mike

I have been doing some reading and what I have read seems to provide
reasonable rationale to question whether Jesus was real.

These sites bring up issues that, for me at least, are not easily dismissed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/?adword

Doherty offers:

THE JESUS PUZZLE
Was There No Historical Jesus?
Earl Doherty

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm

QUICK ASSEMBLY
Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/puzzle1.htm

The home page has a rather complete set of links:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

One of the suggested readings is

THE BIRTH OF CHRISTIANITY
Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of
Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and his The Historical Jesus (1991). (I have not
yet got the Crossan books, but plan to in the future.)

It seems to me that the entire foundation of Christianity is built on
extremely unreliable foundations, myths, legends, and out right faerie tales.

Thoughts?

How does this trend of thinking mesh with Gnosis?

--
Mike.

shriven leper

That conclusion depends on which historical interpretation one
accepts. The jury is still out, and probably will continue to be.


There are good reasons for thinking that Jesus was a historical
person, because he fits well-known religious-social roles, e.g.:

charismatic mediator
transformative sage
revitalization movement founder
social prophet
healer-exorcist
divine union mystic

These are do***ented social categories belonging to do***ented
figures cross-culturally. There is therefore no pressing reason to
leap to mythology to explain the Jesus who fits into these categories.

= =

There are good reasons for thinking that Jesus was mostly mythical
because there is very little evidence about him except indirectly
through Paul's letters; the authenticity of these is disputed; and
Paul's view of Jesus is mostly a cosmic myth of a quasi-divine being
and how to achieve union with him.

= =

Of the two views I would guess that the second is most friendly to
Gnosticism, since its soteriology does not depend on hylic (material)
categories.

- sl -