Toto

Legendary accretion is common, but pure legends are also common. There is nothing that extraordinary about a figure being invented - it is common in story telling, theater, art... So I don't think that it is an extraordinary claim.

You can be unconvinced. I don't feel the need to convince you. I just wish you would not exaggerate the strength of your case.

Toto

And what does Romans say about the Jesus narrative? Nothing much that I recall.

I don't recall those street preachers saying anything about peace.

Noted.

Or maybe he preached a message of repentance and adherence to the Jewish law, or some other variant that people have claimed to find the the gospels.

TedM

Romans, 16 chapters

It says Jesus was descended from King David (twice), was a man (4 times), in the flesh (3 times), with a body, and of the Jewish race. That he didn't live to please himself. That somehow through him Paul was persuaded that thoughts make man unclean. That he became a servant to the Jews, shed his blood (2 times) in an act of righteousness in which he suffered, and was put to death, crucified, in Jerusalem (perhaps). He died (16 verses), and was buried. That he would come from Jerusalem as a deliverer, and that he was a stumbling block to Jews. And, of course, that through his death all men can be saved.

* Was a direct descendent of King David, and his father Jesse. 1:3,15:12
* Was in the flesh 1:3,8:3, 9:4-5a
* Shed his blood 3:25, 5:9
* Was put to death 4:25
* Was a man 5:15, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19
* His death was an act of righteousness 5:18
* Was buried 6:4
* Was crucified 6:6
* Had a body 7:4
* Suffered 8:17
* Was of the Jewish race 9:5
* Was a stumbling block to Jews 9:33 Gal 5:11 says the stumbling block is the cross
* The stumbling took place in Zion (Jerusalem) 9:33
* He will come from Zion (Jerusalem) as a deliverer 11:26
* Somehow persuaded Paul that thoughts make things unclean 14:4 possible teaching of Jesus}
* Did not live to please himself, reproached by man 15:3
* Became a servant to the Jews 15:8
* He died. 16 additional verses

ted

Solitary Man

All interpolated or out of context, I'm sure.

Doug Shaver

OK. That sounds reasonable.

Amaleq13

Except when he preached that he brought a sword and that families would be torn apart, etc.

Except that the most powerful of the powers is depicted as finding him innocent.

Finally, a truly unambiguous claim!

Except that, even to this day, the language describing that resurrection varies sufficiently that whether a literal, physical resurrection was meant continues to be debated.

Unambiguous? Not really.

Gamera

Yeah, you're looking at the details of the texts (like Doherty) and not the narrative, and analysing and comparing and seeing all sorts of problems, as any long text will have.

But I didn't say that the narrative was true or that it doesn't raise profound questions like What the heck is resurrection? But the story itself can be told in about 3 minutes.

Honestly, step back, and the story is pretty simple, as are the teachings. The implications raise all sorts of questions, but the implications aren't in the narrative. That's commentary.

Gamera

I wouldn't expect it to since it is commentary. But certainly the commentary isn't inconsistent with the narrative.

I think a fair appraisal of Christian sermonizing over the years would include a message of peace and goodwill.


I can find all kinds of variants in any substantial text. The search for a wholly consistent text is somewhat nostalgic on your part. Nonetheless, my point is that narrative is pretty simple and the meaning resides in the narrative itself. Commentaries and glosses will always differ.

Gamera

But that isn't the claim you and Doherty are making. Or rather it is not the entire claim. You are claiming that a fictive character took on historical status. It is this unprecedented secondary claim (the movement from fictive character to purported historical status) that is at issue, and that requires extraordinary proof.

I don't know if I'm exaggerating it, since I've made clear Jesus's historicity isn't that important to me. I don't think there is good evidence for most personages from antiquity. But that evidence far outweighs the evidence for Doherty's unprecedented claims. And that's my point. Not that the case for Jesus' historicity is so good, but the case for a mythic Jesus is so bad.

Toto

But it has happened before. Michael Turton had an example from Chinese history. There is William Tell. There are people who are sure that Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street with Dr. Watson. And we don't know how many other examples they are. None of this involves any extraordinary claim.