Just what is unnuetral and biased about his chapter headings? They are descriptive of the conclusions he reaches therein. Are you claiming that he is biased by the conclusions he reaches?

Toto

Your allegedly substantive point was a rehashing of the basis for the criteria of embarrassment – which boils down to, if they were going to make something up, they could have done better than this. We’ve all gone round and round on this. I tried to start a thread in which I argued that the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist originated as a legend in which it was not embarrassing – because at the time Jesus was viewed as a human who became divine only when he went through John’s Baptism, and the dove descended, and God was heard to say, etc. The legend of Jesus evolved into someone who was born sinless and divine, but the later Christians kept the legend for their own reasons, because it was a convenient story and illustrated the ritual of baptism.

And you try to distingish between "justify" and "establish the likely historicity of". I have observed that the apologists start out with trying to prove that something is probably true, then jump right into assuming that it is 100% true without blinking an eyelash.

I am also not impressed with the atheists you have found who use the criteria - it appears that they 1)prefer Jesus to be historical for their own professional reasons and 2)have picked up the Christian analysis without examining it thoroughly.

My point here, is that “embarrassment” is worthless, because you don’t know if the originator of the myth thought it was embarrassing, or if there were other motives involved. And I challenged you to find someone outside of New Testament studies who used the criteria as a standard historical tool, although I may not have worded the challenge as precisely as I could.

As for N.T. Wright, you have produced some quotes showing that he would like to psychoanalyze the Jesus seminar, and look to their motives and the social context of their work. All of what he says may be true. I would agree that liberal Christians have tried to reconstruct a Jesus who fits their political and social ideals. Robert Price has made the same observation. The historical record, such as it is, has so little hard data that all of these reconstructions are possible, or at least can't be disproven.

But the liberal Christian reconstruction of Jesus is not the mythicist position, and I believe that there is some European support for the mythicist position, although I don't know how it compares to American scholarship. That's why I wanted you to dig up that quote - I didn't think it said what you remembered it saying.

Toto,

Oh, you didn't respond to my comments on your assertion that the Embarrassment comments regarding greek myths were pathetic analogies because we have addressed it before and you won't change your mind? Oh. Then please take my lack of response to your explanation as to your failure to respond in the same vein.

You may have missed it. In a post to Turton, I clarified that the focus of Wright's comments was liberal scholarship, not necessarily the mythicist argument (afterall there are darn few mythicist proponents, much less "scholars," to comment on). However, to the extent that Doherty's thesis depends on the multi-stage development of Q, The criticism statements are relevant.

There is European support for the mythicist argument? Who?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 24, 2001).]

Toto

You may have addressed it before, but not very satisfactorily. If an official group of Zeus-ists had reworked the Homeric epics and forced all other documents to conform to the correct line of the Olympian Party, the way the church fathers did with the canon, you might have a similar situation to the documentary record regarding the alleged Jesus.

Maybe more later. Don't spend too much time on this over the holiday weekend.

Which church fathers did this with the Canon?

Toto

read this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html

As usual I'm impressed with your ability to post a link, Toto, but I don't have the time read them all.

I could match you link for link to Christian Apologetic sites but I don't see the point in doing such a thing on a discussion board.

You asserted "Jesus existed." Historians CANNOT demonstrate the absolute existence of Jesus. They can only look at the available evidence and consider probabilities. You ignore this FACT. Now, either change your statement to "I think Jesus existed," or PROVE your statement "Jesus existed."

rodahi

I, and others, have presented many arguments, and cited many scholars, for Jesus' existence. You don't buy the arguments. Fine. Most historians do.

But. You have made a positive assertion and have offered nothing to support your assertion that historians consider my statement that Jesus existed to be out of bounds.

Please provide us with what those boundaries are and which historians believe that the statement "Jesus existed" is beyond them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
You asserted "Jesus existed." Historians CANNOT demonstrate the absolute existence of Jesus. They can only look at the available evidence and consider probabilities. You ignore this FACT. Now, either change your statement to "I think Jesus existed," or PROVE your statement "Jesus existed."
rodahi


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman: I, and others, have presented many arguments, and cited many scholars, for Jesus' existence. You don't buy the arguments. Fine. Most historians do.

I think Jesus probably existed, so don't say I "don't buy the arguments." But, ALL you and scholars have is ARGUMENTS--not absolute fact. I will continue saying this: Historians evaluate the available evidence and consider the probabilities of the existence of Jesus.

Layman: But. You have made a positive assertion and have offered nothing to support your assertion that historians consider my statement that Jesus existed to be out of bounds.

Historians evaluate the available evidence and consider the probabilities of the existence of Jesus.

Layman: Please provide us with what those boundaries are and which historians believe that the statement "Jesus existed" is beyond them.

Wait a minute. You made the initial bald-faced assertion, not I.

I don't want "arguments." I want evidence that demonstrates the factual reality of a historical Jesus.

Now, either change your statement to "I think Jesus existed," or PROVE your statement "Jesus existed." So far, you have presented zero evidence.

rodahi