Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I still have my doubts that Smith was responsible for that link, if only because I can’t believe he would do so after our exchange on Crosstalk, which took place a year before that link appeared. But if he did, he didn’t maintain the courtesy, because a couple of years later I asked the moderator of that site (stated as Smith) to change the address of the link, since my ISP address had changed, but the request was not answered.

Originally Posted by gnosis92

I contacted Bart Ehrman, a professioanl historian, and he pointed out that Doherty's Jesus myth theory is not accepted by any professional historian, and has not been published in respected peer review journals, and that his own books explains why serious academic historians accept that Jesus existed as a matter of fact, and the synoptic gospels remain the best source of information for the historic Jesus.

Originally Posted by gstafleu

One problem with this discussion is its black-and-white nature: either a (any) Jesus existed, or no Jesus existed. What gets lost here is the issue of exactly who or what a possible Jesus was.

For example, look at the conclusions of the Jeus Seminar, who, on the whole, I would say are seen as respectable in the field:

Now notice what is not there: no son of god, no resurrection, no atonement. That means that even in the view of the Jesus Seminar, Jesus cannot carry the weight of Christianity. In that light HJ vs MJ becomes a debate about a historical side issue. The question whether there is any historical validity to (standard) Christianity is in fact answered by the Jesus Seminar: No. But I think they leave this answer implicit.

To put it in other words, the Jesus Seminar claims, perhaps implicitly, that the "standard" Jesus, the one referred to by signs in front of churches at easter saying "Jesus died for us" or "Only a Risen Savior can save the world," that this Jesus is mythical.

Now the seminar claims there was some other Jesus who was at the base of the myth and who was actually historical. Maybe, maybe not. Both Doherty and Price would, I think, argue that any such historical person is so far removed from the "standard" Jesus that he hardly matters, if you can find him at all.

So in a sense "professional" historians like the ones from the Jesus Seminar do agree that Jesus, the "standard" Jesus, was a myth. The question is just how far removed the historical figure, if any, at the base of the myth is from the myth as we know it.

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

There is not one fact for that matter. The gospels an historical source Sure the resurrection, the virginal birth, the walking on waters, the healings are very historical facts... :wave: If all the authors of the gospels - and there are many more gospels than just the four canonical ones... felt free to add or delete to the story whatever they liked, it means there is about nothing historical in them as a matter of facts.

Originally Posted by Toto

Richard Carrier went through Doherty's work as a professional historian. That's much more peer review than most New Testament scholarship gets.

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

If by “early Christians” you are referring to Paul & Co., they didn’t know anything about John the Baptist. He wasn’t on their particular radar screen. Paul had nothing to do with the Galilean scene that produced Q.

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

And by the way, Nazareth did not exist at the time. So the seminar people are far from "professional".

Originally Posted by spin

The only scholarly position to me is the fence. But I also think if people are prepared to be scholarly about Jesus mythicism, they should be given the opportunity of getting to some conclusion without having christian apologetic shoved down their gullets at every juncture.

Originally Posted by RUmike

Ok so what was the point of adding in a saying of Jesus where Jesus claimed JtB was the greatest person who was ever born? Why would that have been invented?