthew’s supplemental material, but in a very different placement of them, and sometimes with them carrying different points, than Matthew had had; Passion story #3.

Obviously some borrowing has been going on – but from whom by whom, and with the differences having what purpose, is hotly disputed. It’s pretty clear and consensus opinion that Luke used Mark, along with a lot of other material – he as much as says so in the dedication at the beginning of his book. The Q source, which is purely hypothetical, is one way in which scholars explain how Matthew and Luke have Jesus giving the same teachings, but at different times and places.

As for the overall idea – there is no question, even among conservative evangelicals, that Jesus is a myth in the Campbellian sense – someone whose life story is meaningful on a much higher plane than a random obituary from today’s paper. The question of what historically underlies that myth is what is usually argued when the “myth” allegation gets flung around. Some excellent discussion on that has already been done in this thread – kudos to the expositors!

My bottom line on this is: Setting to one side the religious implications of his story for the moment, Jesus as a person is about as well historically documented as the average “significant” individual of classical times. The parallel to Socrates is often advanced, and probably very much on point: Most of what we know of both men comes from the writings of followers, who are well known to have had particular axes to grind and points to make in what they wrote about them. But each set of accounts references an actual historical figure, who is known aside from their accounts only from a few scattered references, but who, thanks to their accounts, becomes a living, breathing, knowable human being.

[Loopydude]

All excellent expositions above.

While it seems to me entirely plausible and likely to that there was a Jesua ben Joseph (or whatever transliteration you prefer), who taught a radical message and was executed by crucifixion for sedition, I appreciate the contributions of those who point out that all the evidence is at best circumstantial, and hence everything is legitimately open to question. Those who approach the story with a high level of skepticism have kept speculation about Jesus the man grounded in the world of facts as much as possible, as should any subject of historical scrutiny.

[TopherX]

@rfgdxm

I am one of those “Godless, liberal, inveterate skeptics” also. I’ve yet to read a compelling argument that Jesus was a total myth. And, by “total myth” I mean that there just wasn’t any guy named Jesus who lived in ancient Israel about 2,000 years ago claiming to be the Messiah. On this theory, some group of guys made up a totally fictitious tale about Jesus, and sold it to a gullible public. It seems to me far more plausible Jesus existed, and was a charismatic preacher. He just had this misfortune to get killed off early in his ministry, and some loyal followers took the tale from there.

I’ve read arguments on both sides. Some scholars claim Jesus is a myth and others insist that he really existed. Being a skeptic myself, I believe that either Jesus was a myth or he was a religious teacher whose story was heavily embellished.

In either case, how much difference does it make whether the story of Jesus was based on an actual person or whether this story is a myth? What matters to me is the message that biblical writers provide. Is this a story that promotes positive human values such as love, kindness, and forgiveness? If so, how can we apply those values to our lives?

Besides, how enthusiastic would religious followers be about true life story of a radical, and perhaps extraordinary, human preacher that lived 2000 years ago? If I were to write a religious text, I would want teach others and get my message across. I don’t see how writing a boring, simple bibliography of one man or women’s life would inspire very many people.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Here’s a quick rundown of what are commonly accepted as the most certain facts we can know about Jesus (or as close to certain as we can get).

[ul][li]He was Jewish.[/li]
[li]He was from Galilee.[/li]
[li]He was baptized by John. (Jesus’ baptism by John is thought to be virtually as certain as the crucifixion because it is unanimously attested and because it meets a criterion of embarrassment. That is, it’s an event which seems to place Jesus in a subordinate position to John. The fact that all of the gospels say that it happened but become increasingly apologist in how they describe it shows that this was almost certainly a real event which needed to be explained.[/li]
[li]He was believed during his lifetime to be able to heal and cast out demons.[/li]
[li]He taught in parables.[/li]
[li]He had a core following of disciples, one of them was probably called Cephus (Peter in Greek).[/li]
[li]He had a brother named James (attested by Josephus).[/li]
[li]He created some sort of disturbance at the Temple.[/li]
[li]He was crucified under Pilate (the single most “red letter” fact about him).[/ul][/li]That’s pretty much it and a couple of those items are still contested by some (Paula Fredrikson, for instance, disputes the Temple incident). There are some other items which are more “pinkish” than red, IOW, there are things which re considered probable or at least plausible, but are not as well attested as what’s on my list.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Gah! What an eyesore. Here’s that post agin with the coding fixed.

Here’s a quick rundown of what are commonly accepted as the most certain facts we can know about Jesus (or as close to certain as we can get).

[ul][li]He was Jewish.[/li]
[li]He was from Galilee.[/li]
[li]He was baptized by John. (Jesus’ baptism by John is thought to be virtually as certain as the crucifixion because it is unanimously attested and because it meets a criterion of embarrassment. That is, it’s an event which seems to place Jesus in a subordinate position to John. The fact that all of the gospels say that it happened but become increasingly apologist in how they describe it shows that this was almost certainly a real event which needed to be explained.[/li]
[li]He was believed during his lifetime to be able to heal and cast out demons.[/li]
[li]He taught in parables.[/li]
[li]He had a core following of disciples, one of them was probably called Cephus (Peter in Greek).[/li]
[li]He had a brother named James (attested by Josephus).[/li]
[li]He created some sort of disturbance at the Temple.[/li]
[li]He was crucified under Pilate (the single most “red letter” fact about him).[/ul][/li]That’s pretty much it and a couple of those items are still contested by some (Paula Fredrikson, for instance, disputes the Temple incident). There are some other items which are more “pinkish” than red, IOW, there are things which re considered probable or at least plausible, but are not as well attested as what’s on my list.

[Polycarp]

@TopherX

I’ve read arguments on both sides. Some scholars claim Jesus is a myth and others insist that he really existed. Being a skeptic myself, I believe that either Jesus was a myth or he was a religious teacher whose story was heavily embellished.

In either case, how much difference does it make whether the story of Jesus was based on an actual person or whether this story is a myth? What matters to me is the message that biblical writers provide. Is this a story that promotes positive human values such as love, kindness, and forgiveness? If so, how can we apply those values to our lives?

Besides, how enthusiastic would religious followers be about true life story of a radical, and perhaps extraordinary, human preacher that lived 2000 years ago? If I were to write a religious text, I would want teach others and get my message across. I don’t see how writing a boring, simple bibliography of one man or women’s life would inspire very many people.

Well, the actual theology of much of Christianity founds its understanding of the importance of Jesus’s life and death in His self-sacrifice in atonement for all the sins of mankind – “Jesus died for your sins” is the commonly heard formulation of that. There are of course other ways to see His atoning work than the buying off of an angry God – reuniting estranged man to God is one that is very common in liberal Christian circles. But they all focus on His willingness to give up His life for others. So the significance of man vs. myth, and the literality of the stories, is important in some formulations of Christian doctrine.

However, your final point is very valid, and illuminates a little-known fact about the Gospels – none of them is, or pretends to be, an objective account of His life. Each is written with a purpose in mind. While Matthew never explicitly says so, he wrote the account of the Messiah, the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic prophecy – and it’s implicit in a great deal of his narrative. Mark makes it clear in his first sentence that he is writing “the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Luke frames his narrative as a letter to “Theophilus” in order to give him “reliable knowledge about those things of which you have been told.” John’s purpose is spelled out at the end of chapter 20, apparently the end of the book as originally compiled: “There are indeed many other signs which Jesus performed in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. Those here writted hav been recorded in order that you may have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that through this faith you may come into possession of life in his name.” In other words, none of them were intending to produce “fair and accurate news reporting” but rather writing with a specific evangelistic purpose.

[MEBuckner]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Mark was the first gospel written. The current consensus on Mark is that it was written during the Jewish-Roman war (66-70 CE) and that it was probably written just before the destruction of the Temple (around 68 or 69 CE). Mark focuses on Jesus’ ministry and it does not have a Nativity or Resurrection narrative (it ends on an undeveloped Empty Tomb narrative).

Just to clarify on that last point, modern Christian bibles do include a Resurrection narrative in Mark in the last chapter (chapter 16); however, as the NIV puts it “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20”. This likely won’t be mentioned in many translations of the Bible.

[Contrapuntal]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]

Well, the actual theology of much of Christianity founds its understanding of the importance of Jesus’s life and death in His self-sacrifice in atonement for all the sins of mankind – “Jesus died for your sins” is the commonly heard formulation of that.

Isn’t the actual theology of much of Christianity also founded on the belief that Jesus was the Son of God? And if that is so, and if Jesus were a myth, would not the foundation of Christianity be suspect? I would think it would matter very much indeed to Christians whether Jesus actually existed. I’m not trying to argue for or against Christianity here, just wondering if it is possible to be a Christian and doubt Christ’s existence as a deity.

[Loopydude]

It is also interesting to note that Matthew’s Gospel appears to be a reflection of the growing, but still incomplete, schism between Jewish followers of Jesus, and those who rejected the claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Most obvious is the scabrous depiction of “the Jews” in Matt.'s passion narrative; but also quite interesting is the way Matt. is structured. Things keep showing up in Matt. in groups of threes, fives (perhaps in emulation of the Pentateuch), and sevens, all important numbers in Jewish theology. It also contains more apparent allusions to to, as well as quotations from, the Hebrew Bible than any of the other Gospels (some of the wording is deliberately close to the Septuagint). The writer always refers to God as “Lord”, like any good Jew would. It is clearly aimed at a Jewish audience, and meant to be highly persuasive in its authoritative “Jewishness”.

Luke appears to be beyond all that, and is clearly written for a gentile audience, perhaps one gentile in particular. The schism is already complete by Luke’s Gospel, and a major focus of his sequel, Acts, is the expansion of Christ’s teachings into the gentile world.

[ambushed]

I must say that I’m surprised at the very low apparent familiarity with the works of Doherty, Price, and many others who have so effectively challenged the ancient, stodgy, orthodox view that there must have been a historical someone who was the model for Jesus of the NT.

We really do know better than that!

Here’s what the evidence shows, quoting Doherty:

"…early layers of Q contain strong indications that no Jesus figure was known at that time: passages which pointedly make no mention of him [where such a mention would be expected], the lack of hero-fixation that such a founder should have generated, the void even on his name in the early strata. The extended anecdotes concerning him are demonstrably later constructions. Indeed, if the later stage of Q was amenable to recording such anecdotes embodying Jesus’ name and a touch of biography, why was early Q not so inclined, especially at a time when the memory of the preaching founder would have been closer and stronger? It is in the early stages that we would expect to find such things. . . . "

What we would expect if the historicist position were true, is that the earliest strata of Christian material would be replete with earthly details and anecdotes of Jesus’ life, only later and slowly moving to theology.

But what the evidence shows is that the earliest Christian material had NO historical, near-contempory Jesus, nor even Jesus anecdotes, and that it took a very long time – decades – for the clearly mythical early Jesus material to evolve into the fiction of a historical personage. The 100% mythicist position is the ONLY one that can account for the actual data. QED.

I urge you all, before further postings, to read this web site: Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I’ve read it. I was not convinced.

[t-keela]

Since nobody has linked this yet, Cecil speaks.

@Cecil Adams

Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. (See below.) Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.

[ambushed]

@rfdgxm

@Diogenes the Cynic

Funny you should mention Burton Mack, I’m currently reading his book, Who Wrote the New Testament?. Mack actually stops short of claiming there was no historical Jesus, he just contends that HJ is probably impossible to retrieve from the myth.

I am one of those “Godless, liberal, inveterate skeptics” also. I’ve yet to read a compelling argument that Jesus was a total myth. And, by “total myth” I mean that there just wasn’t any guy named Jesus who lived in ancient Israel about 2,000 years ago claiming to be the Messiah. On this theory, some group of guys made up a totally fictitious tale about Jesus, and sold it to a gullible public. It seems to me far more plausible Jesus existed, and was a charismatic preacher. He just had this misfortune to get killed off early in his ministry, and some loyal followers took the tale from there.

Your words peg you for an extreme innocent in these matters, my dear rfgdxm. First, let me reiterate my reply to Diogenes:

@ambushed

In The Jesus Myth, Burton Mack, the most eminent and respected of the current crop of critical NT scholars, insists that he goes further than he did in his earlier works. He concludes, finally, that the search for the historical Jesus has failed utterly, and he says we must give up the ghost for good. He states flat out that it is flat out impossible to retrieve any historicist facts from the myth, and that since everything we know of Jesus is indistinguishable from myth – hell, we can’t even agree on what works should be included for study – we should call it what it is: a complete myth. He says that we must surrender Jesus as myth and that what is important now is to work on figuring out, historically, just how the myth came to be. I agree.

Your absurdly ridiculous, massively underinformed assertion that the mythicist position is that “some group of guys made up a totally fictitious tale about Jesus, and sold it to a gullible public” is laughable. You obviously have not read any of the relevant mythicist material, such as: Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle Take a few days, at least, and read as much as you can.

You really need to do so before you return to the ring with more absurd strawman rhetoric.

[ambushed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’ve read it. I was not convinced.

What a ridiculous reply! Two dismissive sentences!

Which of the scores or hundreds of facts, when elucidated properly, didn’t convince you?? Which of the hundreds of far more logical, far more compelling, more solidly evidentiary, vastly more parsimonious explanations failed to convince you of which positions? Give us some arguments to work with, not just one ridiculously bald assertion!

You don’t have to be convinced of the entire picture to know that there’s one hell of a lot of powerfully compelling evidence and argument that your view must be wrong in many, if not all, ways!

Tell us EXACTLY why the earliest strata of Q don’t include a historical, near-contemporary Jesus? Why some of them even leave out his name?

Tell us EXACTLY why Paul and the pre-Gospelic Epistle writers never hinted at any grounded historical context for Jesus, let alone a recent one?

Tell us EXACTLY why Paul exclaimed, as firmly as anything he’s ever said, that he never heard anything about Jesus from any human being? Even though he visited the remaining Apostles in Jerusalem, no one could tell him anything about an earthly, historical Jesus? Why, exactly?

Tell us why EXACTLY why Paul never went to see any of what would be world-shattering Holy of Holiest locales in and around Jerusalem that the Gospel inventors tied directly to Jesus? Why, EXACTLY, didn’t he bother to visit any of them?

Those are just the first of my hundreds of questions. Please answer them, then we’ll move on…

[ambushed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Richard Carrier has a good treatment of this.

Speaking of Richard Carrier, see what he has to say about the recent mythicist work by Dennis R. MacDonald of Yale: Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

[ambushed]

@t-keela

Since nobody has linked this yet, Cecil speaks.

Cecil, to my surprise, was simply regurgitating the old traditionalist line of half-truths. I very much doubt he did any research into the new mythicist body of work. He simply could not have written as he did if he had read Doherty and Price, et al.

Allow me to quote Earl Doherty:

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb.

This effectively refutes the “too short a period of time” arguments as wrong-headed, since we can see that “Jesus” was not claimed to have been a recent historical personage until about A.D. 70! What the evidence shows us quite compellingly is that the mythical Savior character existed many years before the pseudo-historical “Jesus”.

And, another thing Cecil wasn’t aware of is that there’s no evidence that this mythical, pre-pseudo-historical personage wasn’t already being talked of and taught since before the turn of the first century!

[ambushed]

Oh, and Cecil’s talk of Tacitus and so forth is quite inadequate (but he had limited space, of course). Tacitus never spoke of any historical Jesus, he simply repeated the claims of some Christians he was prosecuting. He had no records of the existence of “Jesus”, nor did he even believe there were any official records of that character.

Furthermore, there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence that Josephus ever wrote of the Christians’ “Jesus”. He spoke of some two dozen Jesus’, and in the authentic portions of Josephus, he always carefully and thoroughly defined which particular Jesus he was referring to. He would never have identified anyone as merely “the brother of James” – Josephus was a historian! And the so-called “Testimonium” is 100% Christian interpolation, however desperately Christian traditionalists strive to maintain portions as “legitimate”.

Also, references to “Jesus” in the Talmud weren’t are badly confused and didn’t even appear until the third century, long after the Gospel myths had already invented him!

In short, there are ZERO first-hand, non-biblical references to any allegedly historical “Jesus”.

[ambushed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The Testimonium Flavium is angoing source of heated debate. Here is a good place to read the arguments for all sides.

A much better source for the arguments that the Testimonium and all the ostensible references to the Christian’s Jesus in Josephus are forged insertions is: JOSEPHUS UNBOUND: Reopening the Josephus Question

@Earl Doherty

… the non-Gospel record, Christian and non-Christian, both in terms of the negative (the silences found therein) and the positive (what early writers specifically say about their Christ and faith movement), when separated from Gospel preconceptions, strongly supports the validity of doubting the existence of any historical Jesus.

Read Doherty – at least that essay – to discover just why that’s the case.

@Diogenes the Cynic

Tacitus also makes reference to Jesus in his Annals

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

This seems to be confirmation from a Roman historian that Jesus was a real person, but the standard comeback from mythicists is that Tacitus probably just got his information from Christians.

That’s not just a “standard comeback”, that’s a FACT. Where, for example, does Tacitus “make reference to Jesus” there, as you promised he did? NOWHERE! He speaks of a “Christus”, and then says the Christians named themselves after “Christus”! NOWHERE does he speak of any historical person, let alone one named “Jesus”. He is either making things up himself (Christus as the founder of Christianity would seem as natural a guess as that Mithras founded Mithraism and as wrong as Baptismo founding the Baptists), -or- he was simply mindlessly reporting what some utterly wrong-headed ignorant yahoo told him about Christianity. There isn’t the slightest indication that Tacitus had any knowledge about Jesus, let alone Jesus the allegedly historical man. He doesn’t even use the name!

Furthermore, we know that, at least in this instance, Tacitus was a terrible historian. He stupidly reported that Pilate was a “procurator” during that time! He was nothing of the kind. Tacitus’ Annals, when it comes to that specific bit of incoherent babbling, must be dismissed utterly as a source that confirms the historical existence of Jesus.

@Diogenes the Cynic

One of the cornerstones of the mythicists’ argument is that the Pauline letters say virtually nothing about the historical Jesus.

That’s misleading. Now I know you haven’t read Price and Doherty with adequate care and attention.

What Doherty and many others point out is that NONE of the pre-Gospelic writers spoke of a historically grounded Jesus! It’s not just Paul who is silent, but no one prior to Mark speaks of a historically grounded earthly Jesus, just as the earliest of the most important Church Fathers failed to do even into the second (and arguably into the third) century AD!

Not only that, but it is persuasively – if perhaps not definitively – shown in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, that Mark consciously invented the Gospel story from inverting the Homeric epics. Just as Homer needed mythical heroes for his stories, Mark needed a mythical Jesus for his own mythical story.

Furthermore, it’s not just Paul’s silence (a negative fact), that’s compelling, it’s what he and the others actually positively SAY that tells us that the pre-Gospelic Jesus was a mythical, mystical figure. Paul even goes so far as to tell us he never even heard talk of a historical Jesus, and that all he’s ever learned of Jesus he learned via his mystical visions.

This is indeed a minority view, but it seems to me most truths are minority positions. But minority view of not, it’s by far the most rational, most parsimonious view. In actuality, it’s the ONLY view that’s consistent with all the facts.

I look forward to your explanations I asked for previously:

Tell us EXACTLY why the earliest strata of Q don’t include a historical, near-contemporary Jesus? Why some of them even leave out his name?

Tell us EXACTLY why Paul and ALL the pre-Gospelic NT writers never gave any grounded historical context for Jesus, let alone a recent one?

Tell us EXACTLY why Paul exclaimed, as firmly as anything he’s ever said, that he never heard anything about Jesus from any human being? Even though he visited the remaining Apostles in Jerusalem, he claimed that no one could tell him anything about an earthly, historical Jesus. Why, exactly?

Tell us why EXACTLY why Paul never went to see any of what would be world-shattering Holy of Holiest locales in and around Jerusalem that the Gospel inventors tied directly to Jesus? Why, EXACTLY, didn’t he bother to visit any of them?
Please answer these in detail so that we have a basis to move forward. Thank you.

[ambushed]

@ralph124c

I have read that the three “synoptic” gospels were written in the time frame of 40-70 AD. As the name implies, these gospels generally agree…with significant differences. Why were the authors of these gospels unable to come up with a common story?
And, the final gospel (John) differs so much from the others that it reads as if from a toatlly independent source. Historians date John to 100-120 AD (with some claiming a date as late as 200AD. Why was John written so late?

Simple: The Gospel of Mark was a mythical creation starring a mythical Jesus. See my posts above. The authors of Matthew and Luke are recreations with essentially the same story line that were addresses to different audiences with different theologies. John was a much more drastic re-invention for his own group’s suprisingly radical theology.

@ralph124c

I’m not surprised at the paucity of information about Jesus…he never travelled more than 100 miles from his place of birth.

You’re assuming facts not in evidence. First you and the other traditionalists here have to prove a historical Jesus ever existed.

Doesnt it make far more sense that several (not just the four Canonical) gospels are so divergent because they saw no need to conform to a mythical invention, where they would have been quite piously conformant if they were relying on actual, historical data?

[t-keela]

ambushed
My link to Cecil’s column was only a link to what HE had to say on the subject. I was neither defending nor opposing his position, merely providing another POV.
I appreciate your passion for the subject and I agree with you on several points. But some of your remarks are rather condescending, disrespectful and insulting. Bad form…

The fact of the matter is nobody can prove anything. I believe he existed. To what extent…that’s another matter.
I suppose I’ll have to sit down and make my case.
Didn’t we finally accept the likelihood that there was some Eastern Philosophy available in Alexandria? I think the evidence supported the probability. Whether or not Jesus was there. I was just speculating. I didn’t make that case.
Well when I get back…we shall see. It’ll take me a little while, so be patient.

*note: I said, "I believe he existed."
That does NOT mean I can prove it. It also doesn’t mean that when I return that I will still believe the same way as I do now.

BTW

@trandallt

I’m not trying to argue for or against Christianity here, just wondering if it is possible to be a Christian and doubt Christ’s existence as a deity

Yes of course you can be a Christian and have doubts. That’s the whole problem with religion. There is doubt. Even his apostle’s had doubts and they were supposedly there and witnessed his ministry. If we had PROOF real scientific remove ALL doubts proof, there would be no need for this thread and everyone would be down on their knees. As for myself, I have managed to incorporate various beliefs from a number of faiths to fit my idea of what God is. Christianity is only one of several. Whether or not there was an actual human being that was Jesus Christ would not matter in the sense that I would still live my life according to the principles set forth in the New Testament, for the most part anyway. But I do believe…now let me see if I can make my case.
Never actually tried before. I’ve only read a “thousand” books on the subject and have convinced myself.
However there have been events in my life to which I can never cite as evidence and therein lies most of the problem with matters of faith. It is a personal matter and documented evidence is unavailable and often irrelevant to the believer, because it isn’t scientific.

So, before I go ambush let me ask you something. Because I have apparently missed whether or not you ever said.
Where do you stand as far as this subject matter is concerned? What do you believe, if anything?